davefoc
Philosopher
I looked for a Toensing response to the release of the CIA document referred to in this post. I didn't find one. It may be too early for the Bushco defense team to have ginned one up yet.
I did find this Glenn Greenwald column that listed the statements of more than ten right wing spinners claiming in some way or another that she wasn't covert.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
I also found this David Fiderer column that did a pretty good job of explaining why Ms. Toensing was full of (rule 8).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/whom-should-i-believe-vi_b_9456.html
The situation reminds me a bit of trying to evaluate biblical contradictions. A straightforward reading of the words seems to indicate a clear cut contradiction, but when a skilled apologist analyzes the situation an explanation of why there is no contradiction is always found.
So what is that explanation here? I couldn't find one on the internet but there will be one. What will it be? Probably the best strategy for the spinners is to minimize the issue of whether she was technically covert or not (say something like: "Well maybe she was but that involves a hypertechnical use of the relevant laws") and focus on Wilson's misstatements (of which there were some significant ones) and the issue of whether Wilson's release of arguably secret information wasn't the root cause of the release of Plame's identity. I think they'll find enough meat in those issues that they'll hold on to what supporters they have on this issue.
I did find this Glenn Greenwald column that listed the statements of more than ten right wing spinners claiming in some way or another that she wasn't covert.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
I also found this David Fiderer column that did a pretty good job of explaining why Ms. Toensing was full of (rule 8).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/whom-should-i-believe-vi_b_9456.html
The situation reminds me a bit of trying to evaluate biblical contradictions. A straightforward reading of the words seems to indicate a clear cut contradiction, but when a skilled apologist analyzes the situation an explanation of why there is no contradiction is always found.
So what is that explanation here? I couldn't find one on the internet but there will be one. What will it be? Probably the best strategy for the spinners is to minimize the issue of whether she was technically covert or not (say something like: "Well maybe she was but that involves a hypertechnical use of the relevant laws") and focus on Wilson's misstatements (of which there were some significant ones) and the issue of whether Wilson's release of arguably secret information wasn't the root cause of the release of Plame's identity. I think they'll find enough meat in those issues that they'll hold on to what supporters they have on this issue.
