Tuesday, April 11, 2006
E.J. Dionne, Unhinged
I've never been impressed with the ramblings of Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne. His persona isn't much more impressive than his prose, and having sat across from him on a train from New York to DC, I can personally state his presence inspired little more than a four hour nap from me.
In today's Post, Dionne leaps upon the towering pile of journalistic bodies covering the latest 'revelations' in the Plame leak case. At least he wastes little time getting to his question:
Did Bush know a lot more about this case than he let on before the 2004 elections?You can stop reading there. Dionne makes little sense after that question. As Mr. Dionne seems to be search for answers, let me here inscribe some enlightenment for him in hopes that his quest for knowledge might be satiated.
Memo to Mr. Dionne:
You are not entitled to know everything W does about this or any other case. Your status as a journalist - tenuous as that may be - does not carry with it authorization to anything of substance. Your column archives bear witness to this fact.
Did W know things about this case he didn't reveal to the Press prior to the 2004 election? I certainly hope so. Grand Jury proceedings are sealed for a reason.
You seize upon a 2003 W statement quoted in Time Magazine which I requote here for the sake of my reader:
Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. (Emphasis Added)Yes, the Time magazine writers did mention W's emphasis of those last two words. Your allusion to der Schliekmeister's (Clinton's) musings as to the real meaning of "is" is a pathetic cheap shot - and it completely misses the target.
If the Chief Executive makes the decision to declassify information for release to a chosen outlet, said release is authorized and therefore not a leak. You scoff at the use of those two words "classified information" as a "legalistic defense". Well, since it is legal and covers the act in question, I guess that does make it a viable defense. I can't say the same for Clinton's attempts to hide behind the "is" fig leaf.
Your column is full of questions, Mr. Dionne. Most, if not all, the answers are contained in sealed Grand Jury testimony or other such records. Go ahead and pin your hopes on the ability of Arlen Specter to convince W and Big Time to reveal all they know "so that it can be evaluated." I believe your faith in Senator Specter's influence in the Senate and Republican party is vastly over rated.
I know you've got column inches to fill every week, but recycling these straws you grasp is a waste of paper, ink, and in my case bandwidth.
Here endeth the lesson.
We all know the Administration's efforts to spin out of this make "I did not have sex with that woman" look like amateur night. Bzzt..wrong answer. Thanks for playing, Better luck next time.Post a Comment