What this stinks of is Nixon's enemies list.

Sometimes I am struck by the horrible thought that maybe they do things like this, like cutting funding to the air marshal's program, and generally acting as though none of this really matters and nothing is real or screw it the world is going to end tomorrow so we're going to do whatever the hell we want.

And I wonder if maybe they know something we don't. Like maybe it isn't real. Like maybe they feel confident in pulling air marshals from flights because they already know which flights are going to be hijacked. Or maybe there is a big rock headed our way and there is no point in telling us two years in advance.

Like it says in Men in Black. The only reason these people can go on with their miserable lives and pay the mortgage and care what happens on Joe Millionaire is because they don't have an effing clue.

Sometimes the Bush administration is just too surreal for the usual expanations of greed and lust for power.

"Charels Dodgson" over at Through the Looking Glass is fond of putting the blame on fundamentalist Christianity. The lack of apparent interest in long-term consequences shown by the administration reflects a belief that we're living in the End Times, and the apocalypse will be upon us before we ever have to worry about pesky things like budget deficits.

The scary thing is, there are days when I can almost buy that.

And I wonder if maybe they know something we don't. Like maybe it isn't real. Like maybe they feel confident in pulling air marshals from flights because they already know which flights are going to be hijacked...

The problem is that they only think they know what's going to happen and that the apparent source of their great and terrible wisdom seems to be more along the lines of hens entrails and reading Bible passages backwards in mirriors, rather than from corporeal inteligence gathering.

Combine this with the dozen or so three and four star generals that are being retired from the Pentagon (See Eschaton for details) and the implications start to get very frightening.

Whow. Chad, little bit spooky there.

That the two of us seem to be hammering on the same railroad spike strikes me as a little uncomfortable. That and the knowledge that we're not the only two circling the same conclusions.

A Rational President in 2004, please!

reflects a belief that we're living in the End Times, and the apocalypse will be upon us before we ever have to worry about pesky things like budget deficits

My point exactly, except that I take a realist viewpoint. What if it isn't listening to Revelations played backwards on a phonograph? What if they have some hard evidence? I just don't buy the religious crackpot angle. Most of these guys (Ashcroft excluded) play an Evangelist on tv in order to get the ditto monkey vote, but in reality they are hard-nosed business people, Mammon before God types. I have a real hard time believing that Cheney believes in any god other than himself.

End times conspiracy theories aside, I think they act this way because they know they aren't going to lose the next election, no matter what. The votes have already been counted and Bush has already won in a surprise last minute surge at the polls.

Teresa, I'm still laughing. I wish you were writing speeches for the candidate of your choice.

Then, maybe its not really this great big dark massive, apocalyptic conspiracy but just some little meaningless trinket which has the hate-Bushies hyperventilating. Hey guys, there's no Santa Claus, no devil, no massive conspiracy, just boring ol' day to day life.

I think that the source of their arrogance is simpler. They are the ultimate in white male privilege. They exist on complacency. The things that we worry about will not hurt them. They are not subject to the law. They have great wealth or access to great wealth. They are certain that the things they have done, from tax cuts to starting the war in Iraq, will increase their wealth. They have not been subject to the consequences of their actions their entire lives. Drug charges that would put me behind bars for 10 years vanish for them. A recession here means that they invest overseas. If ever they were doubtful about whether the law applied to them, Nixon's pardon erased that doubt. If ever they worried about being able to bend the law for their own purposes, Clinton's impeachment set those fears to rest. Not only does all of this apply to Bush, but he has grown up with all of these assumptions and experiences, and so has an even greater arrogance. The neo-cons that have hitched their wagon to his star are seeking that same sort of privileged position in society, believing that since they support Bush, they are entitlted to it, too. They don't understand that just because they are on his side, he's not necessarily on their side. I hope that at some point, Bush's casual way of tossing staffers off the sled catches up with him, but I doubt it.

I think it's a combination of what Lydy says and, y'know, James Watt. I think the one reinforces the other.

Actually, I'm not hostile to Lydia's explanation either. There could easily be truth to both...

Our fellow Brooklynite Glen over at "A Brooklyn Bridge" has said of the President,

"Bush is what you get when you start with Nixon's character and then subtract his intelligence."

Anyway, Teresa, I think you're not being fair to Bush. He IS TOO up to the standards of feudalism (and God knows he'd like the rest of us to be up to those standards too and is doing his damndest to get us there).

God-King aristocracies aren't feudalism.

The standards of feudalism are Alfred born in Wantage, William Marshal defying his crowned king for the sake of his sworn word, and Edward the Black Prince, whose royal father had put him down into the mud and into the line to help cover baseborn men at Crecy saying again and again to companies of archers before Poicters "....but if envious Fortune (which God forbid) should let us at this present to runne the race of all flesh, and that wend both life and labour together, be you sure that your names shall not want eternall fame and heavenly joy, and we also, with these gentlemen our companions, will drinke of the same cuppe that you shall doe."

TD, I'll have to disagree. Feudalism, as Jo has pointed out, is based on a two-way bond of loyalty. We may be appalled at how little princes and rulers owed to those beneath them, but they owed something, and that was an improvement.

What I keep noticing about Dubya is that he's the only one whose honor matters. He never, ever takes the fall, even if the cost of doing so would be small for him but is crushing to his subordinate. Look, too, at how profligately he's spent Colin Powell's and Tony Blair's credibility. He's still a long way short of that level of civilization where King Arthur has to fight the Green Knight if nobody else at his court will volunteer to do it.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with Teresa. Feudalism was based on one thing for another. The King provided protection for his vassels in return for their service. Bush, on the other hand, expects the service of the world because he is President and offers very little (to nothing) in return.

It's sort of like one of those relationships where one side gives and gives and gives, and the other simply takes. Unfortunately, we (the people) seem to be too afraid to break the relationship off.

Teresa, I think you wrote "honor" when you meant "reputation."

Doug:

"Hey guys, there's no Santa Claus, no devil, no massive conspiracy, just boring ol' day to day life."

Yeah, and no WMD either.

Plenty of hard-nosed businessmen are end-timers, as convenient. They actually do believe it, but adapt the belief so it doesn't inconvenience them in any way.

The Bush brothers remind me of the villain in the movie who swaggers around saying "My father owns this town". Guys like that can have a cocky charm, as W. does, and plenty of people suck up to them. (Jeb, on the other hand, has more of the creepy meanness of the effete rich boy).

There's a big controversy afoot as to whether Bush-haters are as nasty as Clinton-haters were. I don't think so, not yet. We should try harder.

Lydia makes a strong argument for the realism angle. I tend to get carried away by flights of fancy, as do many people, including our leaders.That was my major point: they play like they are doing God's will in order to distract the people who go all glass eyed when confronted withflow charts and economic forcasts. Meanwhile, their goal is to make a fortune along the way, spread American Capitalism in the same way the Conquistadores tried to spread Spanish Catholicism. Religous hyperbole justifies the carnage to the masses while they fill their pockets with pesent gold (or oil in this case. I know, sloppy metaphore).

Teresa--

I guess I stand corrected. I was referring to feudalism as I understood it in practice (pretty damned one sided) vs. the stated contractual relationship (the opportunity to make a living in exchange for some kind of protection, not exactly equitable in its own right, but something).

Well, what can we say? George W. Bush talks like a Klingon, but he behaves like a Ferengi. (Did I write that out loud?) I think the "Nixon without the intelligence" quip tells us all we need to know about our current Presidentissimo.

[By synchronicity I've been writing about W. Bush's honor in rasff, and I think it bears on this discussion, so I'm going to re-post those remarks on this page.]

He broke the oath he took as a Guardsman and has never made any amends for it, nor was he tried and punished, nor has he ever admitted fault. That was and is dishonorable and illegal. He only escaped punishment because of the family wealth and influence.

I wonder if he is such a hawk because he feels dishonorable and wants to prove he is not?

And how come no-one has called him on it? After having their honor falsely impugned so often, I would think some of the vets in the Senate would be delighted to tear him to shreds: the Republicans have called both John McCain (a POW in 'nam), Tom Daschle (a vet) unpatriotic.

Hmmmm. I wonder if one of the reasons so many of our pro-war types are the ones who managed to avoid military service is because they also feel they have something to prove.

[And one final remark--it now appears to me that our military customs come largely from feudal sources.]

I'd say a combination of "having something to prove" and not personally knowing what it's like to kill someone who is trying to kill you -- the whole armchair warrior thing.

"And how come no-one has called him on it?"

They have. Repeatedly. It doesn't stick because of a carefully cultivated Brave Plain-Talking No-Nonsense Leader image, which acts like political Scotch Guard(tm). It's a variant of:

"Sincerity is the key. Once you can fake that, you've got it made."

Randolph, what was the reaction on RASFF to your mentioning Bush's AWOl? I've noticed that right-wingers really, really dislike that being mentioned. Part of the 'all Republicans are honorable veterans, while all Democrats are draft-dodgers' line that the GOP has been pretty successful with.

[....]the Republicans have called both John McCain (a POW in 'nam), Tom Daschle (a vet) unpatriotic.

The ultimate expression of that, however, came right here in Georgia, where GOP nonentity Saxby Chambliss ran ads questioning Max Cleland's patriotism, showing his face sandwiched in between Osama bin Laden's and Sadaam Hussein's while blatantly lying about his voting record.

Max Cleland, of course, is a Bronze and Silver-Star holding Vietnam vet who left both of his legs and one of his arms over there while serving his country; Saxby, needless to say, found other things to keep him occupied that decade.

What discourages me is that (IMHO, of course) if there political parties were reversed, Chamblis would have lost by a landslide, no matter how much he was ahead before that. But a Republican politician can get away with that.

Hey Zizka, add a "yet" after that "either". They're getting close. Boy, that would rain on the progressives' picnic, wouldn't it.

Re Saxby Chambliss and Max Cleland. Not once was Max's patriotism questioned. Max was ran as a conservative Democrat similar to zigzag Zell Miller and got to Washington and voted like a liberal. His votes out of line with Sen Miller and Pres. Bush, including those on homeland security, were presented to the people to judge as they saw fit. The people spoke. Max's left wing pals got him voted out of office. What works in California doesn't work in south Georgia. Georgia is trending heavily Republican - Max was ill served by his staff. Next up - Senator Johnny Isaakson.

Before we moved here, we lived in South Carolina for a long time. In South Carolina, there were many good (and, of course, many bad) politicians in both political parties. There were even elections where both candidates were qualified (imagine that!).

Before that, I grew up in Florida, where, at the time (can't say for sure about these days, of course), there were, once again, a great many qualified candidates in both political parties.

And then we went and moved to Georgia, where the GOP has continuously infested the ballot box with such a series of cretins and ninnies as to beggar belief. To this day I can only think of one Georgia GOP politician of national standing -- Johnny Isakson -- whom I could bring myself to vote for without wanting to cauterize my hands immediately afterwards.

I mean, I don't agree with him on every issue -- not by a long shot -- but at least he doesn't vibrate sleaze-waves into the ether like the rest of his cohort. His goal in politics actually seems to be something along the lines of "to work with other politicians to build a better future", rather than "to screw the other party, ha ha."

It'l be interesting to see who else in the GOP runs against him for Zell's seat, and which Democrats enter the race as well. In the meantime, I'll just have to content myself with wondering where on earth the Georgia GOP dredges up the toxic lackwits they keep thrusting onto the national stage.

were presented to the people to judge as they saw fit

That's a mild way to put it. Not once was Max's patriotism challenged? Ha!

"In a recent press release, Chambliss accused his opponent of "breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution" because Cleland had voted "yes" on a routine Chemical Weapons Treaty amendment allowing inspectors from neighboring nations like Syria and Iran to serve on U.N. inspection teams in Iraq."

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-07-03/flipside.html

That would be a press release... from Saxby Chambliss... I guess when you say "not once", you mean "obviously, it was more than once."

"Chambliss forces put Osama Bin Laden's picture into one ad against Cleland decrying his lack of support for Mr. Bush's version of Homeland Security legislation."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/31/eveningnews/main527650.shtml

Lovely unbiased presentation, isn't it? Here, Georgia, you decide if Max Cleland is supporting Osama bin Laden.

But did Cleland really oppose Homeland Security? No, just George Bush's version. "Cleland, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, supports a different version of Homeland Security legislation than the president."

Or maybe you are parsing the word patriotism to make your statement techinically true, like someone else's famous "is". Like Saxby did when he said, "I mean Max is a nice guy. I never said anything but that his voting record is so out of touch with the way a majority of Georgians think." He never said anything but that Max broke his oath of office.

I was in the thread Randolph mentions, about W being AWOL.

The observation that he had checked the "Do Not Volunteer" for overseas duty box got a lot of wriggling, including (all quotes paraphrased) "There's no such box." Yes, there is. Here's several articles about it. "I don't believe anything the Washington Post says." Here are other sources. "There's no such box." Did you read the other sources? "I don't care if you believe me or not." But you are the one who stood up and contradicted me. "You're insulting the Guard! I won't stand for that." Oh, and here's where W gives his shifting justification for checking the box. "(Silence)"

Another reaction was "That might all be true, but people can change, and you haven't allowed for that." He hasn't changed. "People can change. He has the rest of his life to do so."

Cue Saddam singing, "I can change, I can change / I'll learn to keep my promises, I swear it / Open up my heart and I will share it / Any minute now I will be born again." (Lyrics by Trey Parker, I believe)

So what we got was mostly more verbose versions of stuffing the fingers into the ears and shrieking "Oh, say can you SEEE!"

It'l be interesting to see who else in the GOP runs against him for Zell's seat, and which Democrats enter the race as well. In the meantime, I'll just have to content myself with wondering where on earth the Georgia GOP dredges up the toxic lackwits they keep thrusting onto the national stage. Probably the same place they find 'wonderful' people like DeLay and Lott. I cringe everytime I see one of them in front of a microphone. The Democrats do not have to run a smear campaign against DeLay because he is doing a good job of doing it himself everytime he opens his mouth. My daughter was on a candidate search team at one time and it was tough for her to get good, qualified, and motivated people to run for any office. She had well-designed packets of information so that the canidate did not have start a campaign from scratch.

Jeff. Sorry. I mean "not once". Max's patriotism was not questioned. Was there through the whole thing (not only did Max lose, King Roy lost and Cynthia McKinney lost). And no, that would not be a press release from Saxby, but a statement from an urban, left wing, artsy-fartsy paper - Creative Loafing - purporting to interpret a press release etc. What liberals wanted was to put Max's politically stupid vote on homeland security off the agenda. When it didn't happen, they screamed about his patriotism being challenged. Why didn't Max listen to his senior senator?

Among the rumored candidates for Zell's seat, in addition to JI/R, Sam Nunn's daughter/D, Andrew Young/D, Cynthia McKinney/??, Marshall/D. Young might withdraw if Nunnette commits.

"And then we went and moved to Georgia, where the GOP has continuously infested the ballot box with such a series of cretins and ninnies as to beggar belief."

Denise Majette is a cretin or a ninnie?

It's so touching to watch people whom one would presume to have no love for the CIA become so concerned about the safety of an agent. How expedient. Sort of like the sudden affection for our armed forces overseas.

Indeed, just as it's so interesting to watch people who would normally support the CIA in all its nefarious activities backtracking and refusing to admit that it matters if a CIA agent is outed.

It's hard to see how Denise Majette is a an exception to Ray Radlein's generalization about Republican officials in Georgia. Seeing as how Majette is a Democrat.

Of course, unless we think the US shouldn't have an intelligence agency at all, it's pretty obvious that most of what the CIA does even on its worst days isn't "nefarious," it's plumbing. Everyday intelligence-gathering and analysis. Governments need to know things; intelligence agencies are charged with the task of finding that stuff out. Like just about all intelligence agencies, the CIA has on occasion gotten up to "nefarious" doings, but nine times out of ten it's been because elected officials wanted that to happen, and wanted some distance between themselves and the guys charged with the task.

However, by seeming to typify our working intelligence guys and gals as "nefarious," Yonmei has fallen into Judith Weiss's unsubtle rhetorical trap. Weiss ("Yehudit") wants to establish that someone around here regards intelligence and military personnel in a bad light, and that concern for their well-being expressed hereabouts is mere political opportunism.

"It's so touching to watch people whom one would presume to have no love for the CIA become so concerned about the safety of an agent. How expedient. Sort of like the sudden affection for our armed forces overseas."

Which is in fact over the line. Tossing off a drive-by or two in my direction is one thing. Generalizing about what broad categories like "liberal Democrats" think--or "warbloggers," or "libertarians," or "Mugwumps"--is a bit dodgier, but it's hard to have a wide-ranging political conversation without it. However, imputing bad faith to my commenters in particular is another thing altogether, and not acceptable.

Posting in this thread so far, aside from Ms. Weiss, have been the following people:

Anne, Avedon, Barry, Jeff Crook, Charles Dodgson, Randolph Fritz, Graydon, Rachel Heslin, Stefan Jones, Keith, Matt, Melanie, Lydia Nickerson, Teresa Nielsen Hayden, Chad Orzel, Ray Radlein, Doug Rivers, Dennis Slater, the talking dog, Yonmei, zizka, and of course me.

I expect Judith Weiss to get specific. Which of these people is she accusing of having a "sudden", "expedient" concern for the well-being of overseas American soldiers, or of intelligence personnel? No more hedging. Names and particulars.

Alternately, she can apologize for her libel against the sincerity of a whole range of people. Some of whom have plenty of history of caring about the well-being of American soldiers, overseas and elsewhere. Some of whom may well have personal connections to intelligence workers as well.

It's an old, time-tested tactic, the charge that if you're opposed to a particular national policy you must be opposed to the well-being of the front-line people charged with executing it. Judith Weiss knows the history of this rhetorical strategy quite well, and she certainly knows who in the 20th century was most famous for relentlessly deploying it. So an apology wouldn't be out of line. Failing that, let's hear exactly who she has in mind.

I'll wait until this time tomorrow.

"It's hard to see how Denise Majette is a an exception to Ray Radlein's generalization about Republican officials in Georgia. Seeing as how Majette is a Democrat."

Although many Emory tinfoilers believe, in fact, that the Republicans did in effect elect Ms. Majette - via primary crossover voting (which you can do in Georgia) - for her, against Cynthia. In that district, whoever wins the Demo. primary is a general election shoo-in. Cynthia sued on this very basis.

via primary crossover voting (which you can do in Georgia)

It's true (and it goes both ways). Despite my Democratic tendencies, I voted in the Republican primary, chiefly because I wanted to actually have a choice with my votecasting. The Democratic primary in Georgia, with a few exceptions, tends to be a bunch of uncontested races.

Although many Emory tinfoilers believe, in fact, that the Republicans did in effect elect Ms. Majette - via primary crossover voting (which you can do in Georgia) - for her, against Cynthia. In that district, whoever wins the Demo. primary is a general election shoo-in. Cynthia sued on this very basis.

Of course, the fact that whoever wins the Democratic primary is a shoo-in for office would tend to imply that there aren't enough possible Republican crossover votes in that district to matter, wouldn't it? Certainly not enough to account for the handy drubbing she deservedly got in the primary. The vast majority of her constituents were just plain embarassed by her (I know I was, back when I was in her district).

I remember dancing a very public Snoopy dance on the night of the primaries, rejoicing in the fact that Georgia voters had simultaneously disposed of both Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr.

It is worth noting that Mr. Barr did not raise the specter of Democratic crossover voting as being responsible for his defeat; it is also worth noting that he has acquited himself admirably since then, travelling the country warning GOP audiences of the dangers of the PATRIOT Act and Ashcroft's other little assaults on liberty.

Despite my Democratic tendencies, I voted in the Republican primary, chiefly because I wanted to actually have a choice with my votecasting. The Democratic primary in Georgia, with a few exceptions, tends to be a bunch of uncontested races.

Actually, that varies as well, from location to location (and from election to election). Since we moved here, there have been times when we were faced with uncontested GOP primary slates, and other times when we have seen uncontested Democratic primary slates.

The real pisser, of course, is when there is one contested race that you really want to vote in, but the rest of the primary slate is empty. I remember running across that a few years back, when I had to choose, in effect, between voting in the primary for Governor, or the primary for all of the other elected positions.

Ray, I don't think anybody knows. But the going-in feeling was that McKinney and Majette were close. If some voters perceived (incorrectly) that since two black women were running against each other, their primary vote didn't matter, then a low Democratic turn out would be susceptible to influence from Republican crossover. hard to prove anyway.

Funny how times are turning. Bob Barr starts out making a name for himself by zealously prosecuting a conservative Republican politician. Then runs and gets elected as a conservative Republican and gets a nationwide reputation as a yahoo (which I don't believe he deserved - but never mind) by, among other things, calling for Bubba's impeachment - way before it happened; and now belatedly, is receiving some kudos from the left for his principled opposition to various anti-terrorism measures. Sort of like Ariana Huffington, your next California governor (chuckle, chuckle).

Of course, the fact that whoever wins the Democratic primary is a shoo-in for office would tend to imply that there aren't enough possible Republican crossover votes in that district to matter, wouldn't it?

Not if the Democratic candidates were at all close to evenly match, it doesn't. There can be a lot of Republicans in a shoo-in Democratic district.

That doesn't mean it happened in this case, but there's nothing impossible about a united minority, even a small one, turning the balance when the majority is split.

The FBI is investigating.

Our host writes:

So an apology [for saying that our concern for the well-being of a CIA operative is sudden and convenient] wouldn't be out of line. Failing that, let's hear exactly who [Weiss] has in mind.

I'll wait until this time tomorrow.

The wait is over, and if Weiss posted anything, it's not showing up on my browser. I'm not seeing her ball around here either, or her glove. Looks to me like she took them and went home.

"Tira-la-la-itu! I gloat! Hear me!"
— Arthur "Stalky" Corcoran

You are correct, Patrick, I just remembered she ran against McKinney so I "remembered" her as a Republican.

"I'll wait until this time tomorrow."

Patrick, I read a lot of blogs, occasionally I get into ongoing arguments on a particular blog, sometimes I just put in a comment and move on. In other words, I act like 90% of all bloggers and blog visitors. There's no reason I should have any idea you were "waiting for me," since the idea is ludicrous given the culture of the blogosphere and since you didn't call me or send me an email, and I can't read your mind. So climb down from your high dudgeon. You're not the Star Chamber handing out supoenas.

I know the general tone and attitude of this crowd (which many years ago was my crowd - no I'm not talking about fandom but about
righteously indignant "progressives."), and I stand by my assumption that most people commenting here would not ordinarily care much what happens to CIA agents. And my tone was no more contemptuous or snippy or whatever than the tone of most of your commenters, I'm just aiming it in a different direction. You like to dish it out, but you don't like it coming back your way. Believe me, I have been just as hard on Bill Quick and Tacitus and some of the more frothing LGF regulars and even poor Roger Simon, a gentle soul.

If you want to ban me like you banned Gary, I'll probably have a good chuckle with him about it and then blog about it. So do whatever makes you feel better.

(I'm vividly remembering why I left fandom - the pettiness and emotional claustrophobia. . . . )

"You're not the Star Chamber handing out supoenas."

Indeed not. I'm just the host of this party. Both the star chamber and the subpoena are in your imagination.

I note that you've taken care to tiptoe around the most indefensible part of your previous remarks, your comment about "the sudden affection for our armed forces overseas." Well done. But I particularly appreciate the skill with which you're contriving to be indignant over a deadline even when it's obvious I didn't enforce it. Now that's blogsmanship!

Don't worry, though; were I to ban you, it wouldn't be "like I banned Gary." Gary is a brilliant person who was one of my closest friends for many years. My estrangement from him still breaks my heart. That you should latch onto it as a chance to score a cheap point is no surprise. But don't give yourself airs that you're in his class.

About righteous progressives not caring about CIA agents: I don't know specifically what an "operative" might be in Plame's case, but I do know that between the World Wars, something like a third of the archaeologists working in the Near East were spies for their respective governments. This isn't to say that they were trained agents masquerading as archaeologists; they were professional scholars who, as they trundled around the Near East with their surveying equipment, forwarded copies of their maps and information back to the equivalent of the State Department. A lot of the daily grind of intelligence-gathering is like this; these "operatives" were hardly evil warriors of the military-industrial complex. They certainly didn't deserve to be killed or compromised, as they might have been if the local Bedouin, for instance, had realized what they were up to (they wouldn't have been able to go back to that area, in any case, which would have meant the end of their archaeological career).

When I first read about the Plame outing, I assumed, with no particular evidence of course, that her case was something like this; she was an industry pro who kept her eyes out for the CIA. Speaking as a progressive, this doesn't excite my scorn. I'm glad our intelligence agencies are keeping track of nuclear weapons. Everyone who's been posting on this list seems to share that view, not only in this post-Plame thread but elsewhere in earlier Electrolite threads. I'm not sure where Yehudit's blanket assumption of blanket condemnation comes from.

Incidentally, I know this about the Near East because both my parents are Near Eastern archaeologists; that spy activity was before their time, but I remember meeting their older colleagues when I was young, some of whom may well have been part of that intelligence-gathering for all I know. None of them seemed like evil secret police types to me.

and I stand by my assumption that most people commenting here would not ordinarily care much what happens to CIA agents

Yeah, well your frickin' assumption is wrong. Certainly as it applies to me, and I suspect, many people posting here. As a progressive or liberal or whatever the hell you want to call it, I am concerned with the lives and circumstances of human beings; even those who've made what I think are bad choices. I don't think the CIA could keep a successful replicant program quiet so I assume that CIA operatives, or agents or whatever are human beings. As another human being I care about what happens to them. For you to suggest otherwise, as you do above, is to impugn my humanity and/or my honesty. Stop it.

MKK

Bravo.