[lentulusgracchus]

How about we hypothetically roll the clock back 35 years to say, 1971 when there was a real and tangible nuclear threat from the Soviet Union.

Not a good year for your analogy, sorry.

That was the year the Pentagon Papers were all the rage, and Neil Sheehan was being lionized. Daniel Ellsberg never spent a day in jail. I remember coming on watch at my shore station in the Navy and seeing my watchstanders sitting around, before going on duty, reading the Pentagon Papers in the Miami newspaper. We were reading stuff there that most of us weren't cleared for on the job.

Dana Priest didn't get a Pulitzer for her great writing. She got it for damaging the foreign policy of a hated Republican administration. Nobody got Pulitzers for dishing the goods about Monica's dress; and whereas the "Plumbers" all went to prison, Sidney Blumenthal, who was actively retailing the "mad Monica" theory until the blue dress surfaced and proved different, is still running around telling lies for his favorite liars.

[mkjessup]

Nothing personal, but I think I'll go with Post # 12.

[HawaiianGecko]

Dana Priest didn't get a Pulitzer for her great writing.

That's been my thought ever since she received the prize. What exactly did she do to earn the prize? Was her writing itself spectacular? Did she spend months digging for information? Is she being honored for convincing a career employee of the CIA to forsake her country? Or did a story simply fall into her lap as easily as it could have been dropped on any journalist? 

Dana Priest will display her Pulitzer with pride. At best, I'd be ashamed for earning such a coveted prize the way she did, or upset that such a prize has turned into a political football and the judges thought of me.