I forget: Did you make a similar post after Valerie Plame's identity was leaked?
Shira, understand you are asking this of a very dishonest poster, pjabber.
I normally do not waste time on him, but since you ask:
He has only one post on Plame - also contrasting her with WikiLeaks.
And no, he did not make a 'similar post', he was an apologist for outing Plame:
"For all of the fake outrage about identifying Plame as a CIA employee, one who was long finished with any covert involvement in the CIA..."
He spouted the right-wing spin lie that Plame 'was long since not an undercover operative'.
There are two lies. One is that the CIA itself took the unusual step of saying she was, contradicting pjabber.
The second is the fact that she had a long history of it - and exposing her put people she had worked with in the past, who did not know she was, in danger.
It could also put her in danger from people she had worked with who did not know.
A third lie pjabber did not post but others on the right did was that 'everyone knew' she was a spy because some obscure Cuban had said she was, IIRC.
So, you are right on target in saying we're talking about people lacking principle.
And this wasn't an exposure for a 'principled reason' - like trying to throw a monkey wrench into the operation that is murdering people wrongly.
It's the basest political act to put a man's wife and others in danger *because he had the gall to tell the truth about the administration lying*.
Even the administration had to admit they were wrong to have put a lie *in the state of the union* - and yet pursued retribution for telling the truth that made them admit it.
Pjabber further lies in putting this all on Armitage, when it was found that there were two, unrelated leaks - Armitage's careless leak, and Libby's conspiratorial one.
That's like saying a guy who sets off a bomb to kill someone isn't doing anything wrong if, unknown to him, someone else had negligently started a fire in the same building.
So, to answer your question, while he wasn't posting here at the time Plame was exposed, he has not ever posted something similar here about Plame.
The right has some who try this sort of thing all the time - when liberals want to end a war, they'll say they're 'murderers' for anyone who they claim is hurt by doing so.
Everyone hurt by the war being started in the first place, of course, well they're just heroes who were on a noble cause and that's ok.
Or there's the old favorite when the early casualties are painful, saying that the war has to continue or the casualties so far will have their sacrifice wasted.
Never any hint that they were already wasted by a wrong war decision they likely supported - only that more casualties are needed because of the other casualties.
This sort of 'logic' can perpetuate just about any war no matter how wrong. That does seem to wear off as an argument, though, eventually as people tire of casualties.
Facebook
Twitter