The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Isn't that hypocrisy?

That I will agree with. He should have come out and just told the info, not done a back channel. Hypocritical, yes. Illegal, no. Politically motivated, yes. Uncommon, no.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

That I will agree with. He should have come out and just told the info, not done a back channel. Hypocritical, yes. Illegal, no. Politically motivated, yes. Uncommon, no.

I agree with this. Bush can make de-classify any classified information he desires. There's a formal procedure which he didn't follow, and it was done for purely political motives ... but it's not illegal and it's not unique.

It is hypocritical and Bush is taking a bit of heat for it. Not only because it looks so craven ... but because, for the first time, Bush is implicated in the chain of events that led to the outting of Valerie Plame.

It is believed that Libby leaked Plame's identity to Judith Miller of the NY Times during the same conversations that he leaked the information declassified by the President, under the President's order to leak the information. And while there is no testimony yet known that Bush specifically ordered the leak of Plame's identity ... Bush is now knee-deep in this mess - since the order to leak was a direct effort to defend the Adminstration against the published allegations of Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband.

If the ordered de-classification leak were not directly tied to discrediting Wilson, Bush would have some plausable deniability. But now that grand jury testimony links Bush to the defense-manuever leak that also resulted in revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative, this treasonous mess is lapping at the president's feet ... any may yet pull him under.

[SacTown Chronic]

Fvcking the neigbor's wife wouldn't make me a criminal, but it would make me a total asshole.

Leaking classified intelligence in an attempt to boost support for a war that he so desperately wanted and then parading around the country claiming that "no president wants war" makes Bush a total asshole.

Leaking classified intelligence in an attempt to boost support for a war he so desperately wanted and then calling the leaking of his illegal wiretapping activities a "shameful act" makes Bush a total asshole.

I think he's channeling John Kerry: "I was for leaking classified intelligence information before I was against it."

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Leaking classified intelligence in an attempt to boost support for a war that he so desperately wanted and then parading around the country claiming that "no president wants war" makes Bush a total asshole.

While I can see that point of view, I don't think the leaking of that info meant he wanted war, it was an issue of showing why he thought war was necessary. I understand we will never see eye to eye on it.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I don't think the leaking of that info meant he wanted war,

Are you saying Bush didn't want this war and did everything in his power to avoid it? Or are you simply saying that the leaking of intelligence isn't evidence that he wanted war?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Are you saying Bush didn't want this war and did everything in his power to avoid it? Or are you simply saying that the leaking of intelligence isn't evidence that he wanted war?

I'm saying the second, as it was done to show (and build public support, no doubt) why he thought war was necessary.

I do believe the first as well, with a caveat, being that of course he didn't do everything. He could have simply ignored it and let the UN continue to appease Saddam and issue more and more ignored resolutions. He didn't do everything, but I think he did enough, and I firmly believe that it was Saddam who firced the war, not Bush. Saddam starts abiding by the agreements from the cease fire, no war. It's that simple to me.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Leaking classified intelligence in an attempt to boost support for a war he so desperately wanted and then calling the leaking of his illegal wiretapping activities a "shameful act" makes Bush a total asshole.

Just as a point of order, it is impossible for the president to leak classified information since by the very fact of him giving permission for its distribution it is no longer classified.

I challenge you to find a president who didn't bemoan unauthorized leaks while simultaneously targetting information releases to preferred journalists, frequently "off the record." I know how hated it is to say "but previous presidents did it" but previous presidents have always done it (at least in the modern political era going back to WWII). Howard Kurtz (of the Washington Post) wrote a fantastic book about it in 1998 call Spin Cycle: How the White House and the Media Manipulate the News. While the case in point was the Clinton White House it wasn't hardly making the case that it was unusual or unique.

Just because Bush has been better than most at supressing the unauthorized leaks from the White House, I don't see as an argument for hypocrisy at using using authorized "leaks." John Dickerson at Slate wrote an interesting piece yesterday about this and I think he mostly gets it right (though I disagree with him on whether this constitutes hypocrisy). But the point he makes that I think is key is that because Bush has so successfully suppressed unauthorized leaks you kind of have to begin to assume that anything that appears to be an unauthorized leak may actually be authorized.

Would I prefer Bush had just openly made his case, absolutely. Am I outraged that he did it through time-honored Washington back-corridor methods? Not really, just disappointed.


As for is Iraq a civil war*, to a degree it is just semantics, but I'd say that it is about as much a civil war as the Watts Riots and similar actions were back in the '60s. At the top levels the leadership of the various sides seem to still be working at resolution. I think reasonable people can argue either way though applying the term or not doesn't really change anything.


* The other Jon Stewart did get off the absolutely brilliant line about how we had our own Civil War and just 150 years later blacks and whites (showing Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Powell) came together to start one in another country.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Just as a point of order, it is impossible for the president to leak classified information since by the very fact of him giving permission for its distribution it is no longer classified.

Yeah, I know. But my anti-Bush bias compells me to call it "leaking classified intelligence" instead of "declassifying intelligence". I'm jerky that way.

[Gemini Cricket]

Getting back to the randomness of this thread, which I derailed, I apologize:

Is Iraq in a civil war? At what point would it be classified as one? And why would being classified as one be of vital importance compared to the fact that it's just a mess period?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Is Iraq in a civil war? At what point would it be classified as one?

Historically, I would say no. Looking at the amounts of bloodshed in what is typically deemed a civil war, Iraq is nowhere close. I would look at it more like I would a Bosnia, in that racial and religious hatred dating back to the beginning of time was leading to violence that required UN peacekeepers to quell the worst of it. While not a perfect analogy, I think that's closer than "civil war".