I thought that the preceding post would attract attention. ISIS and chemical weapons: Who wouldn't
be interested in that?
Surprise: Nobody cares. At least, nobody living outside of northern Iraq.
Maybe people are simply tired of reading about the wars in that region. An understandable reaction, that: The situation in the Middle East is usually grim and hope-resistant. Still, I urge you to read this brilliant Moon of Alabama post
, which analyzes the latest made-in-America mythologizing about the Syrian war. MoA's "B" (not the same "b" who occasionally comments on this humble blog) is at the top of his game here. (Is
B a he? I think
I would also like to take another brief look at the domestic story that everyone seems to think is Big News. If you read nothing else about the Hillary Clinton email pseudoscandal, check out this important TalkLeft analysis
. BigTentDemocrat made the some of the same points I had hoped to make, but he did a much better job of it than I would have.
Remember those golly-gee Top Seekrit emails which we're supposed to think are the most important leaks ever? The ones that have rightwingers screaming that Hillary Clinton is the new Kim Philby? Well, the most controversial of those emails is a discussion of a published news story
about -- wait for it -- drones.
Drones are classified, right? Therefore, if you talk about drones, you are, in essence, discussing classified information. This is true even if you are chatting about that drone story in yesterday's Washington Post.
By that standard, this blog discusses classified topics nearly every day. So do many other blogs.
BTD refers to this AP story
The officials who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity work in intelligence and other agencies. They wouldn't detail the contents of the emails because of ongoing questions about classification level. Clinton did not transmit the sensitive information herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.
To which BTD responds:
Let's review this again - (1) Clinton did not transmit the sensitive information herself and (2) nothing in the emails she received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.
Frankly, this puts Clinton completely in the clear. This story SHOULD be over as far as Hillary is concerned.
Now let's turn to the latest NYT story
about that email server.
Specifically, the inspector general told members of Congress that two emails should have been classified as top secret...
"Should have been." Meaning they weren't. Meaning that the classification was retroactive. Meaning that Hillary did nothing wrong.
Is the email scandal is a non-story? No. There is
a story here, and it concerns our news media. Why do so many journalists fall for every single ginned-up anti-Clinton story that the Republicans concoct? Throughout the 1990s, newsfolk continually presented right-wing propaganda points as The Real Shit. They did this day after day, week after week, year after year. They still
American journalism has crossed the line separating gullibility from culpability.
Let me once again state: There are legit reasons to be unenthusiastic about Hillary's candidacy. I didn't like much of what she did as SoS, and I still think that she should not have taken the gig. Domestic policy is her strength -- and by "her strength," I mean that's the area where she doesn't make me want to scream at my computer monitor every time she opens her mouth.