posted on July 29, 2002 09:53:41 AM new
IMHO way too much military and criminal information is released. But there are those who feel that virtually all non-classified info should be made public.
posted on July 29, 2002 11:17:21 AM new
As previous Presidents who have gone before Bush, it could be intentional. To direct the media, the American peeps and the enemies' attention to his right hand while the left hand is doing the slight of hand trick.
MR. HESS: We have three panelists, members of former Presidents' cabinets who are not exactly hapless giants as they present perhaps themselves in relation to the press. Surely you were... The morning paper talks about one of your successors, Donald Rumsfeld, as being brilliant at calculated leaks. Surely you had opportunities from your position to influence positively the press coverage in the way you wanted, the leaks plant, flattery, whatever it might be
posted on July 29, 2002 04:07:19 PM new
I think I get it now. All the plans are leaked out so the villain has time to hide making him impossible to find therefore giving a reason to why the war can't end.
Bruce, a former professor of national security policy at National War College and current adjunct professor at Georgetown University, nailed home his points by touting the Shelby Amendment, vetoed by Bill Clinton, to make leaks of classified materials criminally actionable.
He decried Clinton's pardon of former Navy intelligence analyst Samuel L. Morison, the only government official ever convicted of leaking classified information to the media.
Looks to me like neither side wants to 'lock that gate'.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 30, 2002 05:45 AM ]
Linda, In a free society, It's dangerous to "lock the press". It would involve another assault on the first ammendment. "The Justice Department generally has chosen not to prosecute suspected leakers because it is difficult to prove that any one individual was the source of a leak and such cases often would require subpoenaing reporters and editors, leading to First Amendment issues.
Already, the media is being suppressed by the Bush corporation.
Clinton and the Democrats did not invent "leaks". I'm sure that if we wait awhile, you will be blaming Clinton for the civil war.
It's just as ludicrous to portray Rumsfeld as outraged about leaks as it is to see Bush raising hell about the need for corporate reform.
Rumsfeld is known to have a brilliant ability to use leaks to advance his agenda, just as Bush is known to be as involved in corporate corruption like the corporate criminals that he is threatening to send to jail.
posted on July 30, 2002 07:34:47 AM new
Helen - I'm quite aware of what goes on, thank you. My point is to show that while some may think it only goes on by one side, that is not true.
As anyone can read....when there was a chance for this to pass, Clinton was the one who vetoed it. But, I think I'm one who can also see that the 'other side' doesn't seem too concerned either. Unlike others, who can only support one side no matter what goes on.
