"There are differences between felons and whistleblowers, and we ought to wait 'til the investigation occurs to decide what happened," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said on FOX News Sunday.
Well, that surely is as good an example of splitting hairs as I’ve seen. What happened is not in question, and there is also no question that giving up government secrets is a crime, regardless of whether you do it to help the enemy directly, or to be a “whistleblower.” If you participate in a bank robbery in order to demonstrate to the bank that its security measures are inadequate, are you a criminal or a whistleblower? But in the squishy world of Charles Schumer, a crime may not really be a crime, particularly if there’s some way to use that crime against George Bush.
Mr. Schumer is a study in contradiction. When Mr. Bush used his Presidential authority to do what numerous federal courts have already ruled Constitutional and legal, and do something that has been done by every president since Jimmy Carter, Sen. Schumer was certain that Mr. Bush has broken a law. Yet, when someone in government delivers secrets to The New York Times, well … Mr. Schumer isn’t really sure that it is really a crime.
The deftness with which today’s Congressional Democrats bend the line separating right and wrong to accommodate political expediency is stunning. Such moral ambiguity is the hallmark of the modern Democrat, who is far more concerned with petty partisan politics than with matters of national security.
Technorati Tags: Politics, Democrats, Congress, National Security, George Bush, Crime