Reply #73

We have a person who is being charged with breaking the law. A court will decide if they did or not. Some whistle-blowers are doing a good thing, some think they are, when they are not.

You claim the articles discuss "real issues" ... I'd disagree ... by my reading, the two articles are not "discussing" the situation at all, they are pushing a very specific agenda, and their style of doing so is rather transparent and disingenuous.

So why discuss the "real issues" when both articles have already told you what it is you are supposed to believe about the case? Given the level of hyperbole in those articles, its a wasted effort. Everyone who claims whistle-blower status is a saint, and if the government disagrees, its evil. Might as well try to get a pro-life fundy to support late term abortion.

Now ... as for my response. I periodically use that specific response intentionally.

As I said, the articles make it clear that there is nothing to debate. The administration is bad, the person charged with leaking classified information is good There is nothing to discuss.

So what is the point of the articles, and why are they posted here on DU?

Which brings us back to my subject line. Its not a taunt, its my interpretation of the intent of the articles.