Forums

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
This is a little different than Stewart. The investigation into the leak here was not limited to whether someone had committed a crime, but included whether someone had leaked a CIA agent's name in order to punish her husband for political gain. Once upon a time, Bush pretended to care about the latter, too.

Heh. The Rude Pundit (in the same post cited above) said something similar:

• One of the things that has failed liberals at every step of the way on stories as seemingly cut and dried as, say, Dick Cheney's relationship with Halliburton is that we've been on the wrong side of the simple vs. complex storyline. See, in order to understand how diabolical the Cheney/Halliburton nexus is, one has to immerse oneself into laws and rules regarding the finances of government officials, the various schemes created for assuring Halliburton would become bloated like dead hippo corpse, and more. Shit, it's just easier to ignore it.
  
  But this time we're finally on the easy-to-understand, anger-inducing side: Karl Rove outed a CIA agent for petty vengeance against her husband. That's all the narrative that's necessary. To counter that, the opposing side needs to entangle itself in legalistic arguments and semantical stunts, the kinds of arguments that always seem to be what liberals are making. Look at the stunning recitation of alleged history, law, and "media bias," all wadded into a huge ball of semen-stained Kleenex for your disposal by Andrew McCarthy (not the one who made a corpse seem alive in Weekend at Bernie's, but, as a writer for the National Review, achieves the same effect). Watch any of your loyal right-wing pundits act like they know the minutiae of rules and legalities. It's positively, breathtakingly, as they would have once said, "Clintonesque."