Wonderland

Best of the Web has excellent analysis today pointing out the egregious state of the media penetration of the government. For example, The AP reports:

A law enforcement official confirmed there was a criminal investigation under way and said the CIA officer had provided information that contributed to a Washington Post story last year saying there were secret U.S. prisons in Eastern Europe. The law enforcement official spoke only on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the matter. . . .

On Friday, another government official, also speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, said the fired officer had failed a polygraph test.

What should one do with "sensitive information?" Why leak it to the press on condition of anonymity!

When the press speaks of its adversary relationship with government, it isn't kidding. It uses the tactics of intelligence operations to undermine its enemy, with a huge "leak network" of government officials who seem to be as jaded and careless about their responsibilities as Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen.

What makes it "sensitive" anyway? "Sensitive" is the euphemism for "Secret." There no longer seems to be a concept of necessary secrecy, or confidentiality. If the release of some information would hurt the country or individuals, who cares, as long as it hurts the current administration? If nobody in Washington can be trusted anymore, we no longer have a democracy.

Michael Medved's first hour this afternoon is about the concept of good vs. evil. It's shocking how many people have adopted the postmodern view that everybody has his own truth, and that one person's good may be another's evil. Not only that, but it is now considered evil to call someone else "evil," and people say so without the slightest sense of irony. They demand peace but their emotions are not peaceful. They're full of hatred, anger and bitterness.

As Daniel Henniger has written,

Conservatives do believe in evil, and liberals either no longer do or they don't wish to allow the idea of evil to be explicit in our politics. I would guess that . . . most of the people working on John Kerry's campaign . . . would never ask Mr. Kerry to say in public that the beheadings are "evil." Or if he did, it would be merely as a tactical concession for the moment to the "moral vocabulary" of the world inhabited by the sort of people who support George Bush.

Consider the words of John Kerry:

Thirty-five years later, in another war gone off course, I see history repeating itself. It is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a president who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a course in Iraq that weakens the nation. Again, we must refuse to sit quietly and watch our troops sacrificed for a policy that isn't working while Americans who dissent and ask tough questions are branded unpatriotic.

Just as it was in 1971, it is again right to make clear that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves the American people and our principles.

It seems that Mr. Kerry has a sense of wrong and right, but it seems to be based on a political model rather than one of morality.