The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

Who's being blind to the obvious. First of all, I provided the link to that article in my last post. Second of all I didn't say Fox wasn't into re-reporting, I just said that "perhaps" they weren't. Then I said "perhaps" they just put through the AP story as a placeholder until their version was done. Perhaps.

I'm not part of the staff at Fox News, I have no idea what reasons they might have for their editorial decisions. I'm just suggesting reasonable alternatives to your paranoid view of the world. So, if Fox published a story that includes all the things you initially found fault for, were you wrong in your initial indignation or are you blinded by the obvious and feel you must remain all puffed up and angry? Perhaps it is all part of a big conspiracy. I don't know. You seem confident you know, but I doubt the confidence is justified.

It is fine with me if you want to stick by the idea that all three headlines said the same thing. You're wrong, but that's fine with me. You're also inconsistent (moving a paragraph two lines forward is a sign of great conspiracy but a less explicit headline is essentially the same as the more explicity one).

Actually, the initial Fox version of the AP story cut 500 words not 200. The later Fox story is 200 words longer than the AP story. Why is the AP whitewashing this vital issue (and what exactly is the scandal in the story? that the president authorized giving heretofore confidential information to a reporter to support its case? that is a standard presidential power and isn't particularly controversial)?

[scaeagles]

Beyond the way it's covered, the political rhetoric is heating up.

The President has the legal authority to declassify information. If he has the power to declassify information, then whatever he authorizes to be released is no longer classified, and therefore it is not a leak of classified information.

The political aspect now comes into play with some clips I just saw of John Kerry, who is as well linking this to Plame, though this is not connected to Plame in any way (as ALL of the articles state). Kerry said (not a direct quote) "The President has said that whoever leaked this information should be fired. I guess all this time he's been looking for himself.".

Well, as I recall, he said whoever leaked Plame should be fired. Kerry knows this, but is choosing to be dishonest.

[wendybeth]

Let the record stand that I was ignorant as to the contents of this thread regarding reporting on the latest info on the Libby investigation. I read the AP account today on Comcast, then switched to Faux News to get their take, as I generally like to post links from there for our conservative friends. (I'm nice that way). I was going to comment on the differences in reporting, both in tone and substance, between the two agencies. Also, on Faux, the story is buried under the stunning news that the crazy lady from Atlanta (a Dem) had a rather boisterous press conference when she apologised to the DC police.

Uhm, okay. Crazy lady vs complete subversion of Democratic principles and virtually ALL that our government stands for..........

I know this is an excercise in futility. I know what all the Cons will say, and all the Straddlers, and all the Apologists. I really am not interested in arguing semantics anymore- this is an outright admission of the highest breach of security; our President has (apparently) authorized the leak of classified material in a political maneuver to cover his ass and shoot down the naysayers. Naysayers who have a right and an obligation to question the powers that be, all supposedly part of our illustrious system of checks and balances. Libby could be lying, but it sounds like the spin has begun again, and that usually indicates otherwise. I don't give a flying **** what the rational for this was, it's wrong and anyone who supports it is far more 'unpatriotic' than the most rabid Communist or Anarchist. This really makes Nixon look like a choirboy.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

The President has the legal authority to declassify information. If he has the power to declassify information, then whatever he authorizes to be released is no longer classified, and therefore it is not a leak of classified information.

Then why not annouce it at a press conference and be up front with the public about it? He didn't do that. He's been avidly outspoken about newspapers leaking vital information which he believes compromises us. Yet he can do it. Isn't that hypocrisy?

Chicago on Sept. 30, 2003 (at a meeting with business leaders)

Q: Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

Source

[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.

[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."

[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 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.

[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".

[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?