« Hello Again | Main | WaPo "Can't Find" The Intel on McCarthy »

April 24, 2006

KerryWatch®: Patriotisme! McCarthyisme! DimWitticisme!

Sacre bleu!

The half-vast editorial staff awoke from an uneasy slumber this morning to find an event très cataclismique had taken place. C'est vrai, mes amis! We could not believe it either! But thanks to strictly impartial journalists with no partisan bias, we learn that The Real John Kerry Finally Stood Up, "sharpening values and sketching visions" to applause that was "more than perfunctory"!

On Saturday, Kerry's dissent on Vietnam dovetailed completely with his current position on Iraq ...After the tortured explanations during the presidential campaign and the ad which played over and over about "being for the $87 billion [for Iraq] before he was against it", Kerry's clarity and confidence were even more startling.

His speech was laced with patriotic language and filled with historical examples. Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were both attacked for opposing the government, said Kerry, who quoted Jefferson: "Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism."

Kerry may be reflecting a new boldness on the part of liberals to come out and say what they believe and to reclaim the moral high ground on patriotism.

kerry_snobunny.jpg The perpetual presidential candidate whose bigger, thicker, better locks have become a national symbol of virility also "spoke eloquently" on the dangers of classified information:

Stephanopoulos: ...CIA official Mary McCarthy lost her job this week for disclosing classified information according to the CIA probably about a "Washington Post" story which revealed the existence of secret prisons in Europe... Your colleague Senator Pat Roberts has praised the action. But some former CIA officers have described Mary McCarthy as a sacrificial lamb who is acting in the finest American tradition by revealing human rights violations. What's your view?

Kerry: Well, I read that. I don't know whether she did it or not. So, I mean it's hard to have a view on that. But here's my fundamental view about this: that you have somebody being fired from the CIA for allegedly telling the truth, and you have no one fired from the White House for revealing a CIA agent in order to support a lie. That underscores what's really wrong in Washington, D.C. here.

Stephanopoulos: That's one issue of hypocrisy but should the CIA officer be able to make decisions on his or her own...

Kerry: Of course not. Of course, not. Look the CIA agent has an obligation to uphold the law and clearly leaking is against the law, and nobody should leak. I abhor leaking. I don't like it. But if you're leaking to tell the truth, Americans are going to look at that, at least mitigate or think about what are the consequences that you, you know, put on that person. Obviously they're not going to keep their job, but there are other larger issues here. You know, classification in Washington is a tool that is used to hide the truth from the American people. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was eloquent and forceful in always talking about how we needed to, you know, end this endless declassification that takes place in this state, and it has become a tool to hide the truth from Americans.

Now as the HVES was only on its third cup of java at this point so naturallement we were thrilled to have such a clear exposition of an admittedly murky issue. Near as we could tell after our vast staff of itinerant Eskimo typists had translated for us, the Accidental Candidate had just told us that:

1. Classification (by the CIA) is a "tool used to hide the truth from the American people".

2. But it is illegal to leak classified information and those who violate the law must be punished.

3. Brace yourselves, mon amis - the Senator's logic at this point becomes so brilliant that it may be difficult for ordinary mortals to follow. In a dazzling display of the post-Cartesian Multivariate Co-directionality for which he is justly famed, the Junior Senator (who is so much more verbally adept and far smarter than the President) then explained that that we must "end endless declassification" because it is "used to hide the truth from the American people"!

4. And so, mes amis, to sum up: classification is bad because it hides "the truth", but if you reveal our secrets, you must be punished! And de-classification is ALSO bad because it hides the truth, but it is perfectly legal.

Thus, to protect the American people from the illegal, truth-hiding practice of classifying secret information, we must at all costs refrain from the legal process of de-classifying it, because that is also a tool for hiding the truth!

And here we see the Senator's essential brilliance: if we can neither classify nor de-classify information without hiding the truth, the only moral process for getting the truth out is to leak it and then go to jail!

This reminds us of the good Senator's highly-nuanced position on the NSA wiretapping brouhaha just a few short months ago:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: (Off-camera) But let's, well, that's what I want to get to, an issue now is warrantless wiretaps, the president's program, Karl Rove was back out on Friday defending the program and being very aggressive. Here's what he said.

KARL ROVE (POLITICAL ADVISOR): President Bush believes if al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why. Some important Democrats -- some important Democrats clearly disagree.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: (Off-camera) He must have had you in mind. You've called the program a clear violation of the law.

SENATOR JOHN KERRY: We don't disagree with him at all. It is a violation of law and we don't disagree with him at all and this is exactly what Karl Rove does. Let me tell you something.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: (Off-camera) How can you think it's a violation and not disagree?

SENATOR JOHN KERRY: Osama bin Laden is gonna die of kidney failure before he's killed by Karl Rove and his crowd and all he does is divide America over this issue and exploit it. And what he's trying to pretend is that somehow Democrats don't want to eavesdrop appropriately to protect the country. That's a lie. We're prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make America safer, but we put a procedure in place to protect the constitutional rights of Americans and what I believe, George, and I believe it deeply, is you can protect the United States of America without devoiding, without ignoring the constitution of the country.

...GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: (Off-camera) So if you think this is a clear violation of the law why not move to cut off funding for the program?

SENATOR JOHN KERRY: That's premature. I think the first thing to do is say how do we, you know, make sure we're protecting the security of the country?

Once again John Foregainst Kerry's incisive wit cuts to the heart of the matter! He observes that "...Congress has proven itself unwilling to do what's necessary to perform its responsibilities". It has also, judging from some accounts proven itself incapable of handling sensitive intelligence:


Congressman Joe Pitts (R, PA-16) sharply criticized congressional colleagues today for leaking intelligence information learned during classified briefings. Information related to the House Intelligence Committee during a Wednesday classified briefing was leaked to the press within hours.

“If you can’t keep your mouth shut, you shouldn’t be serving on the House Intelligence Committee,” said Congressman Pitts. “The National Security Agency has 32,000 employees. They’ve kept this information classified for more than nine months. Congress couldn’t keep it a secret for more than a few hours.”

Of course, this was back in 2002. Fortunately for the American people, some brave truth-tellers who, like Senator Kerry, believe "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" safely navigated the Scylla and Charybdis of classification/de-classification and eventually leaked the whole enchilada to the New York Times, thus prompting the HVES to ask, "What would we do without patriots?".


Posted by Cassandra at April 24, 2006 06:46 AM


Who is Rand Beers? (hint: Politcally opointed administrator at State)

Who did he work for in the 2004 presidential campaign? (hint: the junior senator from Mass.)

Who did Mary McCarthy work for during the last few years of the Clinton Administration? (hint: his name is in this post)

Connect the dots, peoples. I learns all I needs to know on the Internet. :)

PS. Cassandra, glad you're back and hope you are relaxed and refreshed.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at April 24, 2006 10:27 AM

'sharpening values,' Does that mean Le Grande Flippe Floppe is a Thing Of The Past? 'Sketching Visions..' Now THERE'S a Gussie Mausheimer for you!

Posted by: Cricket at April 24, 2006 11:35 AM

Sheesh! Talk about taking all sides of an issue. I saw the comments earlier, about McCarthy. I was shaking my head, then. Great post. Thanks for putting this into the perspective it deserves!

Posted by: JannyMae at April 24, 2006 12:58 PM

Heh... perhaps the real question is, "What would bloggers do without John Kerry?"

Posted by: Cassandra at April 24, 2006 01:02 PM

In reference to John Kerry's hair: Is that the symbol of his strength? Wonder if we could pay Teresa to style him a la Sampson?

Posted by: Cricket at April 24, 2006 01:19 PM

I've always heard that baldness was the sign of massive testosterone. That would make thicker, longer locks the symbol of...

Posted by: Grim at April 24, 2006 04:01 PM

I've always heard that baldness was the sign of massive testosterone. That would make thicker, longer locks the symbol of...

[trying very hard not to laugh hysterically]

Oh hell, I give up...

Posted by: Cassandra at April 24, 2006 04:07 PM

Actually, baldness is a sign of NO HAIR FOLLICLES.Absent hair, it's hard to analyze for "X" or "Y" chromosomes.Maybe if you went to the nether regions......

Totally outta control.

Welcome back Cass, glad you're feelin' your oats again.

Posted by: WildBlueYonder at April 24, 2006 07:24 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)