The Most Insidious of Traitors

[Joyce in the mts.]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/093003A.shtml

[Els' 3 Ones]

Somebody explain why I'm sitting here crying.................



How

bad

can

it

get????


I don't think I can stand anymore..............

[RowansDad]

Actually, this is kinda old news that thankfully is catching steam,
and hopefully could lead to another nail in the Dubya re-election campaign:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ia-probe_x.htm

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...obe_into_leak/

http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/na...ia09302003.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/30/politics/30LEAK.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep30.html

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...=1059480211975

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...0/MN309591.DTL

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/6853.htm

http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/...nion-headlines

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088980/

The poop has hit the fan. This will likely be a lengthy inquiry and it is unlikely that it will go below the media radar screen. If you're in the Dubya must go ranks and in a Machevalian state of mind, this is not such a bad thing.

[Joyce in the mts.]

You are right RD, the manure has hit the fan!

By the way, while it might indeed be old news...there are maybe some who might not hear about it at all if not posted here.

Joyce in the mts.

[El Casey S]

It's big news here - and on the BBC - and it is also being reported that this is not getting much media coverage in the US - looks like RD has proved them wrong. Thanks for the links!

[El Casey S]

Until now, the issue had received scant coverage in the US press and might have quietly disappeared. Instead, the decision by the CIA to refer the matter to the Justice Department means that the White House will now face a wrenching inquiry into whether any of its officials broke the law in an effort to discredit Mr Wilson.

From the FT.com link - maybe this is what was being refered to here - it had not been getting much coverage until now.

What I don't understand is why the journalists who wrote this aren't having to serve time - they were the receivers of the leaks - but isn't publishing the info leaking, too? Where are their ethics?

There are situations in which it might be useful for a journalist to take information from a prosecutor or grand juror -- say, involving a scandal that could affect public health or safety -- even though it is a crime for the leaker to reveal it. It is not a crime for a reporter to receive such information, and the reporter could be serving the public by getting it out. That does not always make it right for the journalist to publish information that could jeopardize, for example, a military operation or police investigation. Each situation has to be carefully weighed on its merits.

From washingtonpost.com

One lingering question: Where was the press in the weeks after the July 14 Novak column? Other than a few news stories and outraged columns by David Corn and Paul Krugman, the media were napping on this story until the CIA kicked it over to Justice.
. . .
"The hidden bad news is that none of them reported that the Plame information was being leaked by sources who wished to embarrass her and Wilson -- which they could have legitimately done without burning their sources by name. In other words, they all protected the White House from its blunder."

And how can the pResident be so sure that Rove didn't do it - unless he knew who really did?

[RowansDad]

Originally posted by El Casey S
What I don't understand is why the journalists who wrote this aren't having to serve time - they were the receivers of the leaks - but isn't publishing the info leaking, too? Where are their ethics?

Two words: Pentagon Papers

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...8/decision.pdf

[JessicaS]

The journalists aren't required to keep thier mouths shut. It is thier job to blab.

Sometimes they "ask" the media not to release something but thats the most they can do. Sometimes they listen, somtimes not.

They *can* be imprisoned for not revealing their sources but generally that makes people angry and journalists love being imprisoned for that anyways.

Freedom of the Press applies in these cases, it is the owners of the media that keeps them more quiet than the government.

I would question thier ethics if they had kept thier mouths shut. It is thier duty to inform the public. Why would thier ethics be questioned for doing exactly that?

[Els' 3 Ones]

Does a Felon Rove the White House?


Show of hands from anyone who thinks Asscroft will head a *fair* investigation.....................

:Puke


El

[RowansDad]

Put that Machievellian hat on = So what? In fact, I wouldn't mind the DOJ running a weak ass investigation, come up empty and then the story continues to recycle due to a tainted investigation. Hell, if those flaming lefties over at GE/NBC are smart, they could wrassle up a "ripped from the headlines" subplot bit on the "West Wing"!

More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep30.html

I love this line:

"Even though the White House has said Rove wasn't involved, Wilson made clear yesterday that he has no intention of backing off from his assertion that Rove at least condoned someone's making telephone calls to reporters about his wife. He said he took a call from a reporter who quoted Rove as saying: "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game.""

You'll find White House Counsel Gonzales email memos to the White House staff regarding the DOJ investiation here:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0304.html

Interesting navel gazing at the Post on its part in this fiasco:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep30.html

Former White House Counsel John Dean's take (he should know about White House coverups and dirty tricks:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html

The last article is why I thought it was old news.

[3boys4us]

The last article that RD posted is esp. good. It gives the whole history to leaking and how the White House condones (or refutes) them. But I esp. liked this:

While this case is a travesty, it won't be the first one that this administration has managed to get away with. Given the new the nadir of investigative journalism, this administration has been emboldened. And why not? Lately, the mainstream media has seemed more interested in stockholders than readers. If Congress won't meaningfully investigate these crimes - and, indeed, even if it will - it is the press's duty to do so. Let us hope it fulfills that duty. But I am not holding my breath about that, either.

This is old news. I remember reading about when Novak's post first occured but as many have noted it quickly disappeared from the radar. I think it says more about the media then about the White House.

[Joyce in the mts.]

Don't know if anyone checks out Atrios' blog, but Atrios has scooped ALL of the media on occasion, and so folks might want to check it out from time to time. He is often a few steps ahead.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/

He has some interesting stuff there on this.

(How can the CIA do its part effectively in the "war on terror" when its undercover operatives are outed? This woman was working on acquiring info on WMD's. Was outing her a way to stop her mission because Bushco knew there were no WMD's?... Just some thoughts/questions that just occurred to me.)

Joyce in the mts.

[RowansDad]

More:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media...aks_09-30.html

Interesting comment from a former spook:

"I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this."

[El Casey S]

Originally posted by RowansDad
Two words: Pentagon Papers

Originally posted by abimommy
The journalists aren't required to keep thier mouths shut. It is thier job to blab.

Sometimes they "ask" the media not to release something but thats the most they can do. Sometimes they listen, somtimes not.

They *can* be imprisoned for not revealing their sources but generally that makes people angry and journalists love being imprisoned for that anyways.

Freedom of the Press applies in these cases, it is the owners of the media that keeps them more quiet than the government.

I would question thier ethics if they had kept thier mouths shut. It is thier duty to inform the public. Why would thier ethics be questioned for doing exactly that?

OK - as usual - I'm low on time, but I just wanted to say that I see a big difference between leaking something that would put some dirty politicians in trouble - who were actually doing stuff that harms our country - and leaking information that damages our country and puts at risk the lives of patriots who are doing more to protect our country than the current adminstration is. Now, that said - going to read the links posted after these responses.

[El Casey S]

TFrom:[QUOTE]Originally posted by RowansDad
[B]More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep30.html

Wilson makes no secret of being a left-leaning Democrat and said yesterday he intends to endorse Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) for president. Wilson, a former ambassador to Gabon who served as an Africa expert in the second Clinton administration, has long been friendly with leading Democrats.

In the mid-1980s he worked for then-Sen. Al Gore (D-Tenn.) as a congressional fellow. He briefed Gore by phone from Baghdad as the senator was preparing to vote to authorize force in the Gulf War. Wilson argued then that force was required.

This seems to fly in the face of another thread here's ignorant bigotry - a left-leaner who thought war was necessary!

[El Casey S]

From FindLaw's Link, "The Bush Administration Adopts a Worse-than-Nixonian Tactic:
The Deadly Serious Crime Of Naming CIA Operatives" (an article from the 15th of August) given by RD earlier:

As David Corn has pointed out, what McClellan did not say, is even more telling than what he said. He did not say he was trying to get to the bottom of the story and determine if it had any basis in fact. He did not say the president would not tolerate such activities, and was demanding to know what had happened.

In one of the othe Links there was a quote from GWB saying something to the effect, "Leaking is a bad thing. We want to know who the leaker was." (seriously - it was that simplistic : !) If they are really so convinced that it was "a bad thing" why did they wait until the media wouldn't let it go before they started doning anything about it? And where were the "honest" politicians earlier? It's become a party political tool when it was a justice issue for all patriots.edited to add: see why I've been gone so long - this stuff is addictive - I gotta go!

[El Casey S]

The Leak and Its Consequences
A Guide to the Scandal

Washington Post

But the story, in the judgment of Washington editors, did not generate much follow-up coverage because they did not yet know that CIA Director George J. Tenet had asked the Justice Department to look into the matter for possible violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

The story turned a corner on the evening of Sept. 26, when MSNBC.com. and NBC News broke the news of the CIA's request to the Justice Department.

In the opinion of Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz, "The truth is, the press blew it on this one. The story was out there and very few picked up on it."

Last unread artilce answered my question. BYE!

[El Casey S]

doublepost