The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

If one's only source of news was Fox, they would not be getting the whole story. Not to mention the whole backstory.
Moving the paragraph isn't a big deal. But what is the reason for doing that?

What is the reason for less than descriptive AP and CNN headlines, which I interpret to be done in such a way as to intentionally make the casual news headline reader link Bush to the Plame leak?

Like Alex said, anyone can find bias wherever they choose to do so.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

What is the reason for less than descriptive AP and CNN headlines, which I interpret to be done in such a way as to intentionally make the casual news headline reader link Bush to the Plame leak?

All three headlines say the same thing.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Like Alex said, anyone can find bias wherever they choose to do so.

And anyone can choose to be blind about the obvious when they want to.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

And anyone can choose to be blind about the obvious when they want to.

On that we can certainly agree.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

All three headlines say the same thing.

And anyone can choose to be blind about the obvious when they want to.

Yes, and everybody will find different things obvious.

All three headlines do not say the same thing. In an article about the Valerie Plame case (where the charge is that someone illegally leaked the name of Plame) the AP headline says:

Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak

In case involving an illegal leak, what leak do you think this headline would refer to?

The CNN headline says:

Libby court papers: Cheney said Bush OK'd intelligence leak

This headline give the information that the leak probably wasn't Valerie Plame's name (but that depends on whether you consider that an intelligence leak). It also contains the clarification that CNN inserted in the article that Libby doens't know what Bush said but just what Cheney told him Bush said.

The Fox headline says:

Libby: Bush Authorized Leaks About Iraq

This one specifically says that Bush authorized a leak but removes the possibility that it was Plame's name.


Sure, it is easy to argue that Fox was trying to diffuse the story by making this point clear from the beginning. But it is equally easy to argue that the AP was trying to make it a bigger story than it is by obfuscating that point. Pick the bias you want. All three headlines are true but they don't all say the same thing and if you think they do, then who is being blind to the obvious?

As for the background information, even if Fox News is your only source do you think that this is the only article they've ever had on the entire Valerie Plame affair? Perhaps they feel it unnecessary to re-report the entire trial and history every time there is a development. I don't know. Perhaps they were just letting it in as a placeholder until they got their own reporting of the story together. A version that comes in at a whole 200 words more than the AP version and seems to have all the background information you felt to be missing.

Fox News leans to the right and AP leans to the left (though not far). They all lean in some direction.

[Gemini Cricket]

Fox'News' is trying to brush this controversy under the carpet and ignore it. Just like the Bush administration is. The news media is supposed to be a unbiased look at every issue. Fox'News' is trying to cover the president's butt. If the AP is left leaning, then why would they use their reporting for their stories at all? The Fox version of the story still implies Plame's identity was leaked. And backstory is common in reporting any issue to fill the reader in on the events had they not previously heard about before reading the article. Lots of times when there is a development on any issue, a retelling of the issue is included in the article. Cutting 200 words is a lot. Contrary to what you may feel, it is a big story.

I stick to what I said about the headlines. All three say the same thing.

[Gemini Cricket]

Fox'News' has a new article up about the story:

Libby: Bush Authorized Leaks About Iraq

Thursday , April 06, 2006

WASHINGTON — President Bush was defending the War on Terror to an audience in North Carolina on Thursday, just as word came that newly filed court documents reveal Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney authorized Cheney's former chief of staff to release classified information about Iraq in July 2003.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the only person indicted in the ongoing CIA leak investigation, told a grand jury that he had permission to discuss with reporters the National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq weapons systems.

Nothing in the papers indicate Bush or Cheney told Libby to reveal the name of CIA analyst Valerie Plame, nor do they suggest that either the president or vice president did anything illegal. But the documents do hint at more problems for the administration since some may show a plan to punish one of its critics, Plame's husband, Amb. Joe Wilson.

The new information is contained in 39 pages of arguments filed late Wednesday by prosecutors as part of an attempt to block subpoenas filed by Libby's lawyers that could force high-ranking officials to testify, including former CIA Director George Tenet and Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove.

Libby was Cheney's former chief of staff until he resigned last fall as a result of the indictment. He faces obstruction of justice charges and is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters who revealed Plame's identity.

Libby's lawyers have claimed that he might have been confused about his conversations from more than two years prior to his grand jury testimony, but he didn't intentionally mislead investigators.

According to the documents, Cheney told Libby to pass on portions of the National Intelligence Estimate to the press. Libby apparently wasn't satisfied with that request so Cheney got backing from Bush, then repeated his request to Libby to pass on the information. The president has the authority to declassify, and in fact, days later, the entire intelligence estimate was released to the press. The estimate did not discuss Plame.

Cheney told FOX News earlier this year that he too has authority to declassify information.

"There is an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president," Cheney said in February.

But the revelation didn't stop Bush critics from decrying the latest revelation.

"In light of today's shocking revelation, President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information. The American people must know the truth," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put the interests of his political party ahead of Americas security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said.

The NIE said that Iraq was vigorously pursuing yellowcake uranium from Niger, which was contradictory to critics of the administration, including Wilson, who led an envoy to investigate the allegations that Iraq was seeking the nuclear material from the African country.

Wilson's report from his trip to Niger said former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had not obtained additional uranium from Niger, though he had obtained uranium from that country in the past. Wilson also noted that a former official in Niger said the Iraqis were seeking "better commercial relations" and since they had never bought anything except uranium from Niger, the official interpreted that as an effort to get more uranium. The Iraqis efforts were foiled, however, by the fact an international consortium controlled the mining, making it almost impossible to get the uranium on the sly.

Wilson left out those elements from an op-ed he wrote in which he blasted the president. The column was published in The New York Times in July 2003, and led to the release of the NIE. It also triggered the sequence of events that resulted in officials mentioning that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Plame was part of the group that made the decision to send Wilson on the mission to investigate Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Niger.

The closest the NIE comes to discussing the Plame matter is that it includes a reference to Iraq "vigorously trying to procure uranium," which British intelligence continued to assert from sources other than those the United States was citing.

According to the documents filed Wednesday, the authorization to discuss the NIE led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

Libby's participation in that conversation with Miller "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate," according to the papers filed by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

The filing did not clarify what was contained in the "certain information."

"Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller — getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval — were unique in his recollection," the papers added.

Miller later went to jail for more than 80 days while refusing to testify until Libby released her from their confidentiality agreement.

In its latest filing, federal prosecutors say some of the documents it has turned up during its investigation "could be characterized as reflecting a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson."

Additionally, the documents say that Libby has mentioned "bureaucratic infighting over responsibility for the 'sixteen words,' " a reference to the 16 words that Bush used to describe Iraq's connection to Niger in his 2003 State of the Union address.

Hmm, this one's much longer and there's backstory now... I thought they weren't into re-reporting...?

[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