Cross-posted at A Rational Being
Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you will ever regret.
- Ambrose Bierce
Thanks to Christopher Wolf for this wonderful Op/Ed piece in the USA Today. As my dKos ID suggests, I look at things from a rational/irrational perspective. Naturally, my question is then, "How did the White House rationalize this outing?"
Most agree the outing was an attempt to discredit Wilson (Plame's husband) and cast doubt on anything he might say. On the surface this seems rational. Casting doubt about a critic is a common technique for weakening the voice of that critic. Yet in the process, they not only shed more light on their dirty deeds, they also undermined their own effectiveness in the war on terror, the spread of nuclear weapons, and the growth of anti-US sentiment around the world.
For example, did the White House consider that Plame works with other CIA agents who have secret identities and are working on the nuclear threat? Did they consider the impact on any of the foreign operatives she works or has worked with who are helping the US? Did they consider the importance of the CIA to their own agenda? Did they consider the payback from the CIA? To me it seems the answers to these questions are a resounding "No." If they did consider the impact, they viewed it as small in comparison to their own goals.
When you look at the predictable down-side impact of the decision to out Plame, the decision seems irrational. That is, not driven by rational thought, but driven by some irrational motivation; perhaps emotion like anger or hate.
If it was an emotion that caused them to lose sight of the consequences of outing Plame, then I worry about who or what is running the White House. Is it emotion? While emotions are part of everything, they must be left at the door when dealing with world-moving issues such as nuclear weapons or terrorists. In other words, make decisions when you are angry, and you will make the best decisions you (and your country) will ever regret.
ARB