Posted on 04/07/2006 5:20:39 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
April 7, 2006
That didn't take long! Back in the MSM's Watergate heyday, it took a while for a steady drumbeat of revelations, stories and allegations to gather sufficient momentum. The pace has apparently quickened in the modern liberal-media world. On this morning's Today show, Matt Lauer, speaking of the allegation that President Bush authorized the disclosure of information by Scooter Libby, asked Chris Matthews: "scale of 1 to 10, [where] 10 is a deal-ender, where does this fall?"
Matthews didn't hesitate: "heading to 10."
Even Lauer seemed taken aback: "Really, that big?"
For good measure, Matthews later analogized VP Cheney to Henry II having not-so-subtly put out a hit on a dissenter in his administration.
In support of his seemingly inflated 'grading,' Mathews argued that prior to the Iraq war, "the main argument that sold the most Americans in the political center . . . most people supported the war with Iraq for one reason. The belief that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons."
He continued: "When we found there were no nuclear weaons, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson . . . said he had been sent by the Vice-President to check out this deal that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa. He . . . came back with a report that said there was no such deal."
Concluded Matthews: "Then according to this new tesimony of Scooter Libby, the President of the United States himself authorized the leak of information that would undercut Wilson's case."
Matthews wouldn't be mollified when Lauer suggested that there will be a game of semantics, with people arguing the president "couldn't have leaked classifed information because he has the power to declassify any information." Asked "how will that fly?", Matthews shot back:
"First of all, [former CIA Director] George Tenet knows nothing of this." And later: "What it shows is that the White House is involved in a major effort to undercut Wilson's claims that the emperor has no clothes, there was no nuclear case for war. That's why it goes possibly to a 10."
When Lauer wondered why the President didn't get out in front of this story and explain the situation to the American people, since Libby's allegations were likely to come out in the course of the trial, Matthews responded:
"They may be confident that Scooter Libby will never say 'the Vice-President never said to me 'leak the name of Valerie Plame,' which is the crime here." That's when Matthews then made his lurid historical reference: "It may well be one of those things out of Beckett where the king said 'will no one do this for me?'"
That was an allusion to Henry II having complained to four of his knights about Beckett, the stubborn advocate of the rule of law, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" The knights eventually obliged Henry, hacking Beckett to death with their swords.
Nice analogy, Chris!
"Human Car Bomb," is a term Chrissy coined to use against Ollie North in the 1994 election cycle. Can't recall who all else he described that way...
Well, North is still around and doing well. So, I guess Chris was wrong again.
Can't say the same for Matthews when MSNBC finally realizes that they can't afford to keep him on anymore.
Yea . . . that's the ticket.
Why do this sissy and Mr. Potato Head rate guest spots? Isn't that akin to Letterman having Leno on his show?
Does a President have any restrictions on what kind of information he may declassify? I mean, what if a President during the Cold War had decided to declassify the identities of a number of top agents responsible for spying on the Soviets? Would that be totally legal as well?
I am obviously not comparing that kind of situation to housewife Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson's temper tantrum, but we all know that lefties would see them as the same. It just seems kind of unusual that a President would be able to declassify ANYTHING he wanted.
Does a President have any restrictions on what kind of information he may declassify? I mean, what if a President during the Cold War had decided to declassify the identities of a number of top agents responsible for spying on the Soviets? Would that be totally legal as well?
I am obviously not comparing that kind of situation to housewife Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson's temper tantrum, but we all know that lefties would see them as the same. It just seems kind of unusual that a President would be able to declassify ANYTHING he wanted.
The NIE was declassified and released to the public nine months before Libby "leaked" it. Remember, Abu Ghraib was already under investigation before it was "discovered" by the press. Maybe the press should visit the Federal Register once in a while. Did you hear? Lincoln freed the slaves.
"Lets Discuss Derangement Syndrome Again"
Thanks. I liked this part:
When I was in New York a few weeks ago, a friend in the magazine business told me he thinks the ferocious Bush hating that he sees in New York is a way of calming the haters' fears of terrorism. It's not rational, but it's psychologically plausible--blame the cause you can control, at least indirectly through elections, rather than the threats you have no control over. I thought of that insight today when I glanced at Maureen Dowd's column and read this sentence, "Maybe it's because George Bush is relaxing at his ranch down there (again) while Osama is planning a big attack up here (again)."
That is the voice of a petulant child, angry that she has a tummy ache while Daddy is at work or Mommy is visiting a friend, or the voice of a grouchy wife angry that she has a migraine while her husband is out coaching the kids' baseball team. You're upset that you're in pain (we've all been there), so you get mad at someone whose presence wouldn't make the pain any better. No mature student of politics believes the president of the United States goofs off on vacation. It's not the kind of job you escape. George Bush may be completely insane to voluntarily. spend July in Texas--as opposed to Bill Clinton's favored coastal retreats--but Osama bin Laden is no more or less a threat than in Bush were in Washington. But if blaming Bush makes people feel better, safer, or at least able to focus their anger on someone they can hurt, they'll blame Bush.
The moron ignores the fact that the president IS the lawfull classifying/declassifying authority. If the president releases information then it is no longer classified.
The president can declassify anything he wants, he is the classifying authority.
Clinton screwed himself NOT by his actions in the Oval office, but when he pointed his finger at the camera and lied. Bush did the same thing when he said whoever leaked information (he was talking about this case specifically) would be found out and punished. He had that moment when he could/should have communicated the truth, but he did the political two step, and this will hurt him and the party more than he can believe. He has done this on many occasions, specifically with the information gathered in Iraq, showing that WMDs were believed by the Iraqi generals to be held within their own country, and being shocked when told by Saddam that they did not exist. Tell me why this information was not pointed out, when the President was taking hit after hit during the "Bush Lied, People Died" tour? Just who IS in control in this administration, and why such ineffective leadership?
People forget that Libby IS a Rat. And geez, did the MSM consider for one second that a guy trying to save his own skin could be...LYING?!?
Thanks for looking- displacement and projection are all-to-common in BDS.
It's interesting that you say that. I also noted something similar in the NY Post today.
The way the MSM is reporting you would think it was still classified .... and thus, they try to slam 43 for hypocrisy on wanting to go after the leakers.
The way the White House was treating it, you would think it was a leak. C'mon guys, speak up.
I though it was bad when Carter told about the Stealth fighter, but nothing happened there.
On July 18, 2003, the administration, facing criticism for the intelligence used to justify the war, declassified an eight-page part of the NIE dubbed "key judgments" and conducted a lengthy background briefing with reporters to discuss it.“Key judgments" is the operative word here, the “key judgements” documents were not declassified in July of 2003, they were declassified in October of 2002, six days after the NIE was complete per the following information:
On October 7, 2002 DCI Tenet sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee declassifying portions of its new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.
Another article:
A 25-page version of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was released in October 2002. It made clear-cut statements about Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons capabilities in two pages of "Key Judgments."A copy of the Key Judgments document can be found here. Warning: .pdf file.
As usual, the MSM gets it wrong.
An outright lie!
On October 7, 2002 DCI Tenet sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee declassifying portions of its new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.
Arrrgggghhhh!
Nothing has worked for them, but they keep on keeping on......digging their hole deeper and deeper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.