I found this great picture at Flopping Aces. He found it through Buck Sargent. I don't think I need to add any comment.
UPDATE: G-Raze left a comment pointing to what s/he (don't know which) thinks is a tremendous irony: that I published this picture on the same day the NY Times screamed hysterically about Bush leaking information. Well, whoa there, Baby. Let's go for the real facts, rather than the NY Times facts:
If you'd told us earlier this week that the Valerie Plame kerfuffle was about to turn even sillier, we wouldn't have believed you. But it has. This story appears on the front page of today's New York Times:
President Bush authorized Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003 to permit Mr. Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., to leak key portions of a classified prewar intelligence estimate on Iraq, according to Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony.
The testimony, cited in a court filing by the government late Wednesday, provides the first indication that Mr. Bush, who has long assailed leaks of classified information as a national security threat, played a direct role in the disclosure of the intelligence report on Iraq at a moment that the White House was trying to defend itself against charges that it had inflated the case against Saddam Hussein.
Well, here is how the filing (PDF) by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald describes what happened (page 23):
Defendant [Libby] testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE [National Intelligence Estimate]. Defendant testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.
In other words, this was an authorized disclosure of information, the opposite of a leak. Yet the Times, the Washington Post and even the New York Sun (albeit only in a headline) call it a "leak."
These reports have served as pornography for the Angry Left, which has constructed an elaborate fantasy world around the Plame kerfuffle.
I know this is going to come as something of a surprise to those on the Angry Left but, last I heard, Bush was still Commander in Chief.
Talking to Technorati: Leaks, Scooter Libby, Bush Derangement Syndrome, George Bush, New York Times, Media
Filed under: Anti-war, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Iraq, Media matters |
Bookworm Room (ARCHIVES) 
Many of us snapped off the radio today on our way to work, tiring of yet another IED attack on the American Presidency. The MSM have decided to eliminate the man tasked to protect our country. They’ve done the same to our troops.
Pat Santy posts some STRONG words for the men and women you hear or read each morning from the media outlets:
–excerpt
“Meanwhile, the war here is being waged on the front pages of the New York Times and on the broadcasts of TV news shows. In that battle to shape public perceptions about the war, reality and truth are being deliberately distorted and manipulated so that the political agenda of the MSM wins.”
..snip..
“..when the “power” to disseminate information is exclusively in the hands of a few media outlets who have an agenda. They, as much as the government or the military must be continually and carefully scrutinized for honesty, integrity, and balance in their presentation of what is real and what is truth.
And, who is there to do that? They have always been the trusted guardians of truth and freedom in the past. But who is there to speak the truth to the seemingly unlimited and unchecked power they now possess to distort and manipulate that truth?”
——
If your day craves a dose of fierce honesty, Dr. Sanity can offer the cure.
——-http://haloscan.com/tb/drsanity/114434472196743607
——-
Forgive me–I do need just a bit of explanation. I know that critics of the NYT say it is giving away info that is hurting our war effort. But this picture depicts a scene from WWII–is it accusing NYT of undermining our side in that war, or is just a powerful visual?
I understood it to be a powerful visual, piggy backing off of the old WWII posters.
Powerful visuals are one thing, and contempt for the role of a free press is something else, with overt — and/or covert — control of the media being an attribute of fascism, regardless of how you try to backpedal it.
I think it’s rather unfortunate that Bookie would choose to post such a visual on the day after Libby’s revelation about the President (that he was the one who authorized the Iraq lead to the NYT).
Regarding your last point, G-Raze (the timing of my post), you might want to amuse yourself reading James S. Robbins’ article explaining the difference between leaks that bolster our military position and those that undermine it: http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200604070515.asp
Bookie, sometimes you’re so sweet I could kiss you.
Thank you for listening to me, G-Raze, and my sterling advice, which I offer to you as an antidote to you own un-disciplined inner voice, which, frankly, leads you into places that civilization has rejected.
Ok, so the role of a free press is to hold the lame accountable for their failure (think of Brownie), the charlatans accountable for their chicanery (think of Jim Bakker), the evil-doers accountable for their crime (think of coingate Tom Noe), and the politicians accountable for their duplicity (think of Bush). Democratic institions rely on an open market for information exchange — a market that conservatives have come to (quite rationally) loath because they’ve discovered the ease with which information-exchange can be subverted to their own oligarchic and authoritarian benefit (in evidence of which, I’ll remind you of this week’s much distributed Sowell commentary, which was nothing but logical mush and Republican talking point).
So you see — “leak”, “disclosure”, it depends on which end of Cheney’s gun he’s pointing at you. My point being — and a free press trumpets this — it wasn’t a quail that Cheney shot in the face.
Didn’t you get the memo, BW, there is no rule of law. It’s the rule of judges the Democrats believe in, and until the judges tell them Bush has the authority, Bush doesn’t have the authority to choke on a preztel let alone declassify stuff.
This really is a power struggle. The Press has the right to leak things. The government doesn’t have a right to leak things. Because the press serves the public interest, even though they aren’t elected, while the government must be watched because we’re one step from the Hitler-lite mass insanity of the proles.
When Plame used her position to get her husband the job to Niger, it’s okay, because it is Speaking Truth to Power. It’s not okay for a personal friend of the President however, to be appointed to anything, cause well, the Presidency is “too important” to do that.
One of the first things you do to your enemy, is you hobble his ability to strike back, to communicate, and to supply his troops. This is as effective a manner as any, in a guerrila war. You have air supremacy, and you use your air supremacy to destroy the enemy’s ability to launch air strikes and airplanes, rotary or fixed. The press has information security, and they hoard that ability quite well. So does the terroists for that matter. I wonder how Bush is going to dig himself out of this hole they put him in.
I can kill your people, cause well I’m tough. You can’t kill my people, cause well, you’re better than that.
This is like some bad Hollywood flick, where the hero fights 50 villains with one hand tied behind his back, cause he is “macho” and “superior”. You try doing that in the real world, and you’re going to get kicked. Permanently.
G-Raze brings up an interesting point. If 90% of the press votes Democrat… who exactly controls the press and why is that such a danger one wonders… Maybe cause… well figure it out.
EP, the poster means that the NYtimes will get to the field with the insurgents to shoot the picture, and they won’t help the troops first before taking the picture and getting the “scoop”. They did that in the Mosul mess field suicide bombing, and they’ve said it everywhere else. Like Wallace has, on tv. They won’t help Americans, because the story is more important and professional. That’s their philosophy. They’re not Americans, they are just objective reporters helping no side, and just reporting the news they see is fit to print. They know it, they say it, they believe it. I take them at their word and actions.
I tend to think if G-Raze took Epistemology 101 and Logic 101, he would spontaneously combust. Could be fun to watch though.
OK, Ymarsakar, because this is Bookie’s blog, decorum trumps flaming. Keep your gratuitously sniping remarks to yourself, cabeesh?
Thank you for listening to me, G-Raze, and my sterling advice, which I offer to you as an antidote to you own un-disciplined inner voice, which, frankly, leads you into places that civilization has rejected.
Does decorum mean I have to dress Truth up in silvered tongue fashion as you do, or may I simply tell Truth to Power? Truth to Power is so much easier, you know.
If Epistemology 101 and Logic 101 are the places that civilization has rejected, then you might not want to go there yourself. Why don’t you take my golden advice for your own good. I really don’t want that undisciplined satanic inner voice of yours to cry out and consume you for daring to tread where Truth beckons. That would be rather unfortunate.
That was a joke for Bookie who I disagree with, yet respect. She says odd little things that lead to interesting places. Perhaps some day I’ll find it worthwhile to tweak you, Ymarsakar, but as of yet, I’ve found no reason — in all the many words you post — to do so. You just don’t say that much. You might pay more attention to Bookie and see how she does it.
I wouldn’t know anything about that, but I do know this. How do you like seeing it?
Odd. Little. Things. That. Lead to Interesting Places. I see. Interesting places like the comments section in that link. Capite or capitsch?
Rolling around laughing doesn’t do Gazie here justice, you know? It just doesn’t. I sometimes refer to myself in the third person, but only for emphasis and because I know how it sounds. Obviously others differ on this basic philosophical approach.
Propaganda is annoying when people try to use it against you, even if you’ve studied it for a few years.
let’s see if we can finally put this one point which has giving some of you so much trouble to rest:
[During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.
“General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today’s hearing.
During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.
Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.
At the time of the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14,2003, Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert.
This was classified information.
Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work of other CIA employees, and she attained the level of GS-14, step 6 under the federal pay scale.
Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.
Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.
Without discussing the specifics of Ms. W’ilson’s classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.
In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life.
She took on serious risks on behalf of her country.
Ms. Wilson’s work in many situations had consequences for the security of her colleagues, and maintaining her cover was critical to protecting the safety of both colleagues and others.”]
Click to access 20070316104030-43341.pdf
book?
peace
Does it matter at all to you that Plame herself had no idea whether she was covert? If, as she testified, she didn’t know about her own status, and she is the person most closely involved, how can others be in trouble for compromising her? In any event, as I’ve noted before, even honest liberals have admitted that this had nothing to do with Libby, and everything to do with “sending a message.” Funnily enough, I thought we didn’t do show trials in America, and I think it’s a travesty that Scooter was dragged through this to “make a point.”
book,
that’s not what plame said. she said that she was a not a lawyer and that it was not her place to parse the semantics of her status. in her statements, she clearly states that it is her contention that she was undercover (or covert).
all that should matter to YOU is that the director of the CIA has now come forward and stated explicitly that her status was indeed covert.
but, by all means…spin away. interesting that you are still more concerned with libby than this revelation from the director of the cia himself that the funny business libby et al were playing actually did result in the compromising of a covert agent (most likely working on gathering intelligence regarding wmd).
you really are incredible.
peace
No, it’s a testament to my respect for the individual that I am most concerned about Libby. He, afterall, was pilloried to make a point — a point that, it turns out, has nothing to do with him. Your excitement about a show trial with a lone man facing the full weight of the government is more worrisome to me. Yours is beginning to seem more and more like a Roman peace, dagon, and I’m not sure I want any part of it.
bookworm,
libby is taking the fall imo but for his part in this, he IS guilty. it is his choice to fall on his sword and not implicate the “real” players in this cynical mess.
don’t cry for scooter libby.
but i guess now that we know where you stand, we’re gonna have to take “super patriot” off of your resume, as your partisanship clearly has warped you to the degree that you can’t see libby’s culpability and the destructive precedent that was set to pay back a political adversary at the expense of our most cherished intelligence assets.
peace
Guilty of what, dagon? Even Fitzgerald admitted that he couldn’t try Scooter for anything but telling the feds something different from what he told a reporter. Nor was Fitzy able to hang charges on anyone else. So what is Scooter taking the fall for?
i said for his part bookworm. libby was found guilty of perjury. 2 counts i believe, 1 count of making false statements and 1 count of obstruction of justice. (you’re a lawyer, right?).
ALL of these of very serious charges. now, libby’s OWN defense asserted that he was merely a fall guy for others (suggesting cheney and rove), yet they made a late game decision not to implicate them. other charges may very well have been forthcoming if libby had rolled and not accepted his fate.
what is important here though is that all of this unseemly business was in the service of embarassing and discrediting a former ambassador and his wife (who we now know WAS indeed a covert agent working on wmd) because the ambassador made claims which knocked the administrations justification for war out of the water.
you may argue about the process and what libby’s conviction actually means but the gist of the administration’s intent to discrredit wilson and his wife is what this is about. AND YOU KNOW IT! although it does appear that you are too far gone to apply the proper condemnation to the people involved in this mess.
peace