« Giving Season | Main | If I Only Had an iPod... »



What? Is anybody actually going to argue the "no" side of this question?

Much more interesting would be a discussion about the perils of anonymice, things like describing Scooter Libby as a "former Congressional staffer" when he was in fact Cheney's national security adviser, and whether or not it should be mandatory to burn a confidential source who has lied to you.

Here's Eisenhower on fighting in Italy (December 29, 1943): "Today we are fighting on a country which has contributed a great deal to our cultural inheritance, a country rich in monuments which by their creation helped and now in their old age illustrate the growth of the civilization which is ours. We are bound to respect those monuments so far as war allows. ... Nothing can stand against the argument of military necessity. That is an accepted principle. But the phrase 'military necessity' is sometimes used when it would be more truthful to speak of military convenience or even of personal convenience. I do not want it to cleak slackness or indifference."

The present administration uses national security as an analogue to "military necessity" above. But when the archives are opened it will become clear to all that this administration has said "national security" when it would have been truthful to speak of "personal convenience" or even "cover-up of law breaking." Grrr.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad