Would it be better to pin the Plame affair on Karl Rove or Judith Miller?
It would be better to pin the Plame affair on Karl Rove AND Judith Miller.
Matt Yglesias argues, with some cogency, that given a choice between an outcome to the Valerie Plame affair that demolished Judith Miller and one that demolished Karl Rove, the Miller demolition would be preferable.
I can see Matt’s argument — that Rove would be replaced by another Bush acolyte, while Miller might not be replaced by another Chalabi sock puppet — but that seems to me to ignore both the damage done to Bush by the indictment of his chief political operative for espionage and the likely gap in competence and ruthlessness between Rove and his replacement.
On a deeper level, Matt’s argument violates the Raiffa Principle: when offered a choice between A and B, always ask, “Why can’t I have both?”
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist
Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
View all posts by Mark Kleiman