posted
For those who have supported Mr. Bush in the past, I would like to know if the recent news is affecting that support in any way.
Today's news includes the Administrations response to the accusation that the President authorized the release of classified information. Mr. McClellan has responded to questions about this issue not with a denial, but with a carefully worded statement drawing a distinction between releases of classified information that are "for the good of the country" versus those that "harm the country."
And,...
According to the Washington Post Alberto Gonzales has now testified before the Senate that purely domestic wiretaps without any warrant (even the after-the-fact FISA ones) would be legal if the President ordered them.
To my mind, this is just laying the groundwork for coming revelation regarding the fact that these wiretaps have already taken place. But hey, I'm cynical and have stated numerous times why I despise the guy.
I'm just wondering how much support he still retains among people who actually started out liking him.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a problem with it if there is a non american involved in the conversation...since that person should not be protected by american privacy laws.
I would have a problem with it if they were listening to 2 american citizens without court approval.
Either way, I don't really like the way the article was written. The base the article around one line that Gonzales said, where he was answering a question...but they don't give the text of the question he was answering. From that line they wrote an article full of conjecture. It would have been better if they had put more meat in the story, so we could know exactly what was being debated.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I started out not liking Bush, but started liking him more when he managed to successfully invade Afghanistan (something I don't think anyone's done since Genghis Khan) just as winter was coming on. Every time I hear him slandered I like him better, just by comparison.
When I heard his admin defending wiretaps w/o warrant, I like him less.
When I hear this thing about a leak . . . a leak is an unauthorized disclosure. The President can't authorize a leak, because when he authorizes it, it isn't a leak. Did this declassification harm the country? I don't know what was in it. Certainly I don't think that all classified information must remain classified until the end of time.
OTOH, he's not very eager to defend himself. When he lets this go, without that very simple refutation -- and I am certain he will -- that makes me like him a little less.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You were impressed that the US could take out the Taliban? I wasn't aware anyone ever thought the US would fail in invading Afghanistan. I've heard people question the ability for the US to set up a real democracy afterwards, however.
Also, I disagree that the President can't authorize a leak. If the end result of it is the same, it doesn't matter if it was "authorized" or not. At least, I certainly don't think it should matter.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Mr. McClellan has responded to questions about this issue not with a denial, but with a carefully worded statement drawing a distinction between releases of classified information that are "for the good of the country" versus those that "harm the country."
I'm not a fan of our president--I suspect you know that. But I have to ask, are you saying this is not a valid distinction to draw?
(Educate me, also: if the president authorizes the release/"leaking" of classified information, is it effectively declassified now, or is the definition I'm working with incomplete?)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As we've soundly failed in establishing a real democracy in Afghanistan, questioning our ability to do so wasn't far out of line.
As for Afghanistan being difficult to invade, however, Afghanistan had no military forces to speak of to oppose us with. The only successful insurgents in the country (who actually controlled most of the country, territory-wise, before we even invaded) were on our side, and they don't care about us now because we've let them retain power (and run lots of drugs, and rule their controlled areas undemocratically).
Heck, the only reasons the Afghan insurgents were able to kick out the Soviets (they spent several years being massacred before having any successes, even with the American/Pakistani training and small arms they were getting) were bountiful supplies of stinger missiles from America and political instability in the USSR. And its not like there was a great history of resisting overthrowing before then; I mean, the government the soviets toppled had started with a coup by non-military forces when the King was on vacation!
posted
In terms of the "leak" maybe I should say that if the President "authorizes" it, technically it is not a leak (from my understanding). Yet if it is authorized for the wrong reasons, or declassified in the same sense as a "leak" is, then while it may not technically be a leak, for all other purposes it still may be one.
(It's rather late, so I hope I am stating my opinion somewhat clearly)
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: I started out not liking Bush, but started liking him more when he managed to successfully invade Afghanistan (something I don't think anyone's done since Genghis Khan) just as winter was coming on.
In a, "Yay, we're America, it's time a President started throwing his weight around and playing Chief of Police of the World" kind of way?
What I heard on the radio was that when asked about the President authorizing the leaks that Libby is charged with "leaking" (there, I'll used quotation marks around it), Scott McClellan didn't deny that the President gave Cheney the go-ahead, didn't confirm or deny actually...just said something about it there being a difference between disclosing classified information if it helps the country, versus if it hurts the country.
Yes, that's true, but he didn't answer the question.
And, last I heard, "the President did it, so it's no longer classified" is not correct. If material is classified, the mere fact of its being released at the behest of the President is not sufficient to make it now declassified.
I know we're not talking about Valerie Plame's identity here, but Libby is actually accused of releasing stuff that he shouldn't have. If he can point the finger at his bosses and get off, that's okay by me, but there's still the nagging question of whether the stuff was still classified.
I suspect that there are more formal ways to declassify things than a verbal order from the VP to his chief of staff, and that Libby would know that. I suspect there are more formal ways than a word exchanged between the President and the VP too. Like there would be a paper trail somewhere.
If that's the case, then Libby is off the hook for at least part of the charges against him, and the prosecutor is going to look awfully silly.
If there is no paper trail, then I think we have bigger problems.
LUPUS: I wish there was more information too. I think the press in this country is asleep at the switch. Someone should be knocking on Alberto Gonzales' door and asking him to clarify what he means and what (if any) safeguards two American citizens have from a warrantless search. I'm pretty sure we have a body of laws that says they can't do what he has said they can.
If the Patriot Act gave the President powers to order warrantless searches on American citizens, then it went way beyond what its defenders say it did.
If there's some other law out there that allows this, then I think we need to know about it.
The press is doing a really poor job on this issue.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This president did not leak classified information. The administration, with the president's approval, may have authorized the release (or leak, in the sense that the information was not credited to a source) of information that was once classified. Classified information gets declassified everyday. Once classified information get authorized for release by the president or the VP, it is no longer classified. No news here. During the lead-up to the war information needed to explain or backup the administration's position was routinely declassified. For example, all of Secretary Powell's UN presentation to the Security Council was declassified for that presentation.
There is no news here. Sen. Shummer and the democrats have simply spun this without regard to the facts and the law. I've yet to find any report or analysis that says that anything illegal was done here. Even the NY Times and the Washington post have acknowledged as such.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Bush authorized the release of Plame's name, then there most certainly is news here, because of his statements on the subject. Remember, he said he would fire anyone involved in the leak of her name.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mig, in your opinion, was this reaction unethical, regardless of whether or not it was illegal? In other words, is it ethical for a President to blow an agent's cover in order to shut down a critic of his administration, even if the legality of that action is assumed?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, Libby has not alleged that Mr. Bush authorized the release of Plame's cover. Second, Plame was not an agent whose cover could be blown. There is a reason why the Special Prosecuter charged Libby for lying to FBI agents about what he told a couple of reporters. Read the indictment, as I have, Libby is not charged with disclosing the cover of a CIA agent. Plame may have been a CIA employee, but she was not, under the position she held, protected under the law in question because she was not 1) overseas, and 2) she was not, nor had she ever been, undercover. If she was protected under the law, then Libby would have been so charged.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: LUPUS: I wish there was more information too. I think the press in this country is asleep at the switch. Someone should be knocking on Alberto Gonzales' door and asking him to clarify what he means and what (if any) safeguards two American citizens have from a warrantless search.
I agree with you there. I just wish someone would come out and ask him if any of this applies to 2 american citizens talking to eachother, and then publish both the question and the answer without all the comentary. I hate it when a paper/news program has this huge story on an issue, with plenty of commentary but doesn't give you the information that you really need to know.
I find cnn.com to be better about this than most sources, but even they do it sometimes as well.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy news comentary at times...and watch fox news when I am in the mood for it, but on issues like this I would like to see some source give unwatered down facts.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where's your source that she has never been undercover? Every reference I see states she was an undercover agent.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, on the declassification issue: It was my impression, when I read the Executive Order dealing with the classification and declassification of information, that the president or vice-president could declassify information that they had classified in the first place, but that information classified by another agency, say the CIA, had to be declassified by that agency. If that understanding is correct, the president or vice-president can't just go around declassifying anything they want without the participation of the classifying agency. That would make it incorrect to say that just because the president or vice-president discusses classified information, that makes it no longer classified.
As far as my gut feeling about Bush...I honestly have come to the conclusion that Bush and those he has surrounding him make Richard Nixon and his administration look like amateurs in the promotion of an imperial presidency in which the theory is that the president can do anything he wants, any time he wants. I think they are consciously trying to subvert the Constitution and the principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, last I heard, "the President did it, so it's no longer classified" is not correct. If material is classified, the mere fact of its being released at the behest of the President is not sufficient to make it now declassified.
We've covered this extensively in another thread. Can you back up your assertion?
quote:First of all, on the declassification issue: It was my impression, when I read the Executive Order dealing with the classification and declassification of information, that the president or vice-president could declassify information that they had classified in the first place, but that information classified by another agency, say the CIA, had to be declassified by that agency. If that understanding is correct, the president or vice-president can't just go around declassifying anything they want without the participation of the classifying agency. That would make it incorrect to say that just because the president or vice-president discusses classified information, that makes it no longer classified.
Again (this must be the third or fourth time I've posted something like this), the procedures for declassifying something are established by executive order. An executive order does not bind the President, any more than an act of Congress binds Congress.
When Congress passes a law that contradicts another law, it is assumed that the previous law is either repealed or exempted with respect to the new law. SCOTUS has rules about whether a new law repeals or modifies an older one, but there is no dispute that a newer law by Congress can override an older one.
It's the same way with executive orders. An executive order exists based on the President's power. Any act pursuant to that power can be assumed to modify existing executive orders, usually on a one-time basis. To see why this is so, just imagine if a new president was bound by the Executive Orders of his predecessors.
Statutes can affect his ability to do make such exceptions, but there's been no cite to such a statute posted to override the default assumption that the president cannot make case-by-case exceptions to executive orders regarding declassification. If someone knows of such a limiting statute, please cite it.
Unless the procedures for declassifying information are statutorily mandated, those previous executive orders do not prevent Bush from declassifying documents on an ad hoc basis without following the procedure required in those documents.
quote:Today's news includes the Administrations response to the accusation that the President authorized the release of classified information. Mr. McClellan has responded to questions about this issue not with a denial, but with a carefully worded statement drawing a distinction between releases of classified information that are "for the good of the country" versus those that "harm the country."
None of the articles I've found suggest that the information being discussed here included Plame's identity.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
back up what? that a verbal order from the President does not constitute declassification? I'm sorry, but I don't know how to back up that something that isn't true is in fact not true. The process of declassification, as far as I know, includes signatures. On a piece of paper. Ordering that information declassified.
I haven't read the "extensive" discussion on this, so I apologize if this has been covered already. If I'm wrong, and the President truly can declassify material simply by verbally saying so, then I certainly have learned something new. I'd be appalled that there's no paper trail, but then, I'm not the one who would have to do a CYA if I mistakenly released something because of a verbal order that wasn't recorded anywhere.
Seems like a dumb way to run a government, though.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry, but I don't know how to back up that something that isn't true is in fact not true.
Well, you said, "And, last I heard, 'the President did it, so it's no longer classified' is not correct." Where did you hear this?
quote:The process of declassification, as far as I know, includes signatures. On a piece of paper. Ordering that information declassified.
Yes. But the process of declassification is described in an executive order. Executive Orders don't limit future acts of the President any more than laws passed by Congress limit future laws passed by Congress.
quote:I haven't read the "extensive" discussion on this,
I repeated most of it in the post right above yours.
quote:Seems like a dumb way to run a government, though.
Dumb or not, absent some limiting statute (which, again, might exist although no one has been able to point out to me in several threads), that's the law. All your speculation on the effect of this on Libby's case is based on what the law is, not what's silly or not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every time I see the title of this thread, I momentarily picture a hockey player plowing into Bush's stomach, with accompanying "Ooof!" sound effect.
posted
I can definatively state that the President can do whatever he wants with Classified. The only thing holding him back is public/originating agency opinion. All Executive Power, including the power to classify, is derived from the President, so if he spews Classified it is by definition no longer Classified. But if the public or the originating agency get pissed enough, coming out against such action, he would have no choice but to apologize at the very least.
I feel he used that crazy power irresponsibly; to refute a New York Times Op-Ed piece is not in the national interest. While not technically illegal, I think using Presidential authority like that is Nixonesque. And I remember him talking about dealing with whomever leaked that information, and the info out now sort of makes him look shady. Not cool.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Out of curiosity, Dag, would you agree that it's silly?
The idea that the president can make case-by-case decisions about what to classify and what to declassify without following the normal procedure?
No, I don't find that silly at all. In fact, it's necessary.
Whether it was used well (or at all) in this case is an open question. But in general, I find it to be a highly necessary thing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I tried to find some description of the declassification "process" online somewhere, and, apparently it differs agency-by-agency in the federal government. I didn't know that. I honestly thought there were two process: one a time-limited one where things just automatically became declassified after a certain amount of time had passed (barring a re-classification by the government); the other an actual "process" involving written approvals for anything that is declassified prior to the normal elapsed time.
I was aware that the President can order items classified or declassified. What I did NOT know is that the mere act of the President disclosing something made it automatically declassified, no matter that it WAS classified before that point.
I truly thought that the President had to ask an agency to do the declassification, and that the agency in question had to make a review/determination and either recommend for or against.
The item in question in Libby's case is a threat assessment provided to the President on a regular basis by the intelligence services. Potentially, this is something far more serious than Valerie Plame's identity (even if she had been a covert operative in the past).
It indeed makes sense that the Administration can decide to release information from a Secret classified briefing to the public. I would assume that this would happen after at least getting the CIA, NSA, or whichever agencies contributed to that section of the briefing, had had a chance to review the material that might be released in order to (at the very least) advise the President of anything that it would be dangerous to release at that time.
We don't know yet what happened in this case.
What we do know is that the prosecutor has gone after Libby for releasing stuff that was classified, and that now, months into the prosecution, it seems a "verbal" order of declassification was already there.
What seems silly to me (whether it is legal or not), is the failure to keep a record of that decision -- if indeed, no record was kept.
This appears to have been a rather momentous decision in the history of this Administration -- which has a record of not releasing information. The decision came after months of agonizing back & forth regarding the details of the Administration's contention that Iraq posed an immediate threat, and them completely stonewalling regarding their proof of that assertion.
How is it even remotely credible that they would let Libby take the fall for even a minute for releasing classified information if they KNOW they'd already declassified it?
Didn't a reporter go to jail to protect the identinty of a man they could prove HADN'T actually leaked ANYTHING? Why would they let that happen? Doesn't it seem rather heartless to choose Judith Miller as their conduit of this information then leave her hanging out to dry as well?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: What we do know is that the prosecutor has gone after Libby for releasing stuff that was classified, and that now, months into the prosecution, it seems a "verbal" order of declassification was already there.
Scooter Libby was charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to a federal grand jury, NOT with "releasing stuff that was classified." Fitzgerald was VERY clear about that when Libby was indicted.
quote: A top aide to the US vice-president has resigned after being charged with perjury over an investigation into the unmasking of a covert CIA agent.
Lewis Libby, chief-of-staff to Dick Cheney, was also charged with obstruction of justice and making false statements to a federal grand jury.
quote:Dag, what about Bush's statements about firing whomever leaked her name?
Things can be leaked that aren't classified. It refers to unnamed, unofficial giving of information to reporters, not disclosure of classified info. To date, there is no indication that Bush authorized the release of her name. Even if he did, it was still a leak.
As best I can piece together, the key element that Libby is charged with lying about is a conversation in which he was told Plame's name by someone in the administration. Libby's defense is that he misremembered because Plame's name was inconsequential to everything being discussed. The prosecution's claim is that no one would forget anything related to something they were told was authorized by the President.
To be clear, every account I have seen says that what was described as being authorized by the President was the release of info in a NIE, not Plame's name.
It's beginning to sound very plausible that Libby was told Plame's identity in the course of being prepped for this, had no idea she was ever undercover, and mentioned her name to reporters.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I guesss we disagree on what is plausible, although not on much else regarding this issue.
I think there is at least as mcu possibility of her name being "leaked" in retaliation for her husband disagreeing with the party line on Iraq.
I am NOT saying that is what happened for sure, nor am I saying Bush was the source of the info in either case, but I think there is a lot more to this that a simple mistake by Libby.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's still plausible that the release was deliberate. Plausible is a very low standard.
The leaking of her name refuted a very particular point in Wilson's editorial. It was relevant beyond mere retaliation, although that doesn't necessarily justify the release.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reasons I find it impressive that the US successfully invaded Afghanistan are
Nobody's ever done it before, at least since Genghis Kahn; and the UK and USSR both tried.
In Afghanistan, the cities aren't the places to hold; it's the mountains, and that seems to be impossible
Afghanistan is inaccessible without crossing other countries' territory, and none of them are exactly firm allies. The US managed to get Uzbekistan and Pakistan to allow it, despite Pakistanis' sympathy for al-Qaeda.
It happened within a few weeks. Remember how long it took for Desert Storm? It had to happen in a few weeks: winter was coming on. Unless we were willing to give al-Qaeda six months plus to escape.
We did it without any significant number of American troops on the ground.
Finally, I don't hate GWB (or anyone) so much that I will call even such an amazing achievement a failure, simply because he's associated with it.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see no reason whatsoever for the release of information concerning Wilson's wife's formerly secret career other than purely stupid political vindictiveness. If anything at all, the release of Plame's identity as a former* field operative specializing in tracking down rumors of nuclear proliferation bolstered Wilson's claim to expertise on the subject.
Not only was Plame being burned, but all of the CIA's foreign sources who had been in contact with Plame. And those who hadn't been in such contact would likely reevaluate their openness with other possible USintelligence agents. The appearance of having a policy allowing deliberate breach of trust by politicians and their aides, merely for the purpose of engaging in domestic political chicanery, makes it more difficult for foreigners friendly toward US interests to make the decision to actually aid the US. And making it more difficult for foreign friends to trust the USgovernment makes life a LOT easier for less-than-friendly governments and terrorists who wish to penetrate the security that the USintelligence services provide.
And I don't see how that appearance of having a policy allowing deliberate breach of trust can be rectified in the near future. Even IF Cheney authorized the Plame leak: 1) Dubya signed an executive order delegating declassification authority to Cheney 3months before that leak occurred, so no judicial prosecution can be made. 2) Impeachment&conviction is at best a dicey proposition. While it could be argued that the process does allow Congress to overide Presidential and Judicial interpretations of the Law, making that argument successfully before both Houses of Congress would be extremely difficult.
Assuming that Libby was a loose cannon, ie that neither Dubya nor Chaney authorized Libby's Plame leak: Short of Cheney committing political-sepuku on the WhiteHouse lawn for having handpicked the aide who released Plame's identity -- ala the USNavy's "The ship's captain is responsible, even when his actions did not directly cause the shipwreck." -- the US is going to be living with the geopolitical and intelligence fallout from the Plame leak for many years to come.
* And possible future field operative if Plame's career hadn't been exposed. Working as a CIA analyst doesn't mean that reactivation into the field ceases to be an option.
We haven't been in Afghanistan very long, man. Being amazed at not seeing a conventional military defeat there when we've essentially given it back to Afghanis is pretty strange.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's still plausible that the release was deliberate. Plausible is a very low standard.
Dag, I'm actually much more interested in hearing your opinion of the ethics involved, not the legality.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will, you have a somewhat flawed grasp of the international relations of the area (coincidentally, I'm taking a course from one of the world's foremost experts in the area, which has been extremely helpful in my understanding).
First, as noted, the Soviets certainly held onto it longer than we did. This is particularly true if you realize the state the soviets invaded was a close ally, nearing puppet state status; however, they realized that regime was soon to fall, so proceeded under the Brezhnev doctrine.
Furthermore, the Soviets were in no danger of losing it whatsoever until we started supplying the Mujahedeen with real-time intelligence and stinger missiles. The stingers were the only thing that allowed the Afghanis to fight effectively against soviet attack helicopters capable of entering the mountains and wiping out entire troops of mujahedeen.
Nobody's supplying the current resistance fighters (what few there are) with weaponry capable of providing a similar level of opposition to our far more advanced forces. Its worth noting that we sent all these supplies (and a huge amount of small arms and training) through Pakistan.
Pakistan desperately wants to be our friend. Or more specifically, Pakistan desperately wants us to think of it as needed. We have considered them a staunch ally for most of their history as a modern state, and have given very large amounts of economic and military aid to Pakistan (many billions of dollars). There have been periods in Pakistani history where the US has cut off its support: they did not go well for Pakistan, and each time Pakistan worked extremely hard to get back in our good graces (even so usually only succeeding via the shifting tides of the region). Right now as India has risen in our esteem, Pakistan especially fears being cut off again.
There is even a (large) contingent in the study of international relations that maintains Pakistan knows approximately where Bin Laden and company are along the Afghan-Pakistani border region, but don't supply us with that information because we would reduce aid were the major terrorists all caught. Instead, whenever our interest wanes they feed us one of his high ranking underlings.
And of course, in one sense you're sort of right but wrong on the important matter. Perhaps we couldn't hold the mountains; we certainly aren't. This is unsurprising, as we aren't even trying. Our force in the country is dedicated to preventing large scale uprisings (of which there's no incentive for them to have) and upholding the regime we put in place (which would likely topple otherwise due to popular dissatisfaction). We don't give a whit about the mountains.
And of course, it was generally expected we'd be able to walk all over the Taliban. The Taliban weren't holding the mountains either, they were unable to take on the warlords with their piddling army. We merely didn't try to take on the warlords (though they don't like us much better) and they stayed out of our way. As noted, the Taliban's armed forces were singularly unimpressive, and as predicted by military scholars we succeeded very quickly. And of course, Pakistan wasn't the reluctant ally you cast it as, it enthusiastically supported our efforts.
Its rather hard to be impressed with carrying off handily an invasion the experts knew was going to be easy. Its rather hard to be impressed with an invasion of Afghanistan for successfully holding the mountains when that invasion isn't holding the mountains.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given US policy, it would be strange to expect the US *not* to "give" the country back to Afghanis, as soon as we reasonably can. The goal, after all, was regime change, not the acquisition of a colony. Admittedly, if our goal was to start an empire, we failed big time. I don't think that's a reasonable standard.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We've done a markedly bad job at giving the country back to the Afghanis: we prop up the current government, but leave real power in the hands of the warlords (who, oddly enough, are also some of the world's biggest druglords and not particularly enamored of either the US or democratic principles).
If our intent was to leave power in the hands of the Afghanis in a democratic sense, we've failed at that, too. Strange, isn't spreading democracy one of the guiding principles of our foreign policy according to the Bush admin?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I've been thinking about this - and I don't think the issue is even whether the information leaked was classified or not. I've always tended to believe that a lot more stuff is classified than really needs to be.
I think the real issue is the idea of "leaks" in the first place. If the reason that information was leaked was to support the adminstration's contentions regarding why troops went into Iraq, they should have just announced the information with a statement to the effect that "We have declassified this information and are releasing it so that the American public can see exactly why we decided to go into Iraq."
But, apparently, that was too honest and straightforward for the current administration (and I'm sure the same thing has been done by previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat). They have to play childish games, pretending that they are upset when information gets out that they arranged to be revealed in the first place. That's just dishonest, and I don't think it serves any good. Especially in light of other leaks, like that of Valerie Plame's name, after which actions claims that information is classified to protect "sources" ring rather hollow. If the information, or the sources of the information, are really too sensitive to be released, then they need to just bite the bullet and take criticism for their actions like men instead of acting like little boys.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think lma hits the nail on the head. It's the games that are dishonest, and the games that lead to people getting in trouble. I understand the politics of why someone would take this course of action, but that doesn't mean it was their only possible choice. It may be politically unpopular to man up and say what you want to say, but I really wish more politicians would do it.
quote:Originally posted by Lupus: I don't have a problem with it if there is a non american involved in the conversation...since that person should not be protected by american privacy laws.
I would have a problem with it if they were listening to 2 american citizens without court approval.
What? If your in the U.S. you have full constitutional protection, anyone, anytime. If Osama Bin Laden walked into the white-house and surrendered, they would read him his rights, and they would mean it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, until they whisk him off to Gitmo anyway...
I agree with lma too. So far as I'm concerned, the legality isn't a problem, I'm heavily betting on the fact that Bush has his butt covered legally. My issue is with the dishonesty of the whole thing. He's cloak and daggering something that could just as easily have been done in the open, and probably would have worked with better results. It's a gaffe.
He leaks information, then declares his outrage at a leak, vowing to find the perpetrators, then when we find out it was him, he says it was perfectly legal and a giant misunderstanding. It's bull, and it's stupid, considering he had to know it would come to this from the moment he first leaked it. Either that, or he is just an idiot and somehow didn't think it'd come back at him like this. And if that is the case, he made a big mistake in not admitting to it when it first happened, instead of playing bad cop on national television.
There's a trust issue in American politics that he's just making worse and worse. Doesn't really effect me, I haven't trusted him for years. But he's shooting other Republicans who want a future in the party in the foot. Him, and Tom DeLay, and Bill Frist, all of them. The only thing that's going to save them from major losses in the Midterms is the fact that the Democrats suck at crafting their message. If the Dems wise up and learn how to speak coherent sentences that DON'T sound like petulant children, then the Republicans are in big trouble. Especially if they keep this crap up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
It was somehow satisfying to hear how stupid/greedy/corrupt/deceptive those on the other side were.
It's not funny anymore now that I've realized "my" side is just as s/g/c/d, though perhaps in different ways.
Bob, I voted for Bush twice. The first time it was so "evil Gore" and his co-conspirators didn't ruin the country, because "of course that's what the democrats would do," and because Bush spouted enough right-wing rhetoric that I fell for it.
The second time the rhetoric was more transparent to me, but keeping those "crazy lefties" out of the white house was too important.
After a while, it finally hit me that I was revelling in the Democrats screwups and ignoring those of the Republicans. I started doing more digging and thinking.
My conclusion? There's not hardly an man or woman in D.C. that wants to make (keep?) this country great as much they want to make themselves great. The two prominent parties keep the population so polarized that we fail to see them both leading us down the garden path.
I voted for a libertarian back in November, for some city position. Maybe it was mayor. Anyway, that was a first.
Summary: Yeah, I'm done with Bush. But Dean (for example) is no less of a scheming madman.
Who's the constitutional party candidate...?
Posts: 105 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah. There ARE good men and women in DC, the problem is that parties will never nominate them. Russ Feingold is a good man who for the most party says what he thinks and votes his personal morality and represents his people well. He doesn't bow to the will of his party. I don't know what his position is on special interests, but on the whole I certainly trust and respect him more than most of the other hacks in DC. McCain will probably never get the nomination either, he won't toe the party line like he's supposed to.
I don't think the problem is with individuals, though they ARE a problem. The problem is with the party machinery. They're entrenched. They think they are fighting a war. Anyone who moves to the center is outcast by his party or they attempt to pull them back into the fold, but battle lines are drawn, and crossing into the killzone can kill careers, legislation, and anything else the party feels needs to die.
Unless you take out the leadership, there is no way to fix the problem. Even if you vote out half the congress, the leadership will just cull the weak and pull the newbies into the fold. It's an all or nothing game, cut off the head or you'll get stung by the tail.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think you're on the right track with the party machinery stuff.
I have always felt as if I were taking crazy pills during election year, because I'm the kind of person who hears a stupid obviously exaggerated story about some politician, a story that means nothing, and I look at the person who told it to me and say: "How stupid are you?". Actually I am more likely to say: "how stupid do you think I am?"
It always starts off with everybody not knowing who's going to be the big candidate, then everybody makes predictions about who it will be. Later, we all pretend to each other that we even knew who John Kerry was 6 months ago, (I was 19 you understand), and we talk about how great he is and how different its going to be. 3 months after that, when all the positives have been leveled off with a healthy dose of irresponsible journalism, opinion pollers telling us what we think, and the media and the parties attempting to arrive at an image for Kerry that lands somewhere around someone they can hate and love all at once, then we start hearing that pointless, mind-numbing lament.
Pundit- "Its really just the greater of two evils, isn't it?"
me- *facepalm* I've been taken in AGAIN!!!
There will never, MARK my words, be an election in which this doesn't become the catch all phrase for a country that's gotten tired of hearing itself blow so much collective hot air all over the place. The newscasters' hair will be frizzing like they've been struck by lightning, when that draft of good ol' american hot-nonsense blows through the county in 2008. I for one, can't wait.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I like your comments about the machinery and how difficult it is for the honest men and women to do anything.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, the impact of the Stinger missiles for the Mujahadin has been greatly overstated. CIA operatives from the time have said that what made the biggest impact was providing them with heavy mortars (120mm) and the training for GPS target acquisition for them. The stingers made for good press, but it was the mortar tubes (usually hauled around disassembled on the backs of donkeys) that did the trick. Soviet bases in the boonies took a serious beating.
Sorry, back to the subject at hand. On the Libby deal, whether it was legal or not, it's still dirty pool. But heck, every time the president has gotten covered with mud, he just wipes it off with a freshly wa(i)ved American flag.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I trust Bush. I distrust the liberal media. (in my best Forest Gump voice) That’s all I have to say about that.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sopwith: I've heard some back and forth about that. No doubt the mortars were important (though I might argue the GPS was more important, even without the mortars, edit: and covered by my mention of real time intelligence), but I've seen some pretty good arguments that without the stingers the mortars wouldn't have been able to be used particularly effectively.
That is, the mortars certainly did more damange, but the mujahedeen access to stingers may have been what made it feasible to assault such bases at all.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
