I dunno how many of you are following the "Able Danger" revelations but it's like a really bad episode of Divorce Court. On Divorce Court, the idea was, at least back when I occasionally watched it, to swing the spectators' emotions back and forth. Some witness would reveal that the husband did something worthy of the Anti-Christ on a bad hair day while the wife was the soul of honesty and goodness. Then the next witness (or perhaps cross-examination of the same witness) would reveal additional details about the incident that cast both players in the opposite light. Like a witness would say, "He [meaning the husband] was in the bathroom shooting himself with drugs while she [the wife] was out collecting donations for charity." Then the follow-up testimony would reveal that the husband was a diabetic injecting himself with insulin and the wife had been convicted several times of running a phony charity scam and using the money she collected to fund child pornography.
That was the formula: Load the argument for one side, then for the other. On some shows, they'd go back and forth a few times before the judge would grant the divorce and divide the property on a more-or-less 50/50 basis.
For the last few days, there have been new revelations every few hours about this government intelligence program called "Able Danger." Some of these stories seem to be collapsing out of sheer improbability. Others may have some real substance…and as the accounts bounce back and forth like Divorce Court testimony, it's almost been fun watching the various political blogs and pundits play their hands. No one yet knows to what extent this scandal can be used to blame 9/11 on the Clinton administration or the Bush administration, but it has the makings of being good for one or the other. So, near as I can tell, the strategy sounds like this: "There's nothing there…unless, of course, this can be used against our political opponents — in which case, it's a bombshell, an undisputed fact and the smokiest of smoking guns."
Both extreme Liberal and extreme Conservative sites are urging caution…and it's not like either group is terribly afraid of publishing false, unverified rumors. Some of these sites will post any damn thing as long as it's determental to the other side. No, they're being cautious about committing to a firm position before they see where this thing is going to point. No one wants to say, "Whoever did this has the blood of the 9/11 victims on their hands" until they're sure it won't be their party.
I have a feeling that's going to be said. I'm just curious to see by whom.