Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (72522)	2/8/2003 10:50:09 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 281500

OT Among the "genetically problematic families" were the Bush family. LOLOLOL IMO that study isn't flawed.

To: JohnM who wrote (72522)	2/9/2003 1:18:02 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Bad science in the early days of nature/nurture. Looks like the Republicans could end up with a "Filibuster Proof" Senate next year. And it looks like Carl has really "Roved" Texas. Poor Molly. She must really be down in the dumps. Read it and weep, John. :>) washingtonpost.com Senate Democrats Face Tough '04 Election Retirements, Fundraising Changes Loom as Obstacles to Gaining a Majority By Helen Dewar Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, February 9, 2003; Page A04 Three months after losing their majority in the Senate, Democrats face some daunting obstacles to their hopes of winning it back and risk losing rather than gaining seats in 2004, according to early campaign analyses. Democrats' fundraising difficulties have grown more serious with passage of new campaign finance rules that severely limit access to their most easily raised cash. And unlike last year, they will have more seats at stake than will Republicans, including two held by top party leaders. Several of the most competitive races are likely to be in states that President Bush carried in 2000. But the Democrats' biggest problem of all may lie in the potential retirements of senators in five toss-up or GOP-leaning southern states. The announced retirement plans of Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) opens a seat in a state where Republicans unexpectedly ousted a Democratic senator and governor last fall. Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John Edwards (D-N.C.) may drop reelection campaigns to run for president, giving Republicans high hopes in those two swing states. In addition, Democratic Sens. Ernest F. Hollings (S.C.) and John Breaux (La.) have not said they will definitely run for reelection, possibly putting two more Democratic seats at risk. Republicans, meanwhile, have a few vulnerable incumbents in states such as Illinois. But they have no impending retirements in Democratic-leaning states. With economic uncertainty, the possibility of war in Iraq and the difficulty of assessing Bush's popularity 21 months from now , it is far too early to predict House and Senate margins after next year's elections. This is especially true for the Senate, which Republicans control by a 51-49 margin that was secured by about 35,000 votes in the nation's closest races last fall. The Senate has a history of early indicators that can prove hollow by Election Day. Last year, Republicans were defending more seats than were Democrats, and they had an early run of retirements that prompted predictions of Democratic gains. As it turned out, however, the GOP lost only one incumbent's seat, and new Republicans replaced all the party's retirees. Meantime, Republicans replaced Democrats in Georgia, Missouri and Minnesota. In light of recent history, independent observers and strategists in both parties hedge their bets about the eventual outcome. But they agree that Democrats begin at a disadvantage. "I do think the Democrats start on the ropes," said Jennifer E. Duffy, the chief Senate analyst for the independent Cook Political Report. "But with some breaks and good recruiting and a minimum number of retirements, they might be okay and the election could be a wash." Even with the possibility of some breaks, however, Democrats say little these days about taking back control of the Senate, Duffy said. "If the goal is to lower expectations, they have certainly succeeded." Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D-N.J.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said, "I wouldn't call myself overly optimistic," but he contended the party's prospects are brighter than they appear on the surface. He cited the party's aggressive fundraising plans, its candidate recruitment efforts and the uncertainty of the late-2004 political terrain. Sen. George Allen of Virginia, Corzine's GOP counterpart, declined to discuss the Democrats' problems but said, "I'd much rather be going in with our team than theirs." The outlook is similarly bleak for House Democrats, who also face fundraising and retirement problems. They need to pick up 12 seats to win the majority, a difficult task considering the relative dearth of truly competitive districts, party strategists say. Bush won a majority of votes in most of the 40 or so House districts expected to be in play next year. Texas could prove especially problematic for Democrats. Republicans, who now control the governor's office and legislature, are looking to redraw the state's congressional districts, which could make six or more seats much more winnable for the GOP. "It could be miserable election," said a top strategist for House Democrats. Ironically, it is the fallout from a bill heavily supported by congressional Democrats that could present the party with one of its biggest problems. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, which took effect Nov. 6, prohibits the national political parties from receiving or spending the unlimited donations from corporations, unions and individuals known as "soft money," which totaled nearly $500 million in the 2002 election cycle. A recently completed study by Brigham Young University's Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy points up the problem. The two parties were competitive in raising soft dollars: $250 million for the Republicans and $246 million for the Democrats, much of it spent on television advertising that indirectly boosted the party's Senate and House candidates. But the GOP had a nearly 2 to 1 advantage in collecting all-important "hard money." It can be raised only in limited amounts ($2,000, double the previous limit), but it can be used directly by parties and candidates for any legitimate political purpose. Republicans raised $402 million in hard money, while Democrats raised $220 million. If anything, this disparity is likely to grow, said David Magleby, an author of the study. The new law, named for its Senate sponsors John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), is being challenged in court, and a Supreme Court ruling is possible by the end of the year. While critics have contested the soft-money ban, legal experts say it is more likely to survive than are other aspects of the law, meaning it would be in effect for next year's campaigns. Corzine, former co-chairman of the Goldman Sachs investment firm, said he intends a major expansion of the Senate Democrats' quest for hard money, including more emphasis on direct mail and expanded efforts to tap the business world. But finances remain a major concern for many Democrats, especially for an election cycle that includes California and other expensive states. "Corzine is as good as anyone, but, if you look at the capacity of Republicans, it's just scary," said Democratic consultant Jim Margolis. Senate retirements are potentially more critical than money. With the defeat of former senator Max Cleland (D-Ga.) last November, many questioned whether any Democrat except the conservative Miller could hold the second seat. But Miller decided not to seek another term and pointedly said he would not endorse any candidate seeking to succeed him. In Florida, Graham would probably be a shoo-in for reelection, but he had indicated he was leaning toward a White House run before recent heart surgery. Aides said he is fully recovering. In North Carolina, state law allows Edwards to run simultaneously for reelection and for president, but Democratic insiders predict he will pick one or the other. Unlike Graham, Edwards could have a tough reelection campaign if he decides to stay in the Senate. Rumors continue to circulate in South Carolina that Hollings may retire after 36 years in the Senate, but aides said recently they expect him to run again. Like Edwards, Hollings won narrowly six years ago and could have stiff competition if he decides to try again. Democratic Senate leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Democratic Whip Harry M. Reid (Nev.) are up for reelection next year. Reid, who had an excruciatingly close call when he last ran, could face a challenge from any one of several prominent Republicans. In South Dakota, former representative John Thune (R-S.D.), who narrowly lost a Senate bid last year, is under pressure to run against Daschle. Serious races, even if the challengers fall short, could limit the help that Daschle and Reid could lend to other campaigns. washingtonpost.com

To: JohnM who wrote (72522)	2/9/2003 5:32:04 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The School Segregation Issue. Here is an article on a subject important to you, that shows the other side of the coin. You can either read it, and consider it, or "Nuff Said" it. WSJ.com School Colors Is America resegregating? Don't you believe it. Sunday, February 9, 2003 12:01 a.m. A recent study by the Civil Rights Project, a liberal outfit housed at Harvard, uses the racial composition of inner-city schools to allege that the U.S. is undergoing resegregation. Our reading is that the findings say much more about the state of inner-city public education. For starters, the U.S. is less segregated today than ever before. A Brookings Institution paper--"Racial Segregation in the 2000 Census: Promising News"--has the details. Segregation levels are "at their lowest point since roughly 1920," say the authors. "The 2000 Census documents that, for the third straight decade, segregation between blacks and nonblacks across American metropolitan areas has declined dramatically." During the past 20 years black incomes have risen (most blacks are not poor) and high school graduation rates have improved. Better education has led to better jobs, which have led in turn to more integrated suburbs, particularly in the fast-growing South and West. Pockets of segregation persist in some of the nation's largest cities, and this is reflected in their public schools. But when we talk about the causes of segregation these days, we're talking about something very different from the past. There was a time when the racial makeup of neighborhoods and schools was mandated by law, and the minorites relegated to those enclaves had nowhere else to go, regardless of their socioeconomic standing. Today that's no longer the case. Black "flight" from urban areas is common, and the reason many are fleeing is the schools. The Harvard researchers have ignored or played down the relevant Census data and these developments, instead opting for loaded language. The report, released on the eve of Martin Luther King Day, is titled "A Multiracial Society with Segregated Schools: Are We Losing the Dream?" and it makes references to "apartheid schools." According to the study, the average black attends schools that are 54.3% black, which is hardly cause for alarm. The average white attends schools that are 8.6% black and 7.6% Latino--ratios that aren't wildly different from their respective shares in the U.S. population. But the media have focused on numbers coming out of New York, California, Michigan and Illinois--states that have cities with large concentrations of minorities attending the same schools. Here's where the report's language gets less specific, and the authors group blacks and Hispanics into a "nonwhite" category that can distort results. "A big part of what's driving their numbers is the Latino population," says Edward Glaeser, a demographer at Brookings. "If you have a massive immigrant influx of one minority--a minority with particularly large amounts of kids--it's not surprising that the people going to these schools in these areas find themselves surrounded by members of that minority more." In other words, there's nothing pernicious going on here, notwithstanding the study's shrill reference to South Africa. The racial makeup of our schools results not from the return of Bull Connor but from economics, immigration and birth rates. Middle-class blacks, whose ranks continue to grow, have moved into mixed neighborhoods. Left behind in the major big cities is a minority underclass, whose numbers are inflated by recent arrivals who traditionally settle first among their own ethnic groups. During the 1990s, 11 million foreigners immigrated to the U.S., and more than half came from Latin America. Poor minorities are also the youngest members of our society. And they're having most of the children, which explains their high enrollment numbers. White enrollment rates have been steadily declining for decades. The answer to today's increasing self-segregation is to fix the inner-city schools. Their dreadful quality is a major motive behind white--and now middle-class black--flight.

To: JohnM who wrote (72522)	2/10/2003 12:55:46 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think you and Raspberry are in lockstep on Powell, John. washingtonpost.com A Case for Powell, but Not War By William Raspberry Monday, February 10, 2003; Page A21 It was a spectacular performance, and by the time Colin Powell was finished, I was a complete convert. But what, exactly, have I been converted from and to? It's a question I've been turning over in my mind ever since last Wednesday's tour de force before the U.N. Security Council. I am, for one thing, converted to the idea that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is in "material breach" of the U.N. mandate he was required to carry out. Before the Powell show, the analogy in my head was of sheriff's deputies executing a search warrant. It was an unusually broad warrant the weapons inspectors had, of course, essentially authorizing them to look in every nook and cranny of every room in the house for unspecified contraband. But how serious a breach could it be that the suspect had failed to tell the searchers: "You should look in the false ceiling above the clothes closet in the third bedroom"? Wasn't it enough that he unlocked every door when requested to do so? Okay, there were suspicions that the scientists whom the inspectors sought to interview were either Iraqi agents posing as scientists or else actual scientists certain that their candor would amount to suicide. What now seems clear is that Hussein was not merely less than forthcoming; he was determinedly duplicitous. That was the effect of those spy photographs showing how entire chemical or biological labs, built on trucks, were routinely driven off to unknown sites days or hours ahead of the inspectors' arrival -- becoming virtually unfindable in the mix of highway traffic. I had my doubts as to how much active production of weapons of mass destruction was happening in Iraq. Powell's display removed those doubts. What the earnest, effective and utterly believable secretary of state did not remove -- at least not yet -- are my doubts on two other scores. First, he fell short of convincing me that madman Hussein has either the intent or the near-term capability of attacking America -- although that was the implication of several of the exhibits, including the rather strained attempt to link Hussein to al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks. The maps showing which countries lie within range of Iraqi rockets drove home again what seems to be the unspoken element of our official concerns: the damage Hussein could do to Israel. I'm not sure why we don't talk about this. Surely the case can be made that Israel is a sufficiently valuable ally that we would come to its aid militarily if it were attacked. Do we fear that saying so would drive Israel-hating Arabs into a frenzy? Or are we afraid that open acknowledgment would reduce support for "regime change" here at home? Powell came up short -- for me, at least -- in another way. He made a virtually irrefutable case that Hussein is a malevolent man, full of hatred and cunning, and more dangerous than some of us believed. But he did not make the case for war. Indeed, in a perverse way he made the opposite case. Our ability to know what is going on in Iraq's secretive society is nothing short of stunning. Doesn't it follow that we will know, in advance, of Iraq's intention to launch an attack? Doesn't Hussein now know that we'll know -- and that we are prepared to act? I wouldn't want to hang my hopes for peace on any new promises emanating from Baghdad. But Powell did convince me that Hussein is so unlikely to get away with any funny stuff that a unilateral military attack on him becomes less necessary. But maybe not permanently unnecessary. Hussein is fully capable of the kind of miscalculation that might make war the least unattractive of our options -- and I won't be surprised if that happens. But if it happens, it may turn out that Powell's most important accomplishment will have been to make certain that we will go into war not as the American bully but as a truly international force. That would give us the best hope of averting an aftermath of terrorism worse than the terrorism that led us to war in the first place. I'm not yet converted to war, or to the Bush administration's rationale for it. But I am unabashedly converted to Colin Powell.

To: JohnM who wrote (72522)	2/11/2003 12:07:47 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

Where ya been, John? I just watch Richard Holbrooke on PBS and he thinks Britain will circulate a short resolution this Friday, after the Inspectors report. If they get strong opposition they will pull it and we will announce we are going in. He does not want a fight at the UN over this. Says that we did the Air War in the Balkans without a resolution because we knew we could not get one. He thinks France and Germany's blocking of the NATO help for Turkey was outrageous. I expect him to guest on Charlie Rose tonight or tomorrow. No announcement yet.

To: JohnM who wrote (72522)	2/11/2003 2:08:30 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

The Wimps of War By PAUL KRUGMAN Columnist The New York Times February 11, 2003 George W. Bush's admirers often describe his stand against Saddam Hussein as "Churchillian." Yet his speeches about Iraq — and for that matter about everything else — have been notably lacking in promises of blood, toil, tears and sweat. Has there ever before been a leader who combined so much martial rhetoric with so few calls for sacrifice? Or to put it a bit differently: Is Mr. Bush, for all his tough talk, unwilling to admit that going to war involves some hard choices? Unfortunately, that would be all too consistent with his governing style. And though you don't hear much about it in the U.S. media, a lack of faith in Mr. Bush's staying power — a fear that he will wimp out in the aftermath of war, that he won't do what is needed to rebuild Iraq — is a large factor in the growing rift between Europe and the United States. Why might Europeans not trust Mr. Bush to follow through after an Iraq war? One answer is that they've been mightily unimpressed with his follow-through in Afghanistan. Another is that they've noticed that promises the Bush administration makes when it needs military allies tend to become inoperative once the shooting stops — just ask General Musharraf about Pakistan's textile exports. But more broadly, they may have noticed something that is becoming apparent to more and more people here: the Bush administration's consistent unwillingness to take responsibility for solving difficult problems. When the going gets tough, it seems, Mr. Bush changes the subject. Last week's budget is a perfect example. The deterioration in the long-run budget outlook is nothing short of catastrophic; at this point a fiscal train wreck appears inevitable once the baby boomers retire in large numbers. Should we be reconsidering those tax cuts? Should Mr. Bush tell the American people how he plans to cut Social Security and Medicare? The White House has an easier solution. First, it has conveniently decided that budget deficits are not a bad thing after all. Second, it has stopped making long-run projections, and now looks only five years ahead. And even those projections don't include any allowance for the cost of an Iraq war. Which brings us back to the war. Mr. Bush apparently regards Saddam Hussein as a pushover; he believes advisers who tell him that an Iraq war will be quick and easy — a couple of days of shock and awe, followed by a victory parade. Maybe. But even if it does turn out that way, is this administration ready for the long, difficult, quite possibly bloody task of rebuilding Iraq? The Europeans don't think so. In fact, they view Mr. Bush's obsession with invading Iraq as a demonstration of why he can't be trusted to deal with what comes next. In the United States it is taken as axiomatic that America is a country that really faces up to evildoers, while those sniveling old Europeans just don't have the nerve. And the U.S. commentariat, with few exceptions, describes Mr. Bush as a decisive leader who really gets to grips with problems. Tough-guy rhetoric aside, this image seems to be based on the following policy — as opposed to political — achievements: (1) The overthrow of the Taliban; (2) . . . any suggestions for 2? Meanwhile, here's how it looks from Paris: France was willing to put ground troops at risk — and lose a number of soldiers — in the former Yugoslavia; we weren't. The U.S. didn't make good on its promises to provide security and aid to post-Taliban Afghanistan. Those Americans, they are very brave when it comes to bombing from 10,000 meters, but they expect other people to clean up the mess they make, no? And French officials have made no secret of their belief that Mr. Bush wants to invade Iraq not because he is truly convinced that Saddam Hussein is a menace, but because he'd rather have an easy victory in a conventional war than stick to the hard task of tracking down stateless terrorists. I'm not saying they're right; I have no idea what Mr. Bush is really thinking. But you can understand their point of view. In the days ahead, as the diplomatic confrontation between the Bush administration and the Europeans escalates, remember this: Viewed from the outside, Mr. Bush's America does not look like a regime whose promises you can trust. ______________________________________ Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University. nytimes.com

To: JohnM who wrote (72522)	2/11/2003 2:26:32 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

~OT~...Who's Behind the Attack on Liberal Professors? hnn.us

To: JohnM who wrote (72522)	2/11/2003 9:32:40 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

Frum's take on Bush and Rove's use of Polls. His analysis of how Rove used polls on the Stem Cell research speech in interesting. NRO Bush and the Polls Here's one from another reader: "Paul Begala often states that the Bush administration is every bit as poll driven as the Clinton administration. What's your opinion? Are there specific issues or topics polled? How are polls used in the Bush White House?" It's an very important question, because it gives an opportunity to rebut one of the most misleading of the Clinton apologetics. Yes, the Bush administration uses polls, all modern administrations do. The Bushies test themes and even language: there's a reason that President Bush always says "tax relief" and never says "tax cuts." Polls also suggest which issues ought to be taken up ? and which should be backed away from for the moment. The decision to put Medicare reform ahead of Social Security reform in the priority queue is obviously a product of opinion research. And I?m sure that the administration polled its AIDS in Africa initiative ? and that if the numbers had suggested that voters perceived the idea as an undeserved foreign-aid giveaway, I strongly suspect that the plan would have been shelved. In other words: It is true that this administration commits politics. That said, there is an important difference between the Bush administration and the Clinton administration on polling, and it is this: The Bush administration uses polls to discover how best to put its principles into effect. The Clinton administration used polls to discover what its principles should be. Consider for example the stem-cell debate of the summer of 2001. Any poll would have told you that President Bush?s preferred position ? no medical experiments on human embryos ? was political suicide. The public had absorbed the media?s promise that by cloning, manipulating, and then destroying embryos, scientists could produce cures for an array of terrible diseases. (The rabbi at the synagogue I attended as a boy had a lovely sermon he preached once a year to the effect that if our generation could live forever, but only by preventing future generations from coming into existence, we would surely say No. The proposition was purely theoretical then. Now it?s becoming more real: and guess what? The results are 70-30 against my rabbi.) A poll-driven president would have okayed the experiments. Bush did not. Instead, he ? and Karl Rove and Karen Hughes ? used poll data to articulate the president?s unpopular position in the least offensive, most convincing way. The result: a speech that convinced ? or at least mollified ? those Americans who favored stem-cell experimentation even as it forcefully advocated the president?s own pro-life position. To me, that?s not just smart politics ? it?s responsible politics. To refuse to use the techniques of modern politics is not principled; it?s dumb and self-destructive. A principled politician can use those techniques ? without being used by them. It seems to me that Bush has done just that.

To: JohnM who wrote (72522)	2/13/2003 10:09:31 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hey, John. In case you ever "Nuance" your way back to us. >>>May I point out a couple of things in the New York Times? Thank you. On Monday, there was an article by Emma Daly on the alliance between Washington and Madrid, Bush and Aznar. The article said, ?Although European leaders tend to a more nuanced sense of history, Mr. Aznar has no problem in seeing the Iraq crisis as a choice between Saddam Hussein and George Bush?! This is a news article, mind you ? not an opinion piece. Although European leaders tend to a more nuanced sense of history . . . You?d be afraid to put that into a parody. The article also said, ?On the streets of Madrid, noisy demonstrators have waved ?Toxic Texan? banners [those are the good guys], but in the Moncloa Palace complex where Mr. Aznar lives and works, the center-right Spanish government dominated by his Popular Party has always offered a warm welcome ? in the only foreign language spoken by Mr. Bush.? Okay. But how many languages did Clinton, for example, speak? English and Arkansan? (Dear residents of Arkansas: Please don?t write me. I love Arkansans. And, as my regular readers know, I love regional speech ? so lay off me.) Ah, the Times. The Europeans and their ?nuanced sense of history.? Why is it always the unnuanced Yanks who have to come and bleed and die and help them out?<<<<<

To: JohnM who wrote (72522)	10/16/2005 2:37:21 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

E&P: After 'NY Times' Probe: Keller Must Fire Miller, and Apologize to Readers editorandpublisher.com As the devastating Times article, and her own first-person account, make clear, Miller should be promptly dismissed for crimes against journalism -- and her own paper. And her editor, who has not taken responsibility, should apologize to both readers and "armchair critics." By Greg Mitchell (October 15, 2005) -- It’s not enough that Judith Miller, we learned Saturday, is taking some time off and “hopes” to return to the New York Times newsroom. As the newspaper’s devastating account of her Plame games -- and her own first-person sidebar -- make clear, she should be promptly dismissed for crimes against journalism, and her own newspaper. And Bill Keller, executive editor, who let her get away with it, owes readers, at the minimum, an apology instead of merely hailing his paper’s long-delayed analysis and saying that readers can make of it what they will. <MORE>

To: JohnM who wrote (72522)	10/17/2005 12:40:21 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

'Hidden Scandal' in Miller Story, Charges Former CBS Newsman editorandpublisher.com By E&P Staff Published: October 16, 2005 4:00 PM ET NEW YORK - Since the posting of The New York Times lengthy article on Judith Miller's involvement in the Plame scandal Saturday night, much Web buzzing has ensued concerning the revelation that she had some sort of special classified status while embedded with troops in Iraq at one point. The issue came to the fore because Miller, in recounting her grand jury testimony, wrote about how her former classified status figured in her discussions with I. Lewis Libby. She was pressed by the prosecutor on this matter. E&P columnist William E. Jackson, Jr., had first raised this issue last year. Today, former CBS national security correspondent Bill Lynch posted his views in a long letter about it at the Romenesko site at poynter.org. Here is the letter: * There is one enormous journalism scandal hidden in Judith Miller's Oct. 16th first person article about the (perhaps lesser) CIA leak scandal. And that is Ms. Miller's revelation that she was granted a DoD security clearance while embedded with the WMD search team in Iraq in 2003. This is as close as one can get to government licensing of journalists and the New York Times (if it knew) should never have allowed her to become so compromised. It is all the more puzzling that a reporter who as a matter of principle would sacrifice 85 days of her freedom to protect a source would so willingly agree to be officially muzzled and thereby deny potentially valuable information to the readers whose right to be informed she claims to value so highly. One must assume that Ms. Miller was required to sign a standard and legally binding agreement that she would never divulge classified information to which she became privy, without risk of criminal prosecution. And she apparently plans to adhere to the letter of that self-censorship deal; witness her dilemma at being unable to share classified information with her editors. In an era where the Bush Administration seeks to conceal mountains of government activity under various levels of security classification, why would any self-respecting news organization or individual journalist agree to become part of such a system? Readers would be right to question whether a reporter is operating under a security clearance and, by definition, withholding critical information. Does a newspaper not have the obligation to disclose to its readers when a reporter is not only embedded with a military unit but also officially proscribed in what she may report without running afoul of espionage laws? Was that ever done in Ms. Miller's articles from Iraq? It is not hard to imagine a defense lawyer being granted a security clearance to defend, say, an "enemy combatant." When the lawyer gets access to classified information in the case, he discovers it is full of false or exculpatory information. But, because he's signed the secrecy oath, there's not a damn thing he can do except whine on the courthouse steps that his client is innocent but he can't say why. A journalist should never be put in an equivalent position, but this is precisely what Ms. Miller has opened herself to. There are other questions. Does she still have a clearance? Did she have it when talking to Scooter Libby? Is that why she never wrote the Wilson/Plame story? I am a former White House and national security correspondent and have had plenty of access to classified information. When I divulged it, it was always with a common sense appraisal of the balance between any potential harm done and the public's right to know. If I had doubts, I would run it by officers whose judgement I trusted. In my experience, defense and intelligence officials routinely share secrets with reporters in the full expectation they will be reported. But if any official had ever offered me a security clearance, my instincts would have sent me running. I am gravely disappointed Ms. Miller did not do likewise. It strikes me that Ms. Miller's situation is the flip side of the NYT's Jayson Blair coin. He and the Times were rightly disgraced for fabricating. In my opinion, Miller also violated her duty to report the truth by accepting a binding obligation to withhold key facts the government deems secret, even when that information might contradict the reportable "facts." If Ms. Miller agreed to operate under a security clearance without the knowledge or approval of Times managers, she should be disciplined or even dismissed. If she had their approval, all involved should be ashamed.