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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (57663)	4/8/2006 4:14:29 AM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

the remarkable outpouring of crap from the feathered one, Longandmostlyshort, etc is amazing...the tides have turned for sure with this

To: stockman_scott who wrote (57663)	4/8/2006 4:57:31 AM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 93284

oh this is getting sick...remember what McClellan said 3 years ago!!! amazing White House Does Not Deny Leak Claims Bush spokesman draws a distinction between releases in `public interest' and those that threaten security. Critics see a political motive. By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten, Times Staff Writers April 8, 2006 WASHINGTON — The White House on Friday appeared to confirm that President Bush had authorized a leak of classified information about pre-Iraq war intelligence, describing the release of such information as beneficial for the "public interest." The statement came the day after disclosures in court documents that the White House, despite Bush's frequent criticisms of leaks, secretly provided material to a reporter in early July 2003. The government did not announce declassification and publicly release the material for another 10 days. ADVERTISEMENT "There were irresponsible and unfounded accusations being made against the administration, suggesting that we had manipulated or misused that intelligence [in order to justify going to war]," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said. "Because of the public debate that was going on and some of the wild accusations that were flying around … we felt it was very much in the public interest that what information could be declassified, be declassified. And that's exactly what we did." McClellan on Friday repeatedly said the release of the material was intended to inform public debate about the war. But the controversy has reignited long-standing complaints that the Bush White House uses intelligence data for political advantage — particularly in making the case for invading Iraq and then defending the war in the midst of the 2004 reelection campaign. Some Democrats said the leak was part of an administration pattern of "selective disclosure" — releasing information to support its arguments and rebut its critics while guarding data that could prove embarrassing or politically damaging. On Friday, Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, called on the Republican leadership to demand that Bush explain in person to Congress "the leak of extremely sensitive intelligence for purely political purposes." The document that Bush personally declassified, a summary of the so-called National Intelligence Estimate, was provided to counter the claims of an administration critic. Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV had been sent to Africa by the CIA in 2002 to investigate administration claims that Iraq was seeking to purchase nuclear materials — claims he said were unfounded. Wilson later charged that the administration had "twisted" intelligence when it said Saddam Hussein's attempts to get uranium from Niger were proof that he was trying to rebuild his nuclear weapons program. To counter Wilson's claims, the administration disclosed classified information to attack his arguments and undermine his personal credibility, recent court filings show. Bush's role came to light this week in documents filed by a special prosecutor seeking a perjury conviction against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. According to the documents, Libby testified that he leaked the classified information to New York Times reporter Judith Miller after Bush gave Cheney his personal authorization. That criminal investigation was launched after another leak: the identity of Wilson's wife, undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame. Her name was disclosed to journalists in what was widely viewed as an effort to taint Wilson by suggesting that his mission to Africa had been arranged as a personal junket by his wife. It is illegal to knowingly leak the name of a covert operative. This week's revelation does not link Bush to the Plame leak, but rather to the intelligence document backing administration claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction — claims that proved to be untrue. McClellan walked a rhetorical tightrope Friday, refusing to explicitly confirm the testimony revealed in Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's court filing but defending the president's actions nonetheless. He drew a distinction between the kinds of disclosures that do not threaten national security and disclosures such as the report last year that Bush had authorized warrantless wiretapping of people with suspected links to terrorist organizations. "Declassifying information and providing it to the public, when it is in the public interest, is one thing," McClellan said. "But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious." He accused Democrats of failing to grasp the distinction and of "engaging in crass politics." Democrats have been fuming over what they say are repeated refusals by the White House to release information that would not compromise national security. In 2004, for example, the White House rejected a request by eight Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee for a one-page "president's summary" of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. The lawmakers noted in their request that the document contained no sensitive material beyond information that had been released publicly a year earlier.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (57663)	4/8/2006 11:51:10 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 93284

Brass hats and brass tacks By Victor Davis Hanson April 8, 2006 Georgia Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney's recent run-in with a security official at the nation's Capitol reminded me of an earlier dust-up. On New Year's Eve 2002, while I was a visiting professor at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, the superintendent -- the distinguished three-star Vice Adm. Richard J. Naughton -- tried to enter the academy without wearing the photo ID required of all military and civilian personnel. Naturally expecting that the young Marine sentry on duty would recognize his all-important superintendent, Adm. Naughton boldly tried to pass. But instead, the Marine asked him to produce identification. Angry words and some sort of altercation ensued between the admiral and the enlisted man. Later, Adm. Naughton claimed he couldn't "remember" whether he had "touched" the guard, but he did concede he "might" have done so. After a lengthy, ultimately damning investigation, Adm. Naughton resigned -- first from his post as academy superintendent and then subsequently from the Navy altogether. During the investigation, some skeptics at Annapolis had doubted whether Adm. Naughton would pay any price. But his exalted rank, along with his race and gender, won no exemption. I mention the Naughton case to illustrate that such mix-ups at government checkpoints are not unusual -- and that eventually public pressure catches up with aristocratic arrogance and even the powerful are held to account. Cynthia McKinney recently had her own Naughton moment when she tried to enter the Capitol. Like the admiral, she took umbrage when confronted by a guard who didn't recognize her and was merely trying to do his job of protecting a government facility. She, too, found herself in some sort of physical altercation with a lowly subordinate. But that's where the comparisons end. All the facts are not yet known, and Mrs. McKinney is an elected official not subject to military accountability. But her reaction to this similar incident tells us a great deal about the pathologies of our current culture. [Mrs. McKinney issued an apology Thursday, saying the run-in and the ensuing controversy was a "misunderstanding."] After witnesses related Mrs. McKinney was asked to stop three times -- and replied with some sort of shove -- she went public at a press conference. There she resorted to the now all too familiar fallback positions unavailable to Adm. Naughton. Surrounded by celebrities like Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover, Mrs. McKinney said, "This whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female, black congresswoman." Note how she covered all the bases to pre-empt a possible indictment, putting the onus on the aggrieved. Plus, in our star-struck culture, we equate celebrity with gravitas. So we are supposed to believe an otherwise clueless Calypso singer or action-hero actor lend credence to Mrs. McKinney's wild charges. Mrs. McKinney not only played the race and celebrity cards, but the feminist one as well -- as if the dutiful policemen had kept his job this long by allowing unrecognized white male elected officials to enter checkpoints without showing identification. And if race and gender were not enough, Mrs. McKinney evoked the standard sexual harassment code words "inappropriate touching" -- as if a randy guard were trying to grope the defenseless congresswoman. Mrs. McKinney realizes claims of victimization are keys to conning our system -- and that the more accusations of racism, sexism and harassment the better for turning the cowardly aggressor into the heroically aggrieved. Some official responses so far have been depressing. The leading House Democrat, California's Nancy Pelosi, initially dryly dismissed the incident: "I would not make a big deal of this." Fine, except Mrs. Pelosi recently referred to Vice President Dick Cheney's handling of his hunting accident as a "manifestation of the arrogance of the White House. They don't come clean with the American people. They think they are above the law and above accountability to the American people." Note Mrs. Pelosi's words "arrogance" and "above the law." Is deliberately slugging a federal security officer at a Capitol checkpoint less arrogant or illegal than Mr. Cheney's behavior after accidentally peppering a friend during a private hunt? So, what can we learn from the McKinney moment? Slandering someone as racist and sexist is now supposed to do for Democrats what the old wealth and power purportedly did for Republicans -- give them an unfair advantage and allow them to evade the rules. Progressives once gained credence because they insisted merit should outweigh class, money and connections. These days they are losing credibility when they insist race and gender should trump merit and facts. America has learned to apply the rules to a Vice Adm. Richard J. Naughton; now it must also insist on them for Rep. Cynthia McKinney. Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War."