Redstate

The NYT and WaPo, that is.

I wonder if Dana Priest has retained counsel?

Are already afoot.  If the Administration is thinking of investigating any journalists, Lewis Lapham has two words of advice for them.  Actually, he has these two words of advice regardless.

Now comes the real fun, courtesy of the March issue of Harper's magazine.  We knew it was going to come to this, didn't we?  

It was the media that demanded the courts resolve the "leaker/reporter" privledge issue in the Plame case, and they lost.  Now make them give up the information on the crimes they've witnessed or lock them up.

Last I looked, as an invididual Plame was safe and sound, but I'm not sure I can say that for the rest of the counrty now that the program to monitor INTERNATIONAL (NOT domestic unless flying Cleveland to Afhganistan is now a domestic flight) calls from terrorists has been compromised.

I've added a link to this post from Crackdown On Leakers Has MSM Panties In A Wad. An excerpt from my post:

... Oh, my, my! All anyone did was break a few laws and pass a few defense

  secrets on to our nation's enemies, and now they might (gasp!) end up in jail!

  Well cry me a frickin' river. ...

with their own Pomade! Joust them with their own Fromage! Goad them with their own Leotards! Heist them with their own Goats!

er, Roast them with ! umm.

I am happy that the Administration is targetting those who give aid and comfort to the enemy, and to see that we have all the legal tools that we need to prosecute the war on terror on the home front.  

Did you realize that, since the 1950 amendment to the Espionage Act makes it a crime for any unauthorized person even to keep to himself any "national defense information" received from a government official, that we could throw the whole kit and caboodle of embedded Dems in the hoosegow, simply by having the Administration, as it has done so often in the past, disclose information to particularly evil Dem reporters?  I would propose that any Dems who would rather not go to the slammer for receiving leaked information could do so only if they are willing to submit to a harmless "information removal" operation.

We can see that the Administration is setting the trap for unwary embedded Dems, by carefully stating through White House spokesman Trent Duffy that "We need to protect the right to free speech and the First Amendment, and the president is doing that," while CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck said that leak investigations were being conducted independently of the White House and were not aimed at pressuring journalists.  

The Justice Department is also playing along, by downplaying the possibility of any proecution of a reporter, stating that "a prosecution under the espionage laws of an actual member of the press for publishing classified information leaked to it by a government source would raise legitimate and serious issues and would not be undertaken lightly, indeed, the fact that there has never been such a prosecution speaks for itself."

I am happy that the White House is trying to be above board on any possible political motivations, but why should we not go after embedded Dems who publish secrets about the war on terror (at home or abroad)?  We definitely don't want uninformed Americans to know things that might upset them unnecessarily, such as totally legal and justifiable wiretapping programs at home, and secret prisons abroad.

I hope also that there is a thorough investigation of the nefarious methods that the embedded Dems are using to entice secret defense information from persons inside the information.  Since the leakers are remaining secret, they can't be disclosing information in exchange for notoriety - can anything explain the continuing flow of leaks, other a massive bribery scheme at work throughout the MSM?  I hope the Justice Department is hard at work on that possibility, which would cerainly be a conspiracy to conduct high treason.

Let's just hope that Goss and others in the Administration are really careful to catch only the bad leakers and embedded Dems out to damage our national interests, and don't inadvertently catch the good leakers and those whom they use in the press for the vital purposes of (i) silencing those who are trying to undermine our war on terror, (ii) reassuring Americans of our progress in stopping terrorist threats and (iii) all of the other good reasons that the Administration wants to leak secret, but not important, information (that doesn't damage our national security - since if it did, the good guys wouldn't leak it, right?).

However, I wonder if it is wise for us to be disussing the Administration's possible plans to prosecute the war against terror on the home front against leakers in the Administration and Dems in the embedded media.  Might this not do harm to national security, since the discussion may enable the media and leakers to adjust (such as by washing to the leaks through the foreign press).  Could these enemies thus learn information they should not have, so that discusssion of an effort to target Dems embedded in the media may damage our national security and put our citizens at risk?  Oops, maybe I shouldn't have said that, but I'm sure I can trust you and other here to keep a secret.  (But I'd understand if you decided to "disappear" this post (except for the hoisting part) or even the whole thread.)

Yours,  TT

They will argue that this threatens freedom of the press. Actually, brothers and sisters, we haven't had freedom of the press for more than 50 years. You can watch the news all day and never know what's going on.

Did you know that:

John Bolton has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his aid in uncovering A.Q. Khan network?

Some economists are speculating that the US economy could grow as much as 6% this year?

Did you know that the U.A.E. has its special forces troops fighting along side ours in Afghanistan?

Every bit of news has been carefully censored by the liberal elite and anything not fitting the party line has been removed, altered or denied.

Michael Crichton lamented that fact that most information, especially scientific information, is spun for political purposes. He speculates that some day there will be companies that specialize in providing accurate, un-biased information.

And you thought we had those already...

is worse than it's ever been, I have a hard time figuring out when it's acceptable or not, and the Administration has certainly done its share.  

And I'm not sure why it's really fair to blame the media, for leaks that, after all, are coming from inside the Administration.  It seems the MSM has shown restraint on some matters, but are you advocating a rule that they self-censor on all leaks except for leaks that make the Administration look good, and that all other leaks must be deemed harmful to our national security?  That doesn't seem to be a rule that meshes with the incentives reporters face - if one reporter keeps mum, he loses access, and there's always another reporter.  But in any case, if that's the rule you want, If so, do you really want to insist that the same rule apply if, heaven forbid, a Dem or independent ever ends up in the WH?

Lurking behind this are other issues - like the fact that some disclosures can be really damaging.  I understand your concern about that in the recent NYT disclosures about German, Egyptian and Saudi assistance, for example, but don't you think that the Administration bears some responsibility for muddying the waters on what leaks are acceptable?

Sincerely,

TT

Make sure you post on the foreign legion thing, okay?

Since the leakers are remaining secret, they can't be disclosing information in exchange for notoriety - can anything explain the continuing flow of leaks, other a massive bribery scheme at work throughout the MSM?

When you (or the media) say administration sources, one naturally thinks of someone the President has appointed.  Not necessarily so.

Presidential staff, State Department, Pentagon, Defense, Homeland Security: you name it, they are ALL staffed by bureaucrats.  You have HUGE staffs of entrenched bureaucrats who's primary interest is CYA!

Others, some left over from as far back as the Johnson Administration, have their own agendas, and not all of those agendas are the same as our present President.

We might think of the Administration as this monolithic institution, but it is anything but!

I lost sleep because of you, now it's your turn!

Just kidding!

that the media thugs are held in this may not be a bad PR move, viewed soley for a moment as PR.  Bush as to fight back,every time he does he rebounds, and who better to fight at home then those who are undenieably in the corner of "The Religion of Peace".  Bill Keller is already wetting his pampers about the lost values at home line, chronologically an adult but the mind and temperment of a child.  The media has become over the years a force for degeneration and destruction, probably the only group in America that is unaccountable, unreachable, and unanswerable to law.  The twisted brats have to be taught that their exists something called responsibility, that they are not god like, and that their are things out there even greater than themselves.  Who knows, a few may even start to suspect that there exists both standards and decency.

but different than its ever been.

Leaking of confidential info to change or influence policy has always been a cottage industry in DC.

What is different now is that the leaks are truly secret information and they are orginating in State (not that much of a departure from prededent) and the Operations Directorate at CIA (unheard of). The leaks have not been calculated to change policy as much as they have been calculated to damage the Administration.

See Michael Scheuer's comment on his book tour during the '04 campaign, "they (the CIA) were happy so long as I was bashing the Administration."

We've discussed in several stories on this site by Nick and I that the CIA is actually at war with the Administration. It is good to see the Administration has finally figured this out.

And sometimes "anonymous" means, my imaginary friend that connects all the dots that I can't connect with real sources, and until they're connected, I don't have a story. Sometimes, that's who "anonymous" is.

I am interested in getting from anyone at the NYT or WaPo is produced from turning piles of big rocks into piles of small rocks at some serious federal penitentiary.

I can't wait too see them squrim. Those who leaked and published classified information should be plastered all over the Tele. You can just feel the tension building for the axe to fall. These 'Oh-so-holyer-than-thou' reporters deserve what they get.

The Left and their will accomplices in the 'Drive-be media' have been working endlessly too bring this nation and the president too their Knees and regain power. This, the Greates of all nations is expendable for their ambitions.

I have not until lately had the over all urge too see some of the Deomcrats fall so hard, Rockefeller, Druban and the rest. The media can play the 1st ammendment card all day long,BUT, the ammendment does not say freedom of the Press to destroy the country because we hate the President.

I hope also that there is a thorough investigation of the nefarious methods that the embedded Dems are using to entice secret defense information from persons inside the information.

That we hide persons inside our information is itself a military secret. Either that, or someone is about to foist Jean Luc Petard on you.

The Justice Department is also playing along, by downplaying the possibility of any proecution of a reporter

I think they want to see if a little saber-rattling can cause the embedded Democrats to at least think before publishing information that could, for example, get Mubarak assassinated.

"a prosecution under the espionage laws of an actual member of the press for publishing classified information leaked to it by a government source would raise legitimate and serious issues..."

It sure would. One such issue is who qualifies as "a member of the press." When major news stories ("Those documents that CBS just showed on TV are fake") are broken by guys named "Buckhead" posting on Free Republic, it's hard to see who wouldn't get a press exemption from the law. Which means that the law would be toothless. Which means that greasy guys named Dmitri could simply start a blog to create a prosecution-proof venue in which to transmit their Stolen Secrets to their puppetmasters on Romulus.

One of the things that wordsmashers frequently miss is that when an argument gets transported into a courtroom, someone in the room — usually the judge — will insist that terms like "member of the press" be more rigorously defined than one would expect in a polemic disguised as a news story in the Washington Post. In the absence of any clearly-definable way to distingush between a partisan Democrat on the payroll of the Washington Post and a homosexual prostitute working as a reporter for a conservative direct-mail advertising firm, the courts may simply toss out the concept of a press exemption altogether... there being no clear way to define "press."

We definitely don't want uninformed Americans to know things that might upset them unnecessarily, such as totally legal and justifiable wiretapping programs at home,

We also don't want partisan Democrats hiding in newspaper buildings to tell Americans that telephone intercepts conducted in foreign countries are happening "at home" when they're not, and characterizing intercepts of overseas al-Qa'eda operatives as "domestic spying." This kind of deliberate lying done under the color of "journalism" is itself a threat to the Republic, since virtually nothing can prevent a critical mass of partisan Democrats hiding in a newspaper building from leading the public to erroneous conclusions by feeding the public falsified "facts."

the discussion may enable the media and leakers to adjust (such as by washing to the leaks through the foreign press

We often tolerate short-term discomfort in pursuit of longer-term objectives. Forcing the leakers to disclose their secrets to, say, reporters from al Jazeera — instead of to the partisan Democrats at the New York Times — actually helps the public understand what's going on. Not even embedded Democrats in the Washington Post building could convince the public that CIA employees disclosing classified information to al Jazeera reporters is a good thing. Once the public sess that for what it is, it will then be more difficult for the partisan Democrats hiding in the newspaper buildings to pretend that having them play the middleman makes things all better.

gravel.

I read it in the news. WaPo or NYTimes as I recall.

Did you know a nomination for the nobel peace prize is meaningless? Anyone can be nominated, and nominations are not revealed by the committee. They are revealed by the group that did the nominating. So some group nominated him and then  made a news story about it. If he wins and it doesn't make the news, that would be a big deal.

And Chriton is not a scientist. He never has been, and never will be. Can someone explain why Chriton's arguments get more weight than actual scientists? Did you know NASA's top climate scientist recently compared the Bush administration to Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany? And now the Bush Administration is going to prosecute the free press under the espionage act? Yet he ruined Valarie Wilson's career with leaks (I know, you disagree with that). I find that disturbing.

The great thing about "they hate the president" is it can be used to counter absolutely any argument, without addressing the points.

If someone broke the law, let the Justice Dept take care of it. But when was the last time you saw such glee in the state crushing the press? When was the last time you saw a state leader's supporters openly calling for using police force against the press? I suppose I could counter the argument with "they just hate liberals" but that's not the point. The point is you speak against some leaks and not others. On what criteria? On the criteria that the leak either helps or hurts your political party.

As was pointed out, leaks have been happening since forever, when our troops are in harms way and not. The real issue is Bush's policies are failing, the press is saying it, and you want to stop them.

That's how I see it.

Couldn't agree more, streiff. The leaks are being made to undermine and ultimately force the failure of our nation's efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and against the Islamist terrorists across the world.

In the war against terrorists, Jihadists and "insurgents," human and electronic intelligence is just as vital to success as direct action by our military forces. To divulge the processes and results of such intelligence is the equivalent of divulging secret troop movements. And almost every reporter will acknowledge that it's wrong to publish accounts of troop or ship movements.* (Based on a Supreme Court ruling I don't immediately find.)

I know the counterarguments from the leakers and their defenders.

• It's not the war per se I'm opposed to, it's the incompetent way the Administration is carrying it out. I am just shedding appropriate light on
  
• Egregious violations of human rights, as I define them, require that I follow a higher law, a I define it.
  
• This is an illegitimate war, an illegitimate administration, and anything I can do to undermine them is legitimate.
  
• My boss is a political hack who's screwing me, and I'm going to get back at him, and everyone's leaking classified information, so what's the big deal?

I reject all of those. We have a President elected by the voters of this country who has the constitutional authority to carry out foreign policy and certainly, to defend this nation against enemies both foreign and domestic.

Prosecution for illegal leaks would serve a direct purpose in buttressing our military and intelligence efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and elswhere as we fight our murderous enemies. But it would also defend the rule of law and our basic system of government.

Good post, Nick.

* Let me haul out a J-School anecdote from more than two decades ago. Raymond Bonner, the leftist New York Times reporter, was speaking to my class, back in his glory days of promoting the FMLN in El Salvador. I asked, "Well, when what military secret wouldn't you publish?" He hemmed and hawed a bit and said something along the lines of, "Well, I wouldn't report on the secret movement of our troop ships." But that was the sole exception he could come up with.

Pine Hall, eh? Wow, that sure brings back memories. Did you know they used to have an IBM 360/67 in there? One of very few ever built. You know what happened to it?

You're about to find out.

You are truly steeped in obscurity. I used to work in a shop with a triplex of 370/195s.

I should have finished  a diary entry entitled Journalism 101! How to lie while telling the truth!

Before the 1401 came to be, I am.

...they enjoy being at the center of things, just where Condi has placed them. CIA, otoh, is not trusted anymore and is considered by the Administration to be uselessly partisan and oafish.

Aside from this fact, their intelligence estimates appear to be way off time after time.

So they leak to influence policy in other ways, and they leak from the Operations Directorate in time of war. Amazing, isn't it?

Yet another reason why CIA is irredeemebly lost and must be altered or replaced by the old OSS, with a concentration on ad hoc HUMINT operations. When everyone in the target country knows who the Station Chief is, your Agency is a joke.

was a prophet.

accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'

One has to be a scientist to note that scientific information is often spun for political purposes?  Using that approach to thinking, does one have to be a weaponsmith or a ballistics expert to have an opinion on whether JW Booth shot Lincoln, or whether Mark Chapman shot John Lennon?  Considering that I've noticed that a lot of the scientists signing on to various petitions regarding the environmental issue of the moment are not environmental scientists or even in closely related fields, this line of argument seems, shall we say, self-serving.

In the words of the great George Kell (former boradcaster of the Detroit Tigers)

"HE'S  LOOOONG GONE"

I respectfully apologize for any perceived slight. But you asked for it!

in the NEA election. He wasn't extreme enough.

You're a partisan Democrat.

It doesn't bother you that a highly classified NSA program designed to monitor AQ communications between AQ and AQ sympathizers in the Continental United States was exposed, thus allowing AQ to shift its methods to counter this monitoring. This was done by "embedded Democrats" within the NSA and CIA for political reasons, in wartime.

This does not bother you because it damages President Bush. I strongly suspect that if John Kerry were in office and Republicans were doing it, it would bother you. Of course, you can be disingenous and hypocritical and deny it, but we both know the truth.

The fact is, a media which paraded Joe and Valerie Wilson as wounded patriots in one of the great CIA-sponsored media scams of our time NOW doesn't want the same rules applied about something far more serious. The notion that the MSM is anything other than a partisan House Organ for the DNC and the nascent Hillary! for President campaign is not as lost on use conservatives as it is on you liberals.

As for the Democrats;  their main talent in national security policy appears to be for fighting Bush and the Republicans, as opposed to fighting Bin Laden and the Islamic Fascisti. They're quite good at the former, lamentable at the latter.

Please come back to play when you are serious about defending the United States in time of war, as opposed to peddling common Bush Hate, which where your argument really settles. Your hypocrisy, founded as it is on risible partisanship, does your argument no favor.

when was the last time anyone asked about how the 7074 worked?

to have more of them, and the ones they are leaking are far more damaging.

It is time to stop the leaks-and the administration/justice department should pull out all the stops and make some clear examples of some of the leakers.

Can you give any examples of how "The MSM has shown restraint on some matters"?  Because the entries in the "no restraint shown" column seem to be piling up, and by the nature of the topic, there's no way to know anything they have shown restraint on.

Also, perhaps a couple of these "leaks that make the administration look good", while we're at it.

Still--I figured the point was worth making to whoever was inclined to note it.

Ah, the Nazi gambit. Well I guess I better get off daddy's iMac now and take my glass of Kool-aid out of the neat little cup holder on the front of the computer before he catches me.

It's getting easer and easier to reach the keyboard from my crib...

Somebody gave me an iPod for Christmas, and I tried to attach it to my feet.

I am right now eating my shoe.  I have been long pissed about and have been absolutely convinced that the current leadership lacked the sack to do what MUST be done to stop these leaks.  I now stand corrected.

Leaking of classified info is treason no ifs ands or buts.  The fact for the last 3yrs we have faced leak counter leak crap is devastating not only to our current war effort but our nations future in general.  

Classified is classified for a reason and not up for re-judgment by every low level yahoo who happens to get a peak at a piece of classified material.  

I hope we see the book thrown at these treasons leaders both the reporters who knowingly published the Editors who approved and especially the insiders who are spilling the beans for whatever reason.  I hope we get 10=yrs imprison or better.

of fame?

We will all have our 15 minutes of Hitler!

Two points:

1.  Bureaucrats do not like conservative governments because they limit the expansion of the bureaucrats empire.  By definition, bureaucrats are internal empire builders.
   
2.  Regarding leaking and security, I never leaked anything, but had the life scared out of me because as a 2nd Lt. in 1959, I inadvertantly overlooked a piece of paper under my desk that had exactly two words on it.  At the top and at the bottom it had the words "SECRET".  It had fallen off a document I had used and I did not see it to pick it up and put in a burn bag.  I thought I was going to Leavenworth for ten years.

but I'm not holding my breath.

Unfortunately, I think we will not see indictments and trial. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

...have erogenous zones in their feet, so I can understand your mistake. But it's not a sign of age or obsolescence. It's a sign of [cue ominous music]... something else.

War against leakers and the dirty scoundrals who publish them was declared in Patrick Fitzgerald's report announcing the indictment of Scooter Libby. Wildly popular with former mainstream media journalists, Libby's indictment was praised by them as a deterrant to future leaks jeopardizing the safety of people working for the government and the public. Vivid reminders  that leaking is not tolerated, are Mr. Fitzgeral's ongoing investigation of the White House and the criminal proceedings against Scooter Libby. What former mainstream media journalists oppose is prosecution of those they agree with for leaking.

There is an issue that comes into play when publicizing highly classified info that effects national security. The law. Even lawyers on the left realize it was violated. http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multi_5/documen
ts/05188678.asp

There is a mantra nobly repeated in the MSM and political circles about Nobody is above the law, including the president. The chilling effect however seems to carve out a sweet exception for those noble ones.

Your a principled man. Can you say Nobody is above the law, except the MSM?

...so much that it has caused a bi-partisan revolution to discredit President Bush as an "incompetent". Now is the worst possible time to try to convince Americans that journalist publishing of leaks does them more good than harm. This, along with the pending grand jury investigation,  and prosecution of Scooter Libby characterizes as "traitors" anyone involved in leaking secrets - including journalists.

Gee, what can the press expect, after waving the bloody shirt of the Plame case for so long, so loudly?

It was already delicious enough to see their national credibility driven down into the toilet, to see massive print media cutbacks and monetary loss. But the thought that some of these scoundrels may actually go to jail, or at least have to fight to stay out of it, that thought makes me giddy.

The press has been broken for a long time. Lets clear out the deadwood and start anew. May this be a successful first step.

are not causing the leaks.  

curious that you chose not to talk about him, but only the MSM.

Who's in the media - look to 1st amendment principles.  The media are people who try to widely disseminate information.  That's really not so hard.  

Sorry, I'm not buying the partisan line you're selling on FISA.  This is only a partisan concern to those who want it to be:  see guys like Barr, Dean, Ornstein, Fein and CATO, not to mention a few Senate Critters on the right.

I don't disagree with your insistence that the media should be really careful in publishing national secrets, but to me your desire to chase the media on this is misplaced.  Leakers leak for their own reasons, not because a reporter is clamoring for a secret.

Where there's smoke there's fire, but this time it seems too be in the Administration.

Thanks for coming back with your thoughts.

that congressional Democrats are sufficiently moronic to chose that course of action, particularly with the "Case" outlined in Harpers.

Please Nancy.  Pretty please.

Thanks for the article johne.  No, of course it's clear that the MSM are not above the law, nor do I wish them to be.

But let's be clear what's going on here - this Administration is itself responsible for cheapening the respect for national secrets!  The MSM is not forcing leakers to leak; the reporters are venal guys who are happy to inflate their own egos by catering to whomever's got a secret, from the WH on down.

The MSM certainly deserve some bashing, but I hate the way the the Adminsitration has itself played with national security in a very partisan way.

Can you point me to some prior threads for more?

TT

...I hate the way the the Adminsitration has itself played with national security in a very partisan way.

Demonstrate - presently.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/archives/060301/the_reach_o
f_th.htm

I'm actually doing a column on this for my nespaper here in Atlanta this week or next and am studying the issues.

You might also find some material in TheSophist's January diary on this topic if you did not catch it previously. http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/1/6/121256/8996

in fact, it is always profitable to check out The Sophist before doing anything!!!

amen?

I thought so bro!!

In corner crunching fashion, I meanly stand to bar your way on that tact as well.

Do you wish to say the Administration is a monolith? ;-0 (I hope you will laugh off the low blow as no real disrespect is intended).

Seriously, it appears the Administration intends to prosecute the leakers whether they were in the Administration or not. This has already happened in the Plamegame even when it appeared to go to the President's friends. President Bush seems to be keeping politics out of the investigations while ordering them to proceed along legal routes.

The idea implicit in your claims, that Bush & Co.... "the Administration"... played reporter's venality in order to set them up for a fall by leaking in ways that played politics with national security, is...a tact you really should not be allowed to take. It relies on an assumption regarding the motivations of the as yet unidentified leakers and conflates these with the more general motivations of the Administration at large. This seems odd to many of us who assume that the leakers motivations were actually hostile to Bush&Co. That difference in assumptions in itself reveals something?

At any rate, setting aside the assumptions, the fact that the leakers are targets as well belies you claims.

Whether Bush will politically intervene in these legal operations because they end up ensnaring the MSM when he did not do so in the Plame case is a question steeped in irony, especially given the far more serious national security implications. That would be a welcome channel for your thoughts :).

Oh, and I hope you will forgive my confrontational style, bearing in mind that I respect and admire yours. No pain, no gain.

You may recall the prior dialogue in which I first learned to share your admiration, attention to which provides a trail to enlightening dialogue. As a matter of fact, that is precisely why I thought I ought to draw your attention to his diary.

I'll leave it at that for fear of burning ears and popping heads.

Bro'... I feel good about that! Thanks to you too bro'. :)

his mind seems to be in fine shape, cetainly his wit has not been damaged in any way; twisted perhaps but not damaged. So yes indeed there may well be "other factors" at work here.

Johne, don't get me wrong - I am against all of this leaking, but think the Administration is to blame as well.  I am certainly not clearing MSM, even though I do not share the view that THEY are monolithic.

I agree that the WH seems to be staying out of the prosecution decisions; time will tell, but I for one would be surprised if the WH isn't making its views known on what leaks bother it, and who runs the Justice Deopartment now?  But the WH has certainly been authorizing the disclosure of secrets on its own - such is in Woodward's book.  In Plamegate, it's of record now that Libby was authorized to disclose secrets.  No heads rolled, despite Bush's statements as to requiring accountability.

I understand fron Nick and streiff that there's a war on between the WH and some in the CIA.  It's truly unfortunate - shall we go examine the origins of that?  Fukuyama, Sullivan and others have remarked on this recently.

I also don't like that the Administration has taken classification to new levels.  What's not a secret, unless leaked?

You're confusing my argument about leakers and the MSM.  My point is that even though one can balme the MSM for being partisan, you cannot blame them for the fact that THERE BE LEAKERS.  You can also blame the MSM for disclosing some or all leaks, but it is simply unrealistic to expect that someone in the media who is given a leak is in all cases simply going to keep clam and let it whither away (besides, even keeping the secret in his own mind is a violation of law, as Nick pointed out).

I appreciate the jousting, Johne, but just remember I'm not a partisan here, but am on another planet.  I am looking for accountability and responsibility all around.

In Plamegate, it's of record now that Libby was authorized to disclose secrets.  No heads rolled, despite Bush's statements as to requiring accountability.

What secrets?  Plame?  Hardly a secret!

In Plamegate, it's of record now that Libby was authorized to disclose secrets.

What secrets? Libby was authorized to disclose information in the 2002 NIE. Valerie Plame had absolutely nothing to do with it ... just like they intended, you fell for a deliberate attempt at issue conflation by the MSM.

And even, that cannot be called leaking ... considering that Cheney actually officially declassified the information Libby disclosed.

I can toast accountability and responsibility all around...but that doesn't necessarily mean blame all around...but blame where it is due. That is easily confused - factcheck.org seems to like to put equal blame on all sides and I've seen them stretch the truth to do so. I hope you aren't making the same mistake.

Regarding the internal war, I suppose we can all remark on it according to whose view we prefer. But there is this thing called the Presidency which is accountable to the people and derives the ultimate policy making power in the Executive branch as a result. Commander in Chief. Insubordinate in Chief. There is an institutionally presumptive blame here which is not tied to anybodies opinions.

Regarding Libby, I assume you are talking about the NIE, which as I understand it, appeared in the Media as declassified info shortly after Libby 'leaked' it to reporters. It may well have been declassified at the time and Cheney certainly had the authority to do it. At any rate, the national security impact is the distinguishing factor, and if MSMers can't withstand the grandiose temptations to break the next Whatevergate for the sake of that then...they deserve whatever they get. Some of your claims seem to rely on treating all the leaks the same. If we can't expect them to draw this line then I'd like to expect them to stop being journalists, perhaps start being inmates, along with anybody else who takes national security decisions into their own hands without having the authority, responsibility and accountability.

The MSM is not monolithic, but the predominant bias at work within it ought to be clear and can be made clear, so Nick is in bounds. I'm loaded for bear on this point.

In that the point of your post is that we can't blame the MSM that "THERE BE LEAKERS," I'll grant you that with a smile and thank you for dismissing all the erroneous implications that are seemingly derived from your argument. I don't think I would have confused your argument if not for the implications that you seemed to infer from it, namely your blame on Bush&Co, which lacks a hook to hang on.

As far as I can tell the "new levels" point you make is a MSM manufactured meme akin to most conspiracy theories, necessarily built upon suspicion or opinion, not fact. How could anyone who doesn't know what is and has been secret know how much more or less is being kept secret. You may rightly claim it suggests mistrust...could that be partisan mistrust being reflected in the non-monolithic MSM. Here's a thesis. The many in the MSM who do not like Bush or his policies are not getting all the information they want for the purpose of changing his policies which they know are wrong, so they blame Bush/Cheney for being too super secretive. How convenient. And of course you are just echoing the objective MSM when you restate their theory. Pardon me while I peeuke. The MSM clamis it is on Planet Non-Partisan... ! u 2?

Actually I don't care what planet you are from as long as your crop is facts and good sense.