The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[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.

[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]

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

On the subject of misleading headlines...

This will only last a short while until MSNBC updates their front page, but check out the top story, about Iran's nuclear announcement. www.msnbc.com

Notice that the bullet point says, "Iran to 'join the club of countries' with nukes, leader say", implying quite blatantly that Iran has admitted to developing nuclear weapons. In reality, of course, the president said they are NOT planning the enriched uranium for "nukes". Now, I'm not saying that that's proof that they aren't, but that's not what he said. Someone felt the need to spin that story lead.

[Alex]

It now reads "Iran: Joining nuclear 'club' soon"

[wendybeth]

In other news, karma is biting someone's backside: Katherine Harriss on the outs with GOP.

Heh heh....might we expect an embittered tell-all book soon?

[Drince88]

Random Political Thought:
WHEN will this election be over? (And election day isn't until 4/22! - and there's just about a lock that there will be a run-off for New Orleans Mayor - only 23 candidates - there is no way one person is going to get 50%+1 of the vote!)

[JWBear]

Bush's supporters can play all the linguistic games they want. It doesn't change the fact that the White House made the identity of a covert CIA operative public in order to punish her husband for telling the truth.

If a Democratic administration had done the same thing, Republicans would be up in arms. But since it was a Republican administration, all we get are justifications and word games.

[Gemini Cricket]

If we attack Iran next, will there be a draft?