[dogbyte12]

I said I was done, but let me just reply to your one point. McClellan has two levels of briefings. One on the record, one off the record.

On the off the record briefing, the press says "White House Sources say", or the administration thinks... etc.

Basically, it is an anon briefing. If they wanted to be quoted on the record, they would have gone on the record. The concept that a person giving something off the record, can later be payed back by the White House, by giving up his anonymity, without his/her consent, is chilling to me.

Any whistleblower in any administration will stop saying anything meaningful to the press even off the record, if they know that they actually don't have any confidentiality. Their words are entirely the property of the President, to be used against them at a later time. Yes, this damages Clarke, but I think that isn't an important enough issue to go across this murky line.

[BigSkyFreeper]

If Clarke didn't want his credibility damaged, he shouldn't have done a damned flip-flop by publishing this book of freakin lies!!

[george wythe]

Yes, this damages Clarke, but I think that isn't an important enough issue to go across this murky line.

There is no issue more important than national security. My life, my relatives' lives, my family's lives are the most important thing in the world.

If Clarke's claim about national security are well-founded, I want to know and I have the right to know.

If Clarke is lying about national security, I have the right to know also.

JMHO

[BurbankKarl]

Pacifica Radio" "Clarke is an International Renown Figure due to his Best Selling Book"

[XJarhead]

The concept that a person giving something off the record, can later be payed back by the White House, by giving up his anonymity, without his/her consent, is chilling to me.

"Chilling"? So you think its better that a public official give false statements than to prove the falsity of those statements via videotape? That's just odd.

I think you've got the incentives all wrong here. The only incentive this will create is for people to speak truthfully at press briefings, and not to change their story afterwards.

You say that the result of this will be that there will be no more "off the record" briefings including FoxNews. How so? Is the next person tasked by the White House to speak to the press going to refuse to do so? Your parade of horribles ignores that he was not speaking as a private person, but rather in his capacity as a White House official.

[McGavin999]

Let me get this straight. In your opinion, the media should stand around on it's hands, knowing that someone is lying to the American people? Is that your position? In that case the "media" is has forfit the first amendment rights of the people in favor of some silly rule that isn't written down anywhere? They would allow someone to lie about an administration, possibly ruin it, and the "press" thinks that's ETHICAL?

These people are bigger enemies to the people than any of us realized.

[ShandaLear]

I work in PR for a very large corporations. Backgrounding is NOT off the record. Case closed.

[cyncooper]

On the off the record briefing, the press says "White House Sources say", or the administration thinks... etc.

Basically, it is an anon briefing. If they wanted to be quoted on the record, they would have gone on the record. The concept that a person giving something off the record, can later be payed back by the White House, by giving up his anonymity, without his/her consent, is chilling to me.

This was not some whistleblower going to a reporter or reporters. It was--and Clarke acknowledged--a briefing given on behalf of the WH and they have every right to reveal the contents of it. It is NOT the same as the scenarios you spin, no matter how you try and twist it.