Bring It On
This effort to launch a probe, not of Bush's secret torture prisons but if who spilled the beans on the secret torture prisons is, of course, absurd and shameful. So I agree with Lindsey Graham:
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said: "Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. The real story is those jails."But I also agree with the next graf:
More generally, Republicans suggested it is unwise to pick a fight with the media over an issue that exposes so many political vulnerabilities for their party.It'll be a real shame if Dana Priest -- one of the best reporters out there -- winds up needing to do hard time over this. But with my partisan hat on, the reality is that the gambit in question is bound to backfire. The political subtext of the Plame Case was that it shed light on the broader issue of manipulation of intelligence. The only broader issue illuminated by this proposed investigation is the existence of a network of illegal, secret torture facilities.
Advertisement
See also <a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_11_06_digbysblog_a
rchive.html#113147934019537009">Digby</a> on this point.
November 8, 2005 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some dittohead GOP staffer undoubtedly thought he had come up with a "boo-yah, bee-yotches" talking point for his boss. Something like, OH YEAH THEY DON'T MIND LEAKS SO MUCH WHEN THEY HURT DEAR LEADER BUT DON'T BLOW ANYBODY'S COVER! Maybe it came to him while he was watching WWE Smackdown, as seems to be the wont of GOP staffers.
But as there's no way such hearings could exclude the rendition issue itself (though they would no doubt try) reliably enough for Cheney et al, it's hard to see why he would let his capos expose him to such a risk. The only way there will ever be hearings even tangentially related to the overseas prisons is if the Dems take one or both Houses in 2006.
November 9, 2005 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am curious about the idea of Dana Priest doing hard time. Why?
I assume no one is indicating that she has done anything illegal.
Presumably, it would be for contempt of court for not revealing a source - but with the facts in this case, doing jail time in a very high profile case about America's secret torture prisons, this would be a career move in the remote possiblity that a partisan prosecutor went after her.
I would say it is inconceiveable that in this case, as opposed to the Plame case, a prosecutor would do that, but I would have thought it inconceivable that we were in a serious debate about torture in this country - an event that has permanently stained the GOP and its disgusting, obfuscating, supporters of this horrible administration.
AS Matt, says, bring this fight on, and hope that it ends with those that have implemented policies in support of torture end up doing their own share of hard time.
November 9, 2005 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about an anti-torture T-shirt referencing the applicable clauses of the US criminal code, and the slogan "If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime"?
November 9, 2005 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink