Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

POLITICS - Backgrounding Equity

Comments Filter:
  • Al franken talks about this in "Lies". I can see the bush machine much more clearly because of this.

    I actually had already read that report on foxnews.com. It was "already clicked" color when I got to your journal. I read it because I got a leter from MoveOn.org about Clark and them wanting to run a campaign ad based on what he said about bush's record on terrorism. So, after reading the liberal side, I went to fox news to get the conservative attack side.

    Fox news pisses me off.

    I'm reading about the
  • by pudge (3605) *
    OK, so if the White House can release backgrounders for political reasons like attacking Clarke, why can't the Plame Investigators get the same priviledge?

    Because they don't have it. You think every off-the-record conversation by administration officials is known by the White House? Not even close. Sure, they MIGHT know who it is, but to ASSUME they do is utterly ridiculous.
    • So let's see. Is the point here that Angle had the transcripts to release and then cleared them with the White House so that they could be printed, at a suspiciously serendipitous time for the Bush Administration?

      So the only person who could get the Plame notes released is Novak (assuming he still has them, which, despite your claim to the contrary, I think is probably a fair assumption) and barring a serious case of brain damage, Novak is unlikely to do?

      Is that about it?

      But wait! If the Plame affa
      • "Hey trees! I cant see you through all this forrest!".

        I'm going to avoid the Plame/Clarke comparisons as I think they are distractions.

        The problem we have with Clarke, at least as I see it, is that all his credibility has gone out the window.

        Why? above, you selectivly point to the timing of the Angle release as "suspiciously serendipitous" -- yet fail to acknowledge the "suspiciously serendipitous" timing of Clarke's own releases:

        (1) 2001 - Clarke, in a memo to Rice explains that there was nothing we
      • Is the point here that Angle had the transcripts to release and then cleared them with the White House so that they could be printed

        In the case of Clarke, as best we can tell, the White House knew who said it and what he said, and the reporter knew they knew it; no confidence was violated. Some may say Clarke's was, but he was speaking as a member of the White House, by their order, with their permission.

        In the case of Plame, as best we can tell, the White House does not know who said it OR what was sai
        • So the only person who could get the Plame notes released is Novak (assuming he still has them, which, despite your claim to the contrary, I think is probably a fair assumption)

          I claimed no such thing, nor anything even remotely resembling it. You're mistaken.

          I'm sorry if you thought I was implying that you claimed such. That was not my intent. What I was trying to ask was this: What is the most likely situation in which the Novak backgrounds on Plame could be released. Even if the above situation has

          • I'm sorry if you thought I was implying that you claimed such. That was not my intent.

            Really? I find that hard to believe, because I can see no other way your statement can be read. That "he still has (his notes)" is, in your words, contrary to my claim. Not that it matters.

            What is the most likely situation in which the Novak backgrounds on Plame could be released.

            The person or organization who spoke to him in confidence comes forward publically. That's the only way (presuming we aren't talking ab
  • How they always seem to have what they need to do what they want to do but, gosh darnit, lost some documents or can't find that guy or just forgot when it comes to something that anyone other than Bush/the White House/Republicans care about.

    As a cynical voter and citizen of this country, this sort of childish crap doesn't suprise me. Nor does the continued support of *either* party - they are both hideously evil, but, hey - it's a two party system. Occasionally one is less evil than the other, that's the
    • I agree with you. I've even mentioned it before. I'm getting really, really tired of voting "the lesser of two evils" rather than "the best man for the job".

      You'd figure that one of these elections, the major parties would produce a candidate that people feel good about voting for. I haven't felt good about the choices in an American election for a looong time, now.
      • I'd vote Libertarian (I did last time) but I hate Bush and the myriad evil things he's done with all of his evil friends that I'm going to vote Democrat and encourage everyone else to do the same.

        My voting mantra in 2004: "Anyone but Bush, preferrably the most popular Democrat."
  • ...the GAO will reply to Rep. Waxman et al's request for an investigation of the adminstrative aspects of the Plame affair by the end of next week.

"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries

Working...