I had been wondering if Susan Lindauer (the ex-Congressional aide recently indicted for being an agent of Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi government) was a consciously traitorous person. Did she knowingly, willfully engage in acts that she understood to be treasonous? Or was she merely extremely naïve (and unable to comprehend the meaning of the oath she swore as a civil servant of the United States)?

She has stupidly begun talking to the press, which reveals a good deal about her character and her perspective on the world:

A woman accused of acting as a paid Iraqi intelligence agent said Wednesday she is misunderstood and was only trying to help prevent a war in Iraq.

Susan Lindauer told The Associated Press she was being punished because she got involved in U.S. foreign policy. She said her intent was to persuade Iraq to allow weapons inspections before the war and to get it to cooperate with the war on terror.

“What I did was never illegal,” she said. “I never participated in activities that would create violence against this country.”

“It is utter hypocrisy for government officials to pontificate about their own commitment to important projects and then reject or resist the participation of Americans in those projects,” she said.

There is an emoticon in use on the internet that I think is most appropriate in classifying my reaction to this.

:O

Let’s examine the principles and the intellect revealed by Lindauer’s statements.

Susan Lindauer told The Associated Press she was being punished because she got involved in U.S. foreign policy.

Um, yeah. You are being punished for interfering in U.S. foreign policy. It’s illegal, as well as inappropriate, immoral, and stupid. Duh.

She said her intent was to persuade Iraq to allow weapons inspections before the war and to get it to cooperate with the war on terror.

Was this woman living in a cave? Did she really think that Saddam Hussein would listen to her when the attempts of world leaders for over a decade had failed to do so? Did she really not grasp the fact that Saddam was part of the terror in the world? That he was financing it?

“I never participated in activities that would create violence against this country.”

The Smoking Gun, as usual, has obtained a copy of the relevant indictment documents. They are rather detailed, but the “overt acts” that Lindauer committed include meeting with agents of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, traveling to Iraq as their guest, accepting a task from them, and accepting cash payments in various amounts.

That constitutes material support of an enemy government, a government that was actively engaged in training, financing, and facilitating acts of terrorism all over the world. People died in those terrorist acts, many of them Americans.

“It is utter hypocrisy for government officials to pontificate about their own commitment to important projects and then reject or resist the participation of Americans in those projects.”

No, Ms. Lindauer, you don’t get to be high and mighty about this. You have no moral high ground here. You don’t get to act as if you were acting in my best interests, you arrogant, stupid, moralizing bitch.

There is an established mechanism for citizens to get involved in their government. It’s called an election. Start a blog, for Christ’s sake. Write a newsletter. Stage a protest. But you do not take money and orders from agents of an enemy government, especially when you yourself are a United States Government employee.

You fucking got that, Susan?

Her contempt toward the United States is palpable. She talks about “government officials”, as if she were not one herself. Susan, when you disagree with the policies and procedures of the government, you cannot become an employee of that government and then work from within the system to subvert the efforts of the President and his staff to run this country.

That’s called treason. Are you listening, Susan?

If you hated the government so Goddamn much, then you shouldn’t have been working for it. The government is not being hypocritical in preventing you from subverting it. They are protecting this country from its enemies. For that is clearly what you are; the enemy.

Gavin Newsom, the Mayor of San Francisco who has made headlines by approving the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples, is another example of this subversion, although not at Susan Lindauer’s level of seriousness.

If he did not approve of the way the system was working, he should not become part of that system and then defy and subvert it. That is not an appropriate sort of activity for a government employee. It is an abuse of his power and authority as Mayor of the city.

So what does all this mean? That Democrats can’t be trusted in government? Well, we already knew that. But this is what happens when the flower children of the 60’s, accustomed to fighting the Establishment and engaging in various acts of civil resistance, grow up and take jobs within the Establishment itself. The mentality doesn’t change. They continue to fight the Establishment in spite of being part of it, in spite of being charged with its support and execution.

This is called infiltration; getting inside a system you wish to destroy by pretending to be part of it and then subverting and obstructing it at every opportunity. It’s the sort of thing enemies do.

You got that, Susan?

3 Responses to “Susan Lindauer: Enemy of the State”
  1. Joeri says:

    A few things.

    Susan Lindauer is accused, not guilty. Until a court of law finds her guilty of the things mentioned in the TSG documents, she should be considered innocent.

    Secondly, she’s accused of accepting money from a country listed under the export administration act as countries knowingly supporting terrorism, without reporting it to the appropriate instances, and also of conspiring with people who gave information about iraqi defectors to the iraqi government.

    With regards to the first accusation, at the time she received that payment (in 2002), the EAC had lapsed (in late 2001), reverting export controls to emergency powers enacted by the president, which are a lot vaguer, and which she might not have violated.

    As for the second accusation, the documents have zero evidence for that. There is no evidence whatsoever that she actively helped people pass information about iraqi defectors to the iraqi government. It is also not necessarily treasonous to do that, unless those iraqi defectors were helping the US government (which after the iraq war has become clear they weren’t, since none of their wmd claims have held true).

    She is not accused in those documents of giving information that could harm the united states to the iraqi’s. Now, she got paid, so she must have done something, but they don’t know what, so again, she should have the benefit of the doubt.

    Anyway, she could very well be telling the truth. That iraq hired her to try to keep war from happening. That wouldn’t have been a treasonous thing, unless it’s treasonous to try to avoid the death of your fellow countrymen in all-out war.

    To me this could go two ways, either she did sell out the US government, in which case they’ll have to provide some actual evidence that she did (after all, a fair trial is a human right). Or this is a political character assassination. She stepped on the wrong toes, and now they’re out to get her. It happens all the time, in all countries, and the press is most often very willing to cooperate in exchange for insider info. Both cases would explain her agitation, in the first it would caused by guilt and fear, in the second by anger and indignation.

  2. J.D. says:

    I am always amused when the commentaries to a blog are mor inteeligent and insightful than the blogger.

  3. reb news says:

    pretty interesting reading this now that ALL CHARGES WERE DROPPED – but only after silencing her for 5 years… What’s your response now?

Leave a Reply