Sorry Guys - You Lose

Since Salon.com has sent me a veritable horde of Left-wingers currently having a debate (if you want to call it that) at one of my posts about how evil and unpatriotic they think I am for my attitude toward the Plame case; I thought I would quote an article from Slate back at them--especially since they are so freaking "outraged" at the treasonous implications of the case.

[Just for my own information, here's a question for you: does the name "Sandy Berger" ring a bell in your suddenly patriotic breasts? We were at war when he filled his socks with classified information from the National Archives, yet I don't remember your overflowing outrage at the time.] Nevertheless, here is the key quote from the article from Slate :

As Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald mulls possible charges in the Valerie Plame investigation, the gloating in liberal enclaves like Manhattan, Oberlin, and Arianna's dining room has swelled to a roar. Opponents of the Bush administration are anticipating vindication on various fronts—justice for their nemesis Karl Rove, repudiation of George W. Bush's dishonest case for the Iraq war, a comeuppance for Chalabi-loving reporter Judith Miller of the New York Times, and even some payback for the excesses of independent counsels during the Clinton years.

Hold the schadenfreude, blue-staters. Rooting for Rove's indictment in this case isn't just unseemly, it's unthinking and ultimately self-destructive. Anyone who cares about civil liberties, freedom of information, or even just fair play should have been skeptical about Fitzgerald's investigation from the start. Claiming a few conservative scalps might be satisfying, but they'll come at a cost to principles liberals hold dear: the press's right to find out, the government's ability to disclose, and the public's right to know.

At the heart of this misbegotten investigation is a flawed piece of legislation called the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. As Jack Shafer has written, this 1982 law is almost impossible to break because it requires that a government official unmask covert agents knowingly and with the intent of causing harm. The law was written narrowly to avoid infringing free speech or becoming an equivalent of Britain's Official Secrets Act. Under the First Amendment, we have a right to debate what is done in our name, even by secret agents. It may be impossible to criminalize malicious disclosure without hampering essential public debate.

But hey! Who cares when you have a chance to bash Bush and his administration! These same morons newly-minted patriots will be screaming about the secrecy of the Bush presidency and the violations of the public's right to know soon enough. And what do they care about trivial issues of law?

It is much more satisfying to be judge, jury, and executioner (and yes, they want an execution--no doubt about it) over the heroic and patriotic Joe Wilson, who--as we speak--is getting ready to publish his new book that will undoubtedly detail his horrible victimhood (and of course, that of his loyal, CIA, Vogue-modeling,undercover, out-in-the-open wife).

Whatever happens when Fitzgerald comes out with his findings, kiddos, you lose -- as usual.

UPDATE: Brit Hume just announced on FoxNews that the White House is laughing (rolling on the floor, I imagine) over the rumors about Cheney resigning and the other wishful thinking --otherwise called "news"--coming out of the MSM and left blogs today.