POLITICS - Backgrounding Equity - Slashdot

Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

×

Journal Cliff's Journal: POLITICS - Backgrounding Equity 21

Journal by Cliff on Thursday March 25, 2004 @10:45AM

Politics. It's like an itch I just can't stop scratching.

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? Has anything even happened with Plame in recent months? I haven't heard any real news about it in a while.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

POLITICS - Backgrounding Equity

Load All Comments

Search 21 Comments Log In/Create an Account

Comments Filter:

Al Franken (Score:2)

by zerocool^ ( 112121 ) writes:

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
Obvious (Score:2)

by pudge ( 3605 ) * writes:

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.
- Politics and Treason... (Score:2)
  
  by Cliff ( 4114 ) * writes:
  
  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
  - Re:Politics and Treason... (Score:2)
    
    by Jhon ( 241832 ) writes:
    
    "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
    - Re:Politics and Treason... (Score:1)
      
      by buffer-overflowed ( 588867 ) writes:
      
      Clarke's connections to Kerry are tenious at best. We each see what we want to see. Being inside the system for as long as he was, I'd be surprised if he didn't have any connections at all to Kerry's group of insiders.
      
      The rest of your post is quite interesting. 6 and 7 I believe the main reason for that was the delay in the book clearing through the White House, and it(the timing) may just be coincidence. Do you have any links on hand to the actual texts of 1 through 5? I'd like to read them. If you
      - Re:Politics and Treason... (Score:2)
        
        by Jhon ( 241832 ) writes:
        
        (1) - "Rice, in a meeting with reporters, released a Sept. 15, 2001, e-mail Clarke sent to her that said, 'When the era of national unity begins to crack in the near future, it is possible that some will start asking questions like did the White House do a good job of making sure that intelligence about terrorist threats got to the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and other domestic law enforcement authorities.' ... "He attached an earlier memo from before Sept. 11 in which Clarke warned such agencies [washingtonpost.com]
        
        Re:Politics and Treason... (Score:2)
        
        by Jhon ( 241832 ) writes:
        
        I did see it on CSPAN (and captured the transcripts -- closed caption is handy) -- Clarke did NOT respond to "every point" I raised. The only point he REMOTELY touched on was if he was told to lie at the 2002 briefing. When asked if he deliberately lied, he said "No" -- that he was "highlighting the positive aspects". In front of the 911 commission and apparently in his book he's ONLY "highlighting" the negative aspects. Without the revelation by Angle, there would have been no mention of "positive aspe
        
        from nearly nothing to al-Qaeda to Iraq (Score:2)
        
        by js7a ( 579872 ) writes:
        
        in 2002 that Bush had adopted a plan to elimate the Al-Queda threat -- by increasing man-power and funding "5 fold"
        
        The problem with that line of argument is that Bush increased anti-al-Qaeda efforts in 2002, and then refocused most or almost all on Iraq. Case in point: [guardian.co.uk]
        The fact that the Pentagon pulled the fighting force most equipped for hunting down Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan in March 2002 in order to pre-position it for Iraq cannot be denied.
        Fifth Group Special Forces were a rare breed in the
        
        Re:from nearly nothing to al-Qaeda to Iraq (Score:2)
        
        by Jhon ( 241832 ) writes:
        
        Take my advice. STFU. You've no idea what you're talking about nor do you have any idea WTF you are talking about. Your new trope is this gardian article and you appeart to be citing it at the drop of a hat as if (A) the gardian is unbiased and (B) Philip James is unbiased.
        
        Your responce to me Citing an article which talks about actions taken in 2003 have NOTHING to do with the Bush administration in 2001 (the first months of that administration) stepped up it's policy to eliminate al-qaeda. It also fai
        
        Re:from nearly nothing to al-Qaeda to Iraq (Score:2)
        
        by js7a ( 579872 ) writes:
        
        Hm. Perhaps you didn't notice that Guardian comentary is coroborated by the Newsweek cover story from September which I also linked to?
        I don't suppose you would care respond to the general observation that the more Bush tries to highlight Clarke's loss of optimism from early 2002 to the present, the more he will emphasize the extent that the focus on Iraq detracted from the War on Terror? You don't have to take my word for it. An Army War College report [army.mil] noted the same problem.
        As for Pudge, tell me ag [slashdot.org]
        
        Re:from nearly nothing to al-Qaeda to Iraq (Score:2)
        
        by Jhon ( 241832 ) writes:
        
        Perhaps you didn't notice that your trope isn't germane to the topic? The issue is if clarke lied. He's stating that Bush was indifferent to Al-Quada when he first came in to office. The problem is that He ALSO has stated that Bush changed strategy from "roll back" to "elimination" and increased funding/personnel five-fold IN THE FIRST MONTHS of his administration -- long before 911. Say it with me: con-tra-dic-tion. Sound it out.
        
        Your current spagetti-on-the-wall strategy is talking about what happen
      - Re:Politics and Treason... (Score:2)
        
        by Jhon ( 241832 ) writes:
        
        What I find especially interesting is the sheer number of former Bush officials and high ranking military personel who have suddenly turned critical of him(IIRC it's 6 or 7).
        
        I'd find it interesting if it were otherwise. Remember how many people turned critical of Clinton (Stephanopoulos, Dick Morris are two BIG examples)? Bush 1? Keep going back...
        
        It's about par for the course.
        
        Re:Politics and Treason... (Score:1)
        
        by buffer-overflowed ( 588867 ) writes:
        
        Former President Bush was involved in some nasty things. Former President Clinton had Monica... now, what does Bush have?
  - Re:Politics and Treason... (Score:2)
    
    by pudge ( 3605 ) * writes:
    
    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
    - Re:Politics and Treason... (Score:2)
      
      by Cliff ( 4114 ) * writes:
      
      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
      - Re:Politics and Treason... (Score:2)
        
        by pudge ( 3605 ) * writes:
        
        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
Funny thing... (Score:2)

by Exocet ( 3998 ) writes:

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
- Two Sides of the Same Evil Coin (Score:2)
  
  by Cliff ( 4114 ) * writes:
  
  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.
  - Re:Two Sides of the Same Evil Coin (Score:2)
    
    by Exocet ( 3998 ) writes:
    
    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."
a little bird told me... (Score:2)

by js7a ( 579872 ) writes:

...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.

There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.

Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.