From: w3woody	Date: August 10th, 2004 12:26 pm (UTC)		(Link)

The Progressive News is apparently generating it's own electricity with the spin it's putting on the news.

Here is the full CNN report mentioned in the article: U.S. leak 'harms al Qaeda sting' The thing to note is that the leak came from "unnamed U.S. officials"--and the connection of these "unnamed U.S. officials" to the White House is (later in the article) "claimed"--basically assumed. The Senator in the article who is "troubled" (Senator Schumer) is, by the way, a Democrat. No real incentive to spin a bunch of "claims" and "assumptions" going from "unnamed U.S. officials" directly to George W. Bush's desk--whe, for all we know, this was a leak on the part of Democrats or (more likely) a genuine fuck-up by low-level bureaucrats within the DoJ.

But of course the Progressive News (who are well known Bush supporters--not!) have no problems carrying the assumptions all the way to the goal posts and depositing it directly on Bush's desk and making as much political hay as possible.


Of course I love the fact that the press who dissimenated this information far and wide are held completely blaimless--by the press, of course.

Nevermind that in the aformentioned Valerie Plame story, the only people so far who have refused to cooperate with investigations of her leak and who are now sitting in jail are not government operatives or GOP operatives or close Bush associates: it's reporters--of which one may go to jail for refusing to cooperate.

	From: 14cyclenotes	Date: August 10th, 2004 12:58 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I think you're trying a little spin of your own here. Two types of US officials would have access to the information on that agent: members of the executive branch, and members of Congress who receive intelligence briefings that contain his name. Now, you can suggest that it might possibly have come from Congress, but that seems unlikely to me. If nothing else the real name of an agent isn't likely to show up in a Congressional intelligence briefing.

The smart money, then, is on the executive branch - meaning, the Bush Administration. And of course the people who leaked it did it on background. It's not like they'd want their names attached to something like this.

Nevermind that in the aformentioned Valerie Plame story, the only people so far who have refused to cooperate with investigations of her leak and who are now sitting in jail are not government operatives or GOP operatives or close Bush associates: it's reporters--of which one may go to jail for refusing to cooperate.

You forgot someone: the person or persons (again in the Bush Administration) who leaked Plame's name in the first place. If that person had come forward and cooperated with investigators, there'd be no need to jail reporters.

From: w3woody	Date: August 10th, 2004 02:46 pm (UTC)		(Link)

The smart money, then, is on the executive branch - meaning, the Bush Administration. And of course the people who leaked it did it on background. It's not like they'd want their names attached to something like this.

And therefore it's a conspiracy?

I'm still trying to wrap my brain on how Bush is both simultaneously a diabolical genius and a complete dunce, depending on what circumstances require.


However, smart money is on a low-level fuck-up, and not symptomatic of high-level problems. I'm just noting that the facts have been spun up to a high buzz, and the same facts could be spun up to suggest malfesance on the part of Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee in order to discredit Bush.

You forgot someone: the person or persons (again in the Bush Administration) who leaked Plame's name in the first place. If that person had come forward and cooperated with investigators, there'd be no need to jail reporters.

(Rolls eyes) I love how you couple an assumption ("again in the Bush Administration") with an attempt to deflect blaim off of the journalist who refused to cooperate with a lawful enquiry in order to imply malfesiance--again, supprise, supprise!--on the part of Bush.

	From: 14cyclenotes	Date: August 10th, 2004 02:52 pm (UTC)		(Link)

And therefore it's a conspiracy?

As far as I know that's the first use of that word in this discussion. I certainly never suggested anything of the sort. I just think the Bush administration has a careless streak when it comes to secret information that can be made to serve political purposes.

(Rolls eyes) I love how you couple an assumption ("again in the Bush Administration") with an attempt to deflect blaim off of the journalist who refused to cooperate with a lawful enquiry in order to imply malfesiance--again, supprise, supprise!--on the part of Bush.

The journalist is doing what any ethical journalist would do: protecting sources. The blame for Valerie Plame's outing falls rightly on the people in the Bush administration who outed her.

That's not an assumption, BTW. The reporters who first broke the story identified their sources as members of the Bush administration. And I couldn't help noting that when you talked about how everyone but that reporter was cooperating with the investigation, you managed to forget those crucial people.

	From: abostick59	Date: August 10th, 2004 09:31 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I was going to add something to the discussion here, but it grew out of hand, and so I posted it on my own blog instead.

The best analysis I've seen about the Khan story has been on Informed Comment.

	From: 14cyclenotes	Date: August 11th, 2004 08:51 am (UTC)		(Link)

Thanks. I'm tracking down information on this as I can. It's looking more and more like standard-issue Shrubco ineptitude.

	From: housepet	Date: August 10th, 2004 06:38 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	ex-cuse-a me....

Please, no making politi_pet froth at the mouth.
It's not good for the keyboard and is darned inconvenient to clean up.