Leaker-in-Chief

by Matt Stoller, Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:25:54 AM EDT

Cristy Hardin Smith has some great questions:

How many times has the Bush Administration used its declassification power for their own, personal political gain -- how many times have they lied to the public by omitting the whole truth?  How many media-planted lies have then been used by Administration officials in public interviews as justifications for their actions?  Did Condi know when she was prattling on about mushroom clouds that she was flat out lying to the public?

Shouldn't someone in this Administration be held accountable at some point for all the lies -- and for being so weak, so craven, so unwilling to face the whole truth, especially after so many of our brave men and women in uniform have lost their lives and limbs in a war ginned up on these public lies?  Isn't declassifying something solely to bolster your political position with the American public a misuse of your power -- especially given the sensitivity of the information and the fact that public disclosure of it without a thorough vetting by the intelligence agency might mean that sources were burned by your actions?  Does the Bush Administration even care about the consequences of their petty and impulsive behavior -- or has cheating simply become their preferred mode of operation?

The press has been pretty good on this story so far.  I hope reporters start tackling these questions.

update: Thinkprogress has a video flashback.

Tags: Firedoglake, George Bush (all tags)

  • 11 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

11 Comments

Shadow_head_small
What about previous presidents?

I'm afraid my historical knowledge leaves me short on the subject.

But I'd be amazed to learn that no other administration has

used its declassification power for their own, personal political gain

And, as for
[lying] to the public by omitting the whole truth?

I'd say all of them have!

Isn't omitting the whole truth a virtual definition of politics?!

Politicians either are sons of bitches, or have to fake it to do the job. (I'd bet that even Jimmy Carter, the most goo-goo of recent prez's, can be found lying on the record if one were to look hard enough - certainly omitting the whole truth on umpteen occasions!)

Trying to pretend they can be Sunday school teachers or fluffy kittens just makes the pretenders look like amateurs.

by skeptic06 2006-04-07 07:16AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What about previous presidents?

There are lies and then there are fucking crazy-ass-lies-that-get-your-country-int o-a-useless-war-and-make-a-mockery-of-yo ur-whole-country!

I mean... sure every country has police that mistreat their prisoners and population... does that mean that N. Korea isn't an extremely oppressive state?

The standard isn't you-can-speak-up-only-if-you-are-100%-in nocent.  Unless your goal is to muzzle all criticism.

Bush's lies and deceptions place him several orders of magnitude, in terms of pettiness and just generally fucking the country up out of sheer spite, above any other president, even Nixon.

This administration lies and covers things up because they can.  They are an impetuous child, and the only thing they'll understand is impeachment.

If anyone EVER deserved to be impeached, it's Bush and Cheney (and Condi and Rummy).  If these guys don;t deserve it, then WTF is it even in the Constitution for, anyway?

Clinton was impeached for lying about sex.  I mean, come on... the standard now is "Is this worse than lying about sex?"

That's the standard I would say, since that was the last impeachment charge.

by teknofyl 2006-04-07 07:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What about previous presidents?

In terms of lying the US into war, LBJ was by orders of magnitude worse than Bush.

And - impeachment?! You're not seriously suggesting that the Dems waste the 110th (assuming they win both houses) in repeating the farce that was Clinton-in-the-dock?

To garner 67 votes for conviction they would need more Dem senators than FDR maxed out at. Never gonna happen.

This is like those Best 100 Movies Ever polls where top of the pile is the latest shlock blockbuster because that's the one everyone remembers.

Jesus!

by skeptic06 2006-04-07 08:20AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What about previous presidents?

> repeating the farce that was Clinton-in-the-dock?

The Clinton impeachment was a farce because Clinton hadn't actually done anything illegal.  Bush has done several things that go beyond illegal and into flat-out treason.  Outing an undercover agent who's fighting terrorism may have cost lives, and certainly hurt our fight against terrorism.  Doing so purely to spite a political adversary (one who dared to uncover a lie you were boldly using as a rationale for war, no less), is beyond immoral.

By contrast, fooling around with a girl from your office is a matter for a marriage counselor, not the United States Senate.

by schroeder 2006-04-07 12:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What about previous presidents?

You're funny.

You spend so much time saying "Everyone else does it, so Bush will be all right."

That's so cute... you have little crush on Bush... so ready to justify his mile with the inch that 'everyone' else took.

Well, as for me, yes... I believe that the Dems should SPEND the whole session impeaching Bush.  I truely and sincerely believe that unless Bush and Cheney are impeached, convicted and removed from office our generation will be shamed.

And there WILL be GOP Senators ready to impeach before 2008.  When the Dems take over, out come the investigations... and they won't need to delve very deep, mark my words.

This administration has been drunk on power, and careless.  They've relied on sheer political muscle to cover up their crimes, and that muscle is disappearing.

It's coming...

by teknofyl 2006-04-07 04:09PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Leaker-in-Chief

Along the lines of using this "leaked" information for political gain, what about using "terror alerts" and the "terror level" color system for political gain?  

Can we start connecting the dots and making it known that this is a pattern throughout the Bush presidency, and not just an isolated occurance?  Can the media start connecting the dots?  Can we all start to demand the truth?

by dumbledore 2006-04-07 07:30AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
CENSURE

Censure is the way to go.

This is the same administration that leaked 100 classified, top secret documents to the phillipines - the greatest white house security breach ever.

Censure.

by turnerbroadcasting 2006-04-07 08:06AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: CENSURE

I'd go with censure.

So long as it was organized right.

A solo run like Feingold is - fine. (The snafu there was down to the other Dems.)

A whole-party effort would be better: it would be a test of discipline - no bad thing, so long as the party passed. Clearly, that would be no cinch.

And the whole thing could be kept within bounds, and not consume everyone's energies. (Which impeachment could not.)

by skeptic06 2006-04-07 08:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Yeah, censure.

That'll really show 'em.  I'm sure after a very stern finger-wagging, that mean ol' Dick Cheney will wake up the next morning a changed man, vow never to do anything underhanded ever again, and buy the biggest goose at the market for poor Bob Cratchit.  And George W. Bush will keep Christmas, honesty, and Constitutional Law in his heart for the rest of his days.  God bless us, every one!
by schroeder 2006-04-07 12:12PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Leaker-in-Chief

First, to be fair to Bush, just because Libby reported that Bush told him to leak doesnt meant that it is true.  After all, Libby is going to be convicted of perjury.

Still, there is enough evidence out there that this should be a huge story in every media outlet.  Not just that Libby says Bush ordered the leak, but the documented serial lies (great video by the way) where Bush is talking about this issue.  I dont think I have EVER seen a President caught in, what is apparently, such a blatant lie.  By contrast, Clinton's "I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN" was truthful because there are different ideas of what constitutes "sex." Further, unlike other examples of Bush's probable lies, there isnt a chance that he thought he was telling the truth.  Here, there can be no doubt that if LIbby is telling the truth, Bush is just completely lying.

That video Matt linked to should be run over and over by the television news.

Of course, they wont.

by Andy Katz 2006-04-07 08:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Leaker-in-Chief

The press has been pretty good on this story so far.

Let's not give the dog a treat cuz it didn't chew our new shoes this time. IF they'd been good on this story, we wouldn't have gotten this far. They got played like chumps at every turn.

And "accountability"? It's just a slogan to run on for the [R]'s. When everyone figures that out, we'll be a lot better off.

by zappatero 2006-04-07 08:21AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------