The nerve of these folks – shielding some wingnut just so he could criticize the President of the United States without disclosing his identity!

… the right of scared Bush officials to participate in public debates without being identified is hardly some noble journalistic value — former Bush officials have not exactly been shy about attacking Obama. Indeed, the very same day that Allen published his Drudge-attracting screed, Michael Mukasey and Michael Hayden published an Op-Ed in The Wall St. Journal voicing exactly the same stale accusations about how Obama had helped the Terrorists, and the day before, Hayden was on MSNBC spitting out the same attacks. Obviously, there are all sorts of ways to include criticisms of Obama’s decision in a story without granting protective anonymity to an allegedly frightened Bush official.

The anonymous attack Allen printed added nothing to the world other than yet another Politico-based Drudge headline — but it did allow a former top government official to make all sorts of factually dubious and sensationalistic claims without any accountability at all. That’s why anonymity, when used so recklessly and for such shallow ends, is so poisonous.

Anonymity is dangerous. I mean, can you imagine if it spread to the Internet? And anyway, it’s not as though this so-called “source” were performing a valuable public service … like, say, illegally releasing classified information! How dare he presume to criticize the leader of the free world?

Sure, there were gazillions of anonymous criticisms of George Bush by acting government servants speaking on condition of anonymity because disclosing sensitive information to the media violated the terms of their employment contracts. But that was completely different because we agreed with them. We knew these truth telling patriots could be trusted – after all, they were willing to bravely go on record (in an anonymous fashion) even though they had previously promised not to do that very thing! What better proof of someone’s credibility can there be than the demonstrated willingness to go back on your word?

Allowing these patriots to release sensitive information for worldwide publication was eminently sensible — and motivated only by the very highest ethical principles! There should be no secrets between us and al Qaida: we are all safer when the terrorists know our plans.

But expressing an opinion critical of Barack Obama presents a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States, and is probably racist too.


Update II: Feel the awesome force of my Tweet Outrage!

Update III: Here, I excoriate thee upon Facebook! Oh, and I de-friended you.

Update IV: Andrew Sullivan doesn’t like you, either. So there! What further proof is needed that you should be locked up in an airless cell in Bagram?

Update MCVII: I knew it! Glenn Reynolds, deranged torture apologist, wants to waterboard Nancy Pelosi!!!!

Conservatives are all sick, perverted criminals – every last one of them. I don’t need to prove it; their actions speak for themselves. We have consensus on our side, and every time we bravely call them names rather than engaging their twisted world view, we demonstrate our commitment to tolerance and diversity; our transcendent moral superiority.

America is listening, I tell you.

Update 10,493: (panting) This is why we need a federal Shield law, I tell you. So journalists can have even less accountability than they presently do.

Of course, only journalists who tell the truth should be allowed to break the law. After all, free speech has limits. I think we all know what kind of dissent is dangerous and should never see the light of day.

Oh yes… I think we know. You can always tell a true progressive because unlike the hate-filled minions of hate, we in the Reality Based Community rely on facts and logic to make our case for us.

And that is why we’ll always be better than them.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!