10 Responses to “What part of Secret or Classified is so hard to understand?”

---

1. Ayschlay Says:

   July 11th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
   Visit Ayschlay

   I’m duty-bound to be contrary here. I was about to post a similar story with the title “White House doesn’t get Intelligence on its side this time.”

   The question is why, all of sudden, is this administration losing the loyalty of its staffers? Why have some of them gone bad at this particular time?

---

2. Sue Says:

   July 11th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
   Visit Sue

   Ayschlay:

   By all means put up the post. I will wait until the full report is revealed (or at least that part which we are entitled to know) before I discuss the meat of the story.
   I think I made that clear in my post.

   I do not for one second believe these leakers (yes, they have done this before) are friends of the administration
   or political appointees.

   A “counterintelligence official” who leaks classified information should be willing to relay his or her name, lest I believe they are a coward. But that would not be possible would it, as leaking classified information is a crime.

---

3. Big Mo Says:

   July 11th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
   Visit Big Mo

   Ayschlay - This isn’t about politics. This is about treason. Just because these people don’t like the president or the administration does not and should not give them license to go blabbing secrets to the press.

   I would say exactly the same thing if the president were Democrat and the blabber were conservative and the NY TImes was being run by William F. Buckley.

---

4. Ayschlay Says:

   July 11th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
   Visit Ayschlay

   My “duty-bound” bit was meant to be self-parody. I’m not very good at using this brief, text-based medium to communicate dry humor.

   Anyway, I hear you. Your point that this is wrong is important–but my question remains: why now? What’s going on in the administration and intelligence community that leads some to leak elements of the NIE (and White House reactions to it)?

   Remember too that the White House leaked parts of the NIE that were most favorable to its rationale for the war back in the early phase of the war.

---

5. ~J~ Says:

   July 11th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
   Visit ~J~

   Ayschlay,

   It could very well be a career employee who has no loyalty to the administration.

   The State Dept. is known for people who are against one administration or another and still stay because it’s hard to fire them.

   It could be a career CIA employee who has a grudge because of the Plame Flame, or just doesn’t like this administration.

   Heck, it could be someone working with another government (spy) who wants to scare everyone.

   Don’t assume it’s an insider to the administration until or unless we find out for sure.

   This is the type of investigations Congress should engage in instead of who fired which government attorney.

---

6. Sue Says:

   July 11th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
   Visit Sue

   As to the “White House leaked part of the NIE,” here is what David Addington, Counsel to the Vice President said about that:

   ‘Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.”

   There is a hugh difference in the President declassifying information for release,(according to all I have read, once the President releases information either himself or through others for public consumption, it is immediately declassified) and some anonymous source running to the press in hopes of “getting” the administration. I can think of no other motive this person would have for their actions.

   I agree Big Mo, this is not about politics, which is precisely why I would not address the article itself. I did not mention the President initially because it should make no difference (R) or (D). Illegal is illegal, period.

---

7. ~J~ Says:

   July 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
   Visit ~J~

   I meant to mention in my first post the “Anonymous” family is at it again. We gotta catch them and do something about them. They bring shame on their family name.

---

8. Ayschlay Says:

   July 12th, 2007 at 5:15 am
   Visit Ayschlay

   Of course Addington is going to argue that the administration did nothing wrong in releasing pieces of the NIE. The line the White House has taken all along when questioned about its national security and warmaking policies is that the Presidency has not, nor cannot, commit illegal acts (nor, the tone implies, should anyone be even bringing this up).

   I guess why I’m not upset by this last leakage is that I don’t think the administration is innocent at all, and that its prior actions in part (IN PART–there are other factors of course) explain why now subordinates throughout the bureaucracy and are rebelling by leaking.

   Also, I must be operating with a different definition of “political.” I don’t understand what you mean when you say this isn’t about politics. If politics is about the distribution and struggle over power, then this leak and the White House reaction is all about politics.

   For others here, politics seems to be about personal gain over public good. If so, is your argument that leakers, and those anonymous sources, are all purely selfish, and the White House is all about serving the public good?

---

9. ~J~ Says:

   July 12th, 2007 at 6:19 am
   Visit ~J~

   I take it, Ayschlay, you are trying to define it as partisan politics. I’m sure in your profession and in your observations you have also heard of “office politics” which means you suck up to the one you think can help you.

   I don’t know if the anonymous family is purely selfish or not, but it seems they are very reckless. If they were selfish I would think they would want their names attached to the story.

   I disliked Clinton’s policies as much as I have disliked anything in a long time, but I never once thought he didn’t think he was doing what was right for the public good.

   You probably have the same emotions about Bush that I had about Clinton, but do you honestly think he is doing this job and not doing what he thinks is best for the public good?

   We all want the same things for our country, but we have differences in policies and priorities. Does that difference make any president from now on Satan because we happen to disagree with him?

   There are some people in every administration who are leakers. Most of the time they are career employees. Look at Linda Tripp. She was a career employee.

   It doesn’t mean a member of the administration approved by GWB or his highest staff is the leaker. It could be, but we don’t know because the person chose to be a coward and not give his or her name and the newspaper is complicit in it because they publish a story without telling us who leaked it so we can determine how trustworthy the information is.

   For all I know the newspaper could have made it up from whole cloth. I’m not saying they did, but we don’t really know, do we?

   I do think the president, i.e. White House—any president in the White House at any given time, is, for the most part looking out for the public good. We can exclude Nixon from that comment, but he’s the exception rather than the rule.

   I’d rather see the glass as half-full rather than half-empty. Don’t be so quick to jump to the conclusion this was a Bush appointee who leaked this information. You’re much more intelligent than that.

---

10. Ayschlay Says:

    July 12th, 2007 at 6:57 am
    Visit Ayschlay

    I didn’t explain my point and question well. I’m not guessing it’s an appointee. Yes, it could be a permanent bureaucrats speaking anonymously, and/or leaking. No, I don’t think its partisan. I think these are different agencies resisting their executive masters. A kind of office politics, as you said, J, though I don’t think office politics are just about sucking up–they’re also about fighting over policies, rules, and principles.

    And, yes, I’ve no doubt that Bush and others think they’re acting on behalf of the public good, though sometimes people can convince themselves that their private interests and the public good are one and the same. Bush has said he thinks God has put him in the Presidency for a reason. . .

    And, yes, this administration has little credibility in my eyes, so I see half-empty glasses whenever it is involved.