Bush Slams Leak of Terror Finance Story

[EBU]

BPSCG: "...the leaks would continue, and NYT and WP reporters would continue to get Pulitzer prizes for publishing national security secrets..." Please don't forget that this story was also published by the Wall Street Journal. You've already called a NY Times editor a hypocrite for holding views that he doesn't in fact hold; your points would be more supportable if you omitted the bias, in my opinion. (I too think that sending reporters to jail is appropriate when they don't give up sources when required.)

 

[Apollyon]

The WSJ angle has already been covered in this thread.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Excuse me, but isn't that a wee bit naive?

What is the "that" referred to here?

Are you contending that someone's position is naive, or "just asking the question"?

If you believe that someone is being naive , and please explain what you believe to be naive and give a brief reason why.

 

[CFLarsen]

What is the "that" referred to here?

Are you contending that someone's position is naive, or "just asking the question"?

If you believe that someone is being naive , and please explain what you believe to be naive and give a brief reason why.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It is very naive to think that by talking like that, Bush is not threatening the NYT. He has a very strained relationship with the press.

 

[Ziggurat]

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That's nice. But what relevance does it have to the current case? Does Bush have absolute power over the NYT? Of course not. If he did, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because they never would have published the article in question. What power does Bush have over the NYT? Not much at all, really. So I guess you can't really be talking about Bush, so maybe you mean the NYT. What power does the NYT have in publishing government secrets? Quite a bit. What mechanisms exist to hold the NYT accountable for what they publish? Precious few indeed. So we do indeed need to wonder if power has corrupted the NYT.

Oh, but that's probably not what you meant, is it? Doesn't fit the standard narrative for that sort of trite platitude. Speak truth to power, dude.

It is very naive to think that by talking like that, Bush is not threatening the NYT.

So now he's "threatening" them - guess you couldn't get anybody to swallow the "attempted censorship" line. But leaving aside our evident naivety, what is Bush threatening them with, exactly? Is there a threat contained within Bush's statements that you linked to? The closest I can see is the threat to make them look bad. That's a pretty mild threat, for one thing, and for another thing, why should they be immune to such threats? If they do something wrong, shouldn't they be castigated for that? Where, exactly, is the problem here? As far as I can tell, it's only in your head.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

It sounds to me like a re-hash of the Pentagon Papers case:

That case involved the authority to pre-empt publishing -- a prior restraint. A 5-4 majority (IIRC) indicated that they *would* have allowed prosecution of the paper, even though they would not allow a prior restraint on publication. It's been a while since I looked at that case, but that's my memory.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Original Questions to CFL:What is the "that" referred to here?

Are you contending that someone's position is naive, or "just asking the question"?

If you believe that someone is being naive , and please explain what you believe to be naive and give a brief reason why.
---------

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It is very naive to think that by talking like that, Bush is not threatening the NYT. He has a very strained relationship with the press.

What is Bush threatening the press with?

Do you believe that threatened actions, such as threatened prosecution, can have a chilling effect on free speech?

 

[Jocko]

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And a pig in the poke is worth two in the bush of a dish running away with the spoon.

I like this game! Let's call it "argument by cliche."

It is very naive to think that by talking like that, Bush is not threatening the NYT.

It is very naive to think that comes even close the realm of evidence, as it requires faith in your psychic prowess. Some skeptic you are.

He has a very strained relationship with the press.

And you have a very strained relationship with most of this board. Does that mean every snide comment you make should be considered a threat? You know, because it would be "naive" to think otherwise?

Nice job, Claus. Complete mental meltdown, as I was here to see it.

 

[Jocko]

Do you believe that threatened actions, such as threatened prosecution, can have a chilling effect on free speech?

Uh oh, I think Claus just left his rear flank undefended. Such an amatuer mistake...

 

[Katana]

What is Bush threatening the press with?

Nothing as far as I have seen. The chairman, Peter King, a Republican congressman from New York, has issued the only threatening statement by saying that he would urge the attorney general to begin a prosecution.

Do you believe that threatened actions, such as threatened prosecution, can have a chilling effect on free speech?

I don't think that congressmen threatening prosecution will do anything unless they find a way to make good on that threat.

If they do, I don't think that the effect on free speech will be any less than sending a message that the media will be held accountable when they reveal issues of national security that the public doesn't benefit from knowing. Things like prisoner abuse or wire tapping without a warrant are different. They are illegal...or they're potentially illegal. Bottom line, they are controversial, and there is rationale for holding the government accountable publicly.

What was described by the NYT in this case was a program that had all necessary oversight and was evidently helping the government catch would-be or established terrorists. There was no controversy, and my world is no better for that program having been revealed to me nor, I suspect, will anyone else's be. I would also argue that there has been potential harm due to the actions of the NYT and the other papers publishing the story, and they should be taken to task for it.

As I have said before, free speech comes with a duty to use it responsibly.

 

[whitefork]

What is Bush threatening the press with?

A drumstick, I believe.

 

[CFLarsen]

That's nice. But what relevance does it have to the current case? Does Bush have absolute power over the NYT? Of course not. If he did, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because they never would have published the article in question. What power does Bush have over the NYT? Not much at all, really. So I guess you can't really be talking about Bush, so maybe you mean the NYT. What power does the NYT have in publishing government secrets? Quite a bit. What mechanisms exist to hold the NYT accountable for what they publish? Precious few indeed. So we do indeed need to wonder if power has corrupted the NYT.

Oh, but that's probably not what you meant, is it? Doesn't fit the standard narrative for that sort of trite platitude. Speak truth to power, dude.

You have completely misunderstood the saying.

It isn't a question of Bush having absolute power. It's a question of him believing that he can do whatever he wants, because of his power.

So now he's "threatening" them - guess you couldn't get anybody to swallow the "attempted censorship" line.

That is exactly what I meant: You can attempt censorship by threatening the free press.

But leaving aside our evident naivety, what is Bush threatening them with, exactly? Is there a threat contained within Bush's statements that you linked to? The closest I can see is the threat to make them look bad. That's a pretty mild threat, for one thing, and for another thing, why should they be immune to such threats? If they do something wrong, shouldn't they be castigated for that? Where, exactly, is the problem here? As far as I can tell, it's only in your head.

O.....K. Lots of vitriolics, but that is hardly helpful.

When Bush and his administration come out and accuse a member of the free press for making it harder to win the war on terror, he is pulling the good ol'e "If you are not with us, you are against us". He has used it before, when he started his war on terror. Bush is digging trenches here: He sees the world in black and white, it's all good, or all bad. There is no room for indecision, there is no room for questioning.

Remember, this is a guy who supposedly doesn't read newspapers or even the memos his staff prepares. He believes he is right, and that he answers to God himself.

So, when a newspaper has the temerity to publish something that raises questions - and that's all it is, at least for now - about his war on terror, it is undermining the very foundation of his presidency. His legacy, if you like.

Scroll back to Ari Fleischer, then White House spokesman. "Americans . . . need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." Remember what caused that ominous statement? A simple statement from a pundit, Bill Maher, where he called missile attacks "cowardly".

Now, you may scoff at Bill Maher, and you are probably right to do so. But that only emphasizes my point: Bill Maher, a talking head from BlabberHead Inc.? How does he manage to get the Bush Administration to react in a way that can only be interpreted as "Watch what you say, buddy - we don't want to be criticized"? What then, if it is NYT?

If you are not with us, you are against us. And if you are against us, you are our enemy.

What do you do with enemies? In Bush World? Ayup.

Do you believe that threatened actions, such as threatened prosecution, can have a chilling effect on free speech?

You are, naturally, thinking of Denmark and the Muhammed Cartoons. There was never a threat of prosecution in that case. The State Attorney - independent of the government - investigated the case, and found no reason to prosecute.

 

[Grammatron]

CFL, I guess you can quote the threat right here so we can discuss it.

I'll wait.

 

[Jocko]

You are, naturally, thinking of Denmark and the Muhammed Cartoons. There was never a threat of prosecution in that case. The State Attorney - independent of the government - investigated the case, and found no reason to prosecute.

This is so asinine on so many levels, I can't imagine you posted it with a straight face.

First off, of course the State's Attorney works for the government, he's the friggin' STATES ATTORNEY, not the Somethingotherthanthestates Attorney.

Second, there was an INVESTIGATION, not just an opinion on the air.

Third, they were CARTOONS, not STATE SECRETS. This only compounds the seriousness of the investigation.

You have compelely and fully embraced your inner jackass, Claus, I'm so very proud to see you finally take this step.

 

[Grammatron]

This is so asinine on so many levels, I can't imagine you posted it with a straight face.

First off, of course the State's Attorney works for the government, he's the friggin' STATES ATTORNEY, not the Somethingotherthanthestates Attorney.

Second, there was an INVESTIGATION, not just an opinion on the air.

Third, they were CARTOONS, not STATE SECRETS. This only compounds the seriousness of the investigation.

You have compelely and fully embraced your inner jackass, Claus, I'm so very proud to see you finally take this step.

Incoming response addressing the semantics but not the actual issue.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes, that's understandable. Nobody likes their dirty laundry aired in public. But:

In what way is that dirty laundry? Don't we want our government to track terrorist activity and try to put a stop to it?

 

[Ziggurat]

You have completely misunderstood the saying.

It isn't a question of Bush having absolute power. It's a question of him believing that he can do whatever he wants, because of his power.

Oh, so it's not POWER that corrupts, but the BELIEF in power that corrupts. Maybe you should have modified the saying accordingly to reflect this novel interpretation. And how do you know that Bush believes he has absolute power (which is what it means to be able to do whatever you want)? Are you able to make this determination based upon your own psychic powers? You need to be careful with that, though: you might corrupt yourself.

That is exactly what I meant: You can attempt censorship by threatening the free press.

Threatening them with WHAT, though? What threat has been leveled in your link? None. There was no threat in your original post. You have no case.

When Bush and his administration come out and accuse a member of the free press for making it harder to win the war on terror, he is pulling the good ol'e "If you are not with us, you are against us".

Sounds like criticism to me. Is it warranted? Maybe not, but that wasn't your claim. You claimed he threatened them, and that threat amounted to an attempt at censorship. Does criticism, even unwarranted criticism, constitute a threat? No, it does not. You have no argument, Claus.

Remember, this is a guy who supposedly doesn't read newspapers or even the memos his staff prepares.

You got a source for the claim he doesn't read memos prepared by his staff? Because frankly I think you're just making stuff up.

So, when a newspaper has the temerity to publish something that raises questions - and that's all it is, at least for now - about his war on terror, it is undermining the very foundation of his presidency. His legacy, if you like.

It's wonderful that you've been able to delve into his psyche and all, but none of that has anything to do with whether or not he actually threatened the NYT. You have yet to provide an argument or evidence that he did. Weak, Claus. Very weak.

 

[CFLarsen]

First off, of course the State's Attorney works for the government, he's the friggin' STATES ATTORNEY, not the Somethingotherthanthestates Attorney.

Wrong. He does not work for the government. The state and the government are two different entities in Denmark.

Second, there was an INVESTIGATION, not just an opinion on the air.

....and?

Third, they were CARTOONS, not STATE SECRETS. This only compounds the seriousness of the investigation.

If these were state secrets, then when's the trial?

Incoming response addressing the semantics but not the actual issue.

Sorry to disappoint you.

In what way is that dirty laundry? Don't we want our government to track terrorist activity and try to put a stop to it?

Don't we want a free press?

Oh, so it's not POWER that corrupts, but the BELIEF in power that corrupts. Maybe you should have modified the saying accordingly to reflect this novel interpretation. And how do you know that Bush believes he has absolute power (which is what it means to be able to do whatever you want)? Are you able to make this determination based upon your own psychic powers? You need to be careful with that, though: you might corrupt yourself.

No, it's power that corrupts, and when you have no controls above you, you have absolute power. That's what the saying means.

Bush is the most powerful person on this planet. There is no doubt about that.

Threatening them with WHAT, though? What threat has been leveled in your link? None. There was no threat in your original post. You have no case.

You don't need to be specific. That's the beauty of real power. Look at Ari's warning: "You better watch it, or else..."

Sounds like criticism to me. Is it warranted? Maybe not, but that wasn't your claim. You claimed he threatened them, and that threat amounted to an attempt at censorship. Does criticism, even unwarranted criticism, constitute a threat? No, it does not. You have no argument, Claus.

Of course it's a threat. What happens to the enemies of Bush?

You got a source for the claim he doesn't read memos prepared by his staff? Because frankly I think you're just making stuff up.

Note that I said "supposedly".

In contrast to Clinton, Bush doesn't read long memos, display a thirst for detail or stay up late debating the subtleties of policy.
Source

Long memos, then. (What is a "long" memo? Memos are supposed to be brief)

And then at 8:00, generally Andy Card will be here when I walk in. He's here earlier than I am. And he'll be here with the latest, and I'll ask him what's in the newspapers worth worrying about, or, you know...

...

HUME: How do you get your news?

BUSH: I get briefed by Andy Card and Condi in the morning. They come in and tell me. In all due respect, you've got a beautiful face and everything.

I glance at the headlines just to kind of a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves. But like Condoleezza, in her case, the national security adviser is getting her news directly from the participants on the world stage.

HUME: Has that been your practice since day one, or is that a practice that you've...

BUSH: Practice since day one.

HUME: Really?

BUSH: Yes. You know, look, I have great respect for the media. I mean, our society is a good, solid democracy because of a good, solid media. But I also understand that a lot of times there's opinions mixed in with news. And I...

HUME: I won't disagree with that, sir.

BUSH: I appreciate people's opinions, but I'm more interested in news. And the best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world.

HUME: Mr. President, thank you very much.

BUSH: Thank you, sir.
Source

"Glance at the headlines"?

It's wonderful that you've been able to delve into his psyche and all, but none of that has anything to do with whether or not he actually threatened the NYT. You have yet to provide an argument or evidence that he did. Weak, Claus. Very weak.

We disagree, then.

 

[Grammatron]

Wrong. He does not work for the government. The state and the government are two different entities in Denmark.
...
Sorry to disappoint you.

Nonsense, you did just fine. I look forward to 40 more pages where you tell me how STATE and GOVERNMENT are different. While at the same time ignoring the fact that Bush did not threaten newspapers as you claim nor did he mention them by name.

 

[CFLarsen]

Nonsense, you did just fine. I look forward to 40 more pages where you tell me how STATE and GOVERNMENT are different. While at the same time ignoring the fact that Bush did not threaten newspapers as you claim nor did he mention them by name.

If you want a thread about the infrastructure in Denmark, feel free to open your own.