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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (22660)	7/2/2006 1:08:05 PM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 541492

I meant to add another comment to my last post, which is that public opinion seems evenly divided on the NY Times issue. A prosecution would jazz up the base on the right, but it would be equally effective at mobilizing anti-Bush votes this November, which Rove will not want to see. The Republicans already fear a higher turnout on the Democratic side. But anything is possible in politics.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (22660)	7/2/2006 1:22:43 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 541492

For starters, Dale, I think it's a good thing that neither you nor I have the decision making authority here. <GGG> Publishing classified or sensitive info when it is political in nature is one thing; operationally classified info is a horse of another color in my mind. To use an extreme example, if the Times knew during WWII that a troop ship would be at a specific location at a specific time, I don't think they should have published the info in time for a German U-boat to intercept the troop ship. If they find out that a specific person has infiltrated Al Qaeda, I don't think they should publish that, either. But, if they find something classified that is classified only for the purpose of preventing embarrassment to an administration official, that's a different thing entirely, and I'm sure you'd agree. The fact that the administration specifically asked the Times to not publish the story, for operational reasons, not political ones, makes it pretty clear where the Times stands on the issue. When they publish operationally sensitive information that has to do with the means and methods of intelligence gathering, I think they've gone beyond their charter. And I think that's the case regardless of who's in the Big Chair, Hillary or Bush. I doubt Either Jefferson or Madison would have wanted the Times to turn Nathan Hale over to the British, even if it would have caused discomfort to the Times' political opponents. What you call "partisan" depends on where you stand, don't you think? I've read a lot of posts that have gone unchallenged here that are much farther left than I am right.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (22660)	7/2/2006 1:25:18 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541492

If a hoity-toity liberal President Hillary Clinton tries to act unilaterally and shut down oversight on security grounds, will you feel the same way, and say the Washington Times shouldn't publish what she gets up to behind closed doors? I think there is a fundamental difference in point of view between people who can see that far into potential futures, and people who can only see what's in front of their noses. Similarly between people who can look back at the past and understand how it affects, not only the present but the future, and people who can't remember or understand the past. If they had their way, they'd keep repeating and repeating the same old mistakes, with no comprehension why they keep having bad results. It's up to the rest of us to stop them. The wonderful thing about the Constitution is that it acts as a brake on the people who can't remember the past nor anticipate the future.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (22660)	7/2/2006 1:47:39 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 541492

I don't want to live under a series of four-year dictatorships. Extremely well put. Little more needs to be said.