Comments on: Understanding Plamegate http://theannalog.com/2006/04/10/understanding-plamegate A story every day? Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:49:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 Comment on Understanding Plamegate by: James http://theannalog.com/2006/04/10/understanding-plamegate#comment-217 Fri, 14 Apr 2006 06:29:58 +0000 http://theannalog.com/2006/04/10/understanding-plamegate#comment-217 I've been finding this story more and more amusing as it goes on, simply because of the parallels with recent history. In the 90s, the Monica Lewinsky scandal blew up not because the president had sex with an intern, but because he tried to cover it up. And the legal problems for Clinton were not a result of any sexual acts with Ms. Lewinsky (it's debatable whether that would have violated any laws, and if it did Lewinsky might have been the only person who could legally have brought charges against him), but because the coverup involved possible perjury and/or obstruction of justice. Fast-forward to the present, and we have a scandal which really blew up not because of the initial act -- the leaking of Plame's identity -- but because of... the cover-up. The legal problems don't really begin with the leak, because it's debatable whether that was illegal (the usual argument is that Bush, as chief executive of the federal government and commander-in-chief of the military, is the ultimate authority on what is and is not classified, and that if he orders a piece of information to be disclosed then it is, by definition, not classified), but rather with the coverup, which may have involved perjury and/or obstruction of justice. It's rather frightening sometimes to see how people don't pay attention to even the bits of history they've lived through. I’ve been finding this story more and more amusing as it goes on, simply because of the parallels with recent history. In the 90s, the Monica Lewinsky scandal blew up not because the president had sex with an intern, but because he tried to cover it up. And the legal problems for Clinton were not a result of any sexual acts with Ms. Lewinsky (it’s debatable whether that would have violated any laws, and if it did Lewinsky might have been the only person who could legally have brought charges against him), but because the coverup involved possible perjury and/or obstruction of justice.

Fast-forward to the present, and we have a scandal which really blew up not because of the initial act — the leaking of Plame’s identity — but because of… the cover-up. The legal problems don’t really begin with the leak, because it’s debatable whether that was illegal (the usual argument is that Bush, as chief executive of the federal government and commander-in-chief of the military, is the ultimate authority on what is and is not classified, and that if he orders a piece of information to be disclosed then it is, by definition, not classified), but rather with the coverup, which may have involved perjury and/or obstruction of justice.

It’s rather frightening sometimes to see how people don’t pay attention to even the bits of history they’ve lived through.

]]>