No he won't.

 

Bush said he has ordered to Director of National Security John Negroponte to declassify the report's key findings during a joint White House press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

 

He also needs to find out who leaked the intelligence report and have them tried for treason.

Bush said he has ordered to Director of National Security John Negroponte to declassify the report's key findings during a joint White House press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Sure he will...

Sure he will...

I'm not sure that a partial release is anymore helpful than a partial leak.

USS Cole also was in the last month of his term. Could you image the feedback by Republicans in 2000, if Clinton would have acted with the Cole, while all that election mess in Florida was going on.

 

The Cole was bombed on 10/12/00 about 3 weeks before the election and the mess in Florida. Are you saying that Clinton didn't act because he was afraid of the effect it would have on the election?

No, as I understand it ...

 

Clinton has maintained that, by the time there was an investigation of the incident and a definitive plan in place to respond the Cole attack, we were mired in the Florida mess. Clinton has said he felt that he wasn't sure if he should take action on the matter just before leaving office, leaving the Bush administration to deal with the aftermath.

 

It might have seemed like a reasonable position at the time ... but in hindsight, combined with the Bush administration's inactivity on the issue, we now know that it was a huge mistake.

I'm not sure that a partial release is anymore helpful than a partial leak.

The difference is, the partial leak was made by several people with varrying agendas and political persuasions, and they all agreed on what the report said. Now you can accuse the NYT of fibbing about their sources, but I personally would bet against it. For one, there would be counter sources if that were true, or sources going to other papers and claiming they were misquouted.

 

Then you have Bush with a clear political agenda, with the luxury being a single source that gets to cherry pick the information he gives out. I'll trust the partial leaked report over the partial released information

The difference is, the partial leak was made by several people with varrying agendas and political persuasions, and they all agreed on what the report said. Now you can accuse the NYT of fibbing about their sources, but I personally would bet against it. For one, there would be counter sources if that were true, or sources going to other papers and claiming they were misquouted.

Not if they believed that releasing a secret document to the media was an act of treason against the United States.

This adminstration and its supporters have made the "shoot the messenger" theory a regular staple of their argument. Anytime some news comes out that's contrary to the administration's position, they immediately begin questioning the motives of those reporting it.

Not if they believed that releasing a secret document to the media was an act of treason against the United States.

I think it's fair to say that such countersources would have wished to set the record straight.

 

As far as we can tell, the NIE document wasn't leaked to the Times ... but sources were apparently willing to discuss it's conclusions. There is a difference.

Not if they believed that releasing a secret document to the media was an act of treason against the United States.

It's not like they gave the NYT the actual document. They discussed with the Times the conclusions of one part of the document.

This adminstration and its supporters have made the "shoot the messenger" theory a regular staple of their argument. Anytime some news comes out that's contrary to the administration's position, they immediately begin questioning the motives of those reporting it.

 

Kinda like Bill Clinton criticizing Fox News during the Wallace interview.

And the merry-go-round is still spinning...

Clinton inquired as to whether Fox had asked the same question of officials in the Bush administration ... a fair question.

Sort of like gas prices.

 

The Gas Prices Chapter of the Democratic Playbook

 

Gas prices go up:

 

Claim it's a Bush conspiracy to line the pockets of his oil buddies.

 

Gas prices go down:

 

Claim it's a Bush conspiracy to get Republicans re-elected.

Whenever I hear or read the phrase "Democrat Playbook," I just tune it out ... because I know what the source is. Just another right-wing talking point.