|
Abuse of power aside, and with the knowledge of my recent political postings bashing republicans in general, it is tough for me to accept what is written in an article where the author refers to the secret identity of Valerie Plame. I believe the ruling in that particular case was that nothing illegal was done in reference to Valerie Plame.
So what bugs me, is in discussing something that is indeed problematic, why inject the Plame thing in again? When I read this, even though I recognize the problems that are being discussed, seeing the whole Plame thing makes me less likely to take seriously what the author is writing.
|