What's Going On?

They say August is the slowest month of the year for news. From what I see on political blogs, this has to be true. Look at the big stories most bloggers are talking about: Cindy Sheehan, Able Danger, and Valerie Plame in Who's Who. Is there anything substantive in any of this?

Cindy Sheehan lost her son in Iraq. That's a tragedy. She's now encamped outside the president's ranch in Texas demanding a meeting. This is a big deal? The anti-war bloggers demand that the president meet with Ms. Sheehan. There's vigils all over the place in support of her cause. Why? Is the president supposed to meet with the parents of every single soldier killed in Iraq? He'd never get anything done. The president has a lot more to work on every day than just Iraq. Imagine if Lincoln had to meet with the parents of every soldier killed in his war, or FDR in his. It's not a practical reality, and serves no purpose. This has nothing to do with supporting the war. I've always opposed it. Not to put too cold a spin on it, but soldiers die in war. When one volunteers for the military, as Sheehan's son did, one accepts the risk that he or she may be sent off to fight a war, justified or not, and that they might in fact be killed. It's no different than joining the police or firefighters. When one takes a job, one takes the risks associated with that job. Ms. Sheehan lost a son who volunteered to put his life on the line. Again, that is tragic as is all the loss of life in Iraq. But that loss does not entitle Ms. Sheehan to special privileges such as meeting with the president. The president owes her no more explanation and justification for his actions than he owes the rest of the country.

The Able Danger story is about how one group was tracking Mohammed Atta, ring-leader of the 9/11 attacks, a year before 9/11 but did not inform the FBI about it. This has certainly kicked up a firestorm. Conservatives use this to attack former Clinton-era Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. Liberals go to great lengths to defend Ms. Gorelick, saying that her memos, which some say created the communication wall, did not apply to the Able Danger situation, so conservatives ought to apologize for misleading their readers. Is there anything new in this story? Didn't we know about communication failures between different government agencies long before now? Wasn't that knowledge a primary motivation for the reforms in the intelligence gathering and processing in the last few years? So all this is is a concrete example of something we've known for a long time. In that case, why are so many people working themselves to a tizzy over it?

Valerie Plame. I really don't get this one. Here's my understanding of what happened. Joe Wilson was an ambassador who had information debunking key administration arguments in support of an invasion of Iraq. Someone, now known to be Karl Rove, leaked information that Wilson's wife was a covert CIA operative. This could be a criminal act. Key to Rove's defense is that he did not reveal the actual name of Wilson's wife, simply that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Novak then looked up Wilson's entry in Who's Who and found the name of his wife. Is any of this meaningful? Does it matter that Rove allegedly only referenced this operative by her relationship to Wilson, not actually by name? Either way, he outed a covert CIA operative. Does it matter than it is public record that Wilson's wife is named Valerie? Is that in any way relevant to the issue of outing a covert CIA operative? Does Who's Who have any relevance whatsoever to the question? Then why are so many talking about it? (Granted, this one has quieted down a bit as everyone salivates over Able Danger and Cindy Sheehan.)