|
|||
Where is the outpouring of grief in the newspaper editorial columns of San Francisco for this young woman? Where are the feature stories about her? What does it say about an editorial voice when it expresses more concern for the parents of a traitor and for the traitor himself than for the widow of a man who died in the service of his country? (discuss) Imagine world peace. "Mike understood it's not enough simply to dream of a better, safer world. He understood it has to be built." Damned straight. Update: Henry writes as follows: "Just watching CNBC... Andrea Mitchell said today was the first day she had revealed her identity and it was her choice. Spann's co-workers could not attend the ceremony because of their cover. Hopefully the media will write more about her now that she has allowed them to reveal her name..." Fair enough; let's see what happens. Update: Kevin writes: "I think the part your reader left out is that Mrs. Spann is (was) also an undercover CIA officer. Obviously, now that she's a public figure she can no longer work undercover, although I'm sure she has the option of a desk job in langley." On the other hand, Aaron writes: "Am I misinterpreting what Henry and/or Andrea Mitchell are trying to say? Shannon Spann's identity was known long before yesterday. In fact, the CIA itself identified her by name in a press release all the way back on November 28, and her name's been all over the news ever since." Update: My God! There is intelligent life in San Francisco! (Thanks, Fredrick) |
|||
