September 28, 2003

Well, Some Dare Call It Treason

From Eschaton. George H.W. Bush tells us his opinion of the "Senior White House officials" who work for George W. Bush:

Eschaton: "Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

George H.W. Bush, at the dedication of the George Bush Center for Intelligence.

(thanks to POS)

This is not a single rogue White House official, after all--this is two of his closest advisors, plus whoever they planned it with, plus all the other White House and other administration officials who have been sitting on evidence of a crime rather than phoning the Justice Department for the past several months. Perpetrators. Accessories before the fact. Accessories after the fact. Misprision.


Kevin Drum doesn't go quite as far as George H. W. Bush. Drum calls it perilously close to treason.

Posted by DeLong at September 28, 2003 07:48 AM | TrackBack

Comments

The first intimate comparisons between the Sr. and Jr. Bush were by Molly Ivins (Shrub) and J. Hatfield (Fortunate Son). The clues to how mortified Bush Sr. must be over the performance of his beloved but idiot son are in there. My guess is that Bush Sr. will never give an interview on the topic again.

All his life W has had things taken care of for him, no matter how over his head he was. Underlings were responsible for some part, and political connections take care of the other. His idea policy formation is no deeper than "Saddam? Fuck' em! We're taking him out."

Thing is, America is not as well equipped as czarist Russia was to deal with a retarded individual on the throne. As I recall, it didn't work out too well for them either.

Posted by: Alan on September 28, 2003 08:42 AM

It would be a mistake to discount the fact that, by taking Saddam out, Shrub was pursuing a personal vendetta.

"Saddam tried to kill my dad."

According to a NY Daily News (certainly no left-wing rag) article from March 9, 2003, Shrub said it too often to be coincidental.

Posted by: raj on September 28, 2003 09:03 AM

It would be a mistake to discount the fact that, by taking Saddam out, Shrub was pursuing a personal vendetta.

"Saddam tried to kill my dad."

According to a NY Daily News (certainly no left-wing rag) article from March 9, 2003, Shrub said it too often to be coincidental.

Posted by: raj on September 28, 2003 09:08 AM

My Two Cents

This is only tangentially about BushCo. The REAL story has to do with the 4th Estate.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein on September 28, 2003 12:50 PM

http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/

Posted by: David Ehrenstein on September 28, 2003 01:01 PM

It’s frustrating to see the politicos to get away with acts that would get prosecuted if done by us lesser mortals. They enjoy a kind of sovereign immunity. For example if a secretary of state sits in a UN meeting with an open codeword document, thereby risking exposure of classified material, nothing happens to him (this actually happen in a prior administration). But if a staff member does the same thing, he gets a security violation, or worse. The politicos get to leak things (that are classified) for tactical political maneuvering without suffering legal consequences. For example President Jimmy Carter, through his Secretary of Defense, Harold Brown, revealed the secret existence of the Stealth Bomber for entirely political reasons. Carter was doing badly in the polls, and stood accused of being soft on defense. So he had Brown announce some details about the Stealth bomber and Stealth technology. At the time Stealth was one of the most closely guarded secrets in the US government; supposedly revealing even the existence of Stealth was a grave threat to national security. If any of the Lockheed Skunkworks team had done that, they would have been SOL.

I once ask a retired FBI agent: “Could Clinton get a ‘Q’ (top secret national security) clearance if he weren’t a politician?” The answer was “probably not.” While politicians do get subjected to an FBI investigation, the standards of different for them. Transgressions get overlooked that would be a problem for the hoi polloi. Here’s another. Clinton’s Secretary of Energy, Hazel O’Leary, released top-secret NSI information after she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. It was a cleaver maneuver. She could then claim the investigation for her original offense was retaliation for releasing classified material. It worked so well, she did it again.

So I’m doubtful that anything will come of the Plame affair by way of criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials for their alleged leaks. But you never know. In Washington they won’t only cast the first stone, they’ll throw the whole rockpile.

Posted by: A. Zarkov on September 28, 2003 03:13 PM

The full epigram is worth recalling:
"Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
- Sir John Harington (1561-1612)
This was a distinctly risky joke to make at the time.

Posted by: James on September 29, 2003 01:43 AM

You are completely full of shit Mr. Zarkov.

No one enjoys sovereign immunity for the treasonous outing of a covert CIA operative working on WMD during time of war.

Posted by: The Fool on September 29, 2003 02:58 AM
Post a comment