Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: texasbluebell
Could someone give me the shorthand version of what Angle was supposed to have done that was so unethical?
2,547 posted on 03/24/2004 1:11:39 PM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2535 | View Replies ]


To: mewzilla
Never mind :) I just found the thread about the backround discussion. I take it that's what the Dems are squealing about? Bwah hah hah hah hah.
2,564 posted on 03/24/2004 1:14:30 PM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2547 | View Replies ]

To: mewzilla
From what I can make of the bogus charge, Angle and FNC released something that was supposed to be "background" only.

And now it's being implied that this was a breach of etiquette at the least, if not a breach of journalistic standards.
2,569 posted on 03/24/2004 1:15:10 PM PST by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2547 | View Replies ]

To: mewzilla
Could someone give me the shorthand version of what Angle was supposed to have done that was so unethical?

The short answer is: nothing.

He had the foresight to save a tape of an interview Clarke did with a few TV reporters in August 2002. The WH has the option of making its contents "for the record" or "off the record." At the time they kept it OTR. Now, when Clarke is trying to butcher them, the administration has made them available.

Angle says this happens every day.

2,571 posted on 03/24/2004 1:15:21 PM PST by LisaFab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2547 | View Replies ]

To: mewzilla
Could someone give me the shorthand version of what Angle was supposed to have done that was so unethical?

The argument is that while the release is okay, attributing the statements to an identifiable person (Clarke) is a breach.

Even then, a fair question to Clarke is "as between the White house statement of August 2002, and your book, which is a more accurate reflection of the truth, and why?" He never did answer that question.

2,606 posted on 03/24/2004 1:20:26 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2547 | View Replies ]

To: mewzilla
Jim Angle just explained it to Brit! This was a background briefing on a conference call with 5 other newspeople. The NSC agreed the media could use the wording "NSC official" as the source. Jim remembered the interview, dug it out and took the tape to the NSC. They agreed to life the restriction of "NSC official" to "Richard Clarke". So, according to Angle, the same people who put the restriction on, lifted the restriction off, and Fox did not use the tape until then. Jim Angle also said that the other 5 media people were told by the NSC that the restriction had been lifted.

Bob Kerry is full of cr@p!!!
2,979 posted on 03/24/2004 3:31:32 PM PST by CyberAnt (The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2547 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson