Monday, July 25, 2005

Conspiracy Theory or Bias

I'm bringing this up out of whim, but I think it's an interesting thing to ponder. Over at the Beepo blog, Pete made mention of the Plame affair being a desperate attempt to get rid of Karl Rove, and earlier in comments, reader Lokki mentioned that even if he were fired he wouldn't exactly disappear, so I think it's worthwhile to bring up the difference between conspiracy theories and biased attacks, because there are some clear distinctions, and a lot of pitfalls. On the Rove thing, it's a conspiracy PERIOD. Why? Well let's look at the facts. It all started when the Bush administration made now proven false claims about yellowcake uranium in Niger being purchased by Saddam Hussein as a justification for going to war in Iraq. Then Joe Wilson made statements that this was bullshit and not more than a week or so later, Bob Novak wrote a column saying Joseph Wilson had direct ties to the truth about Nigerian uranium because his wife Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent in Africa looking into the spread of unknown WMDs. This story was supposedly being heavily investigated by the Dept. of Justice, and Bush himself said that anyone in his administration found to be a part of this would be removed from the administration. Fast forward-> Journalist Judith Miller is found in contempt of court for not revealing the name of the source who revealed Plame's identity and sent to jail. We find out from Bob Novak, that Karl Rove confirmed Plame's identity(a violation of his security clearance btw) and nothing happens. Why is this a real conspiracy and not false? Well look at the argument for removing Rove: He revealed to the world through a reporter that allegations about Plame's identity were true and potentially damaged years worth of intelligence resources, stories and allies. Weird oddities: Judith Miller sent to jail even though she never wrote a single article about Plame. Counter argument: He said that Novak's information was correct, he didn't actually tell him about Plame. Oh and the other one, he said Joe Wilson's wife, and never actually said the name Plame. Sounds to me like this one goes to the conspiracy thinkers. Not only is the counter argument weak, it doesn't make Rove less guilty of the actual charge. How will it work out, in the same stupid fashion that charges about the administration lying about our reasons for going to war. DC will get caught up in the cover up BS and the actual charge will go nowhere. If Rove were to be put on trial or whatever, he would just become a shadow advisor to the administration. That is unless he was killed for his crimes, which many feel is appropriate. Personally, I think he should be lambasted before the country as a traitor and made a public humiliation, but things don't work that way anymore.
Now let's look at a conspiracy theory that's BS. John Kerry's speedboat rediculousness. The facts in question: John Kerry recieved two purple hearts for bravery from wounds inflicted in Viet Nam. Speedboat Veterans release a bunch of stories that these wounds were not inflicted in battle and that the awards were fake. Weird oddities: Big mention of Kerry as an anti-war protestor and some crap about how instead of throwing his actual medals in protest, he just threw some decorative ribbons that symbolized those medals. The counter argument: The United States Navy issued those medals. Sounds like crap in a barrel to me. The man went to war, the man recieved medals, the man deserved the medals. Why do we know this is true? Because if it wasn't true, then every medal ever given to any sailor by the US Navy would be called into suspicion as being somehow a fake.
So what did we learn about the difference between BS and conpiracy? Well in my opinion, it's about the charges and the counter argument. If the charge is an actual provable offense, than it's at least something. If the counter argument is believable, then it's possibly a false accusation, BUT when the counter argument smells worse than the initial charge, someone is guilty. And in the case of Rove, it's like rotten cheese coming from the steps of the White House.
Did Gonzalez get the pass on SCOTUS nomination because he was involved in covering up this administrative debacle? Maybe. Is it worth thinking about? I think so. Not so much because this means that, but more because it brings to light more odd facts about a large cover up to prevent the press from finding out which administration official actually crucified the career of Valerie Plame. The facts that come to light are important. Why was the White House given 12 hours before documentation was required? Why did those documents go through the White House's attorneys(including Gonzalez) before being handed over to the DoJ? These are questions our media should be asking daily.

No comments: