[dogbyte12]

I will drop this subject, but I have to disagree here.

If anybody can name me one example ever of a network releasing a background interview like this, I would like to hear about it.

What you are saying now is that if Stephanopholous gave a background interview on behalf of Clinton, then bashed Clinton, Clinton has the authorization to order it released?

It's ethically wrong IMHO.

[plain talk]

read post 2250

[gipper81]

It's ethically wrong IMHO.

WHAT?????????? frickin planet are you from DUDE???????????

This is Washington DC power politics at play here of the extreme kind

How long did you play with your dolls as a youth????

[jackbill]

What you are saying now is that if Stephanopholous gave a background interview on behalf of Clinton, then bashed Clinton, Clinton has the authorization to order it released?

Absolutely. The President is the boss.

[Miss Marple]

Yes, if Steffie, as an employee of the White House, gave a background briefing that directly contradicted his later statements, the Clinton White House could ethically release the briefing.

When you work for the White House, you speak with the voice of the White House. And the White House controls all the information eminating from it, both background and public.

This is similar to corporations reminding you that whatever work you do for them is their property. Same principle.

[BillF]

You're right IF the "off the record" status was on behalf of Clarke personally, such as, for example, if he was whistle-blowing against the administration.

However, the "off the record" status was Clarke doing this for the White House. The background status was because of the White House and the White House can release the "background" status.

[roses of sharon]

The elite NY networks have ruined reputations and smeared with impunity for decades.

And now they are putting on a show trial, with witnesses under oath, testifying about a book they have not seen and that has not been deemed credible by a judge.

They have run this country long enough.

We are at war with these east coast commies, and it is time for us to some smearing of our own.

[Keith]

yes...absolutely...Stephie would have been speaking for the WH...it's the WH who can give to ok to play it...

[John Lenin]

Forget about ethics, shouldn't the truth be more important when we are talking about National Security ?

[CyberAnt]

Why? Background briefings are not "classified" information. The only thing I have been able to find out is that they are normally released as "senior admin spokesman" blah, blah, blah.

So the only thing Kerry was upset about was that Fox had exposed who was speaking - Clarke. Since this was not "classified" information, I would say the WH has the option to release the info or not and to release who said it.