Here is what I feel about the whole Scott McClelland thing. I haven't read his book but I will read it and I did watch his interview on Olbermann last night. What he is saying is important in that it is confirmation of what has been thought. However, if I am completely honest with myself and give an honest and accurate reflection, my actual thought is that I despise a snitch. I'm going to link you to Peggy Noonan's column from today's WSJ where she writes, "And Americans in general have a visceral and instinctive dislike for what Drudge called a snitch. This is our tradition, and also human nature."
I obviously agree with her analysis, and wish that I could somehow prove that I felt that way before she wrote it -- I did tell my girlfriend that I despise a snitch last night before the column even came out-- but that is not as important as the fact that this is truly what I feel. What I mean by that is, I despise the person who helps perpetrate wrong, or who helps carry out wrong and then AFTER the fact, speaks up and turns on the others. As a lawyer of course, I know that this is common place and can be quite helpful to the government in securing convictions. It is also helpful to the snitch in getting a plea deal.
I think that McClellan's book, no matter how much I despise a snitch can also be helpful to our government. It adds a level of insight into important missteps which has been missing. I also think that through an historical lense, McClellan will also get a better deal from the public because he DID say something, he DID speak up, even if it is after the fact
Again, I have not read the book yet, but Peggy has and you should read her column here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Is he a snitch or a traitor, the distinction may not be a clear one - but I would say a snitch is changing sides just to cover his ass, while a traitor is changing sides because he has changed his mind - a lot of snitches would argue they are just traitors. I don't know where I am going with this, but its not like he chickened out to avoid prison, or somehow got "caught". He used to be for Bush and now he is against him , I think we should embrace him with open arms - or atleast only call him a traitor which he is but I think thats better than still being for bush
Well, I am fine with calling him either a snitch or a traitor. I just don't really care for him. And, while it's probably true that being a traitor is better than being with or for Bush, I don't think we should embrace him because that buys into the whole "you're either with us or against us" false dichotomy. I don't think he is either with us or against us, I think we should accept what he writes as both confirmation and insight. But embrace him? I don't think we should do that.
Post a Comment