How can they do this?  Easy!  By using the press's own charge that leaks comprimise national security (Valerie Plame) that they argued was such a horrible thing.  Rush as usual was right, saw this coming a mile away.  Liberals never, ever consider unintended consequences.

White House Trains Efforts on Media Leaks
Sources, Reporters Could Be Prosecuted

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 5, 2006; Page A01

The Bush administration, seeking to limit leaks of classified information, has launched initiatives targeting journalists and their possible government sources. The efforts include several FBI probes, a polygraph investigation inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws.

In recent weeks, dozens of employees at the CIA, the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies have been interviewed by agents from the FBI's Washington field office, who are investigating possible leaks that led to reports about secret CIA prisons and the NSA's warrantless domestic surveillance program, according to law enforcement and intelligence officials familiar with the two cases.

Numerous employees at the CIA, FBI, Justice Department and other agencies also have received letters from Justice prohibiting them from discussing even unclassified issues related to the NSA program, according to sources familiar with the notices. Some GOP lawmakers are also considering whether to approve tougher penalties for leaking.

In a little-noticed case in California, FBI agents from Los Angeles have already contacted reporters at the Sacramento Bee about stories published in July that were based on sealed court documents related to a terrorism case in Lodi, according to the newspaper.

Some media watchers, lawyers and editors say that, taken together, the incidents represent perhaps the most extensive and overt campaign against leaks in a generation, and that they have worsened the already-tense relationship between mainstream news organizations and the White House.

"There's a tone of gleeful relish in the way they talk about dragging reporters before grand juries, their appetite for withholding information, and the hints that reporters who look too hard into the public's business risk being branded traitors," said New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, in a statement responding to questions from The Washington Post. "I don't know how far action will follow rhetoric, but some days it sounds like the administration is declaring war at home on the values it professes to be promoting abroad."   reap what you sow, asshole

President Bush has called the NSA leak "a shameful act" that was "helping the enemy," and said in December that he was hopeful the Justice Department would conduct a full investigation into the disclosure.

"We need to protect the right to free speech and the First Amendment, and the president is doing that," said White House spokesman Trent Duffy. "But, at the same time, we do need to protect classified information which helps fight the war on terror."

Disclosing classified information without authorization has long been against the law, yet such leaks are one of the realities of life in Washington -- accounting for much of the back-channel conversation that goes on daily among journalists, policy intellectuals, and current and former government officials.

Presidents have also long complained about leaks: Richard Nixon's infamous "plumbers" were originally set up to plug them, and he tried, but failed, to prevent publication of a classified history of the Vietnam War called the Pentagon Papers. Ronald Reagan exclaimed at one point that he was "up to my keister" in leaks.

Bush administration officials -- who complain that reports about detainee abuse, clandestine surveillance and other topics have endangered the nation during a time of war -- have arguably taken a more aggressive approach than other recent administrations, including a clear willingness to take on journalists more directly if necessary.

"Almost every administration has kind of come in saying they want an open administration, and then getting bad press and fuming about leaks," said David Greenberg, a Rutgers University journalism professor and author of "Nixon's Shadow." "But it's a pretty fair statement to say you haven't seen this kind of crackdown on leaks since the Nixon administration."

more..........

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030400867_2.html

Oooooh, this is gonna get nasty.

'Bout time.

Waiting on the howling to come from the Leftists.....  

Quoted: Oooooh, this is gonna get nasty. 'Bout time. Waiting on the howling to come from the Leftists.....

All the White House will have to do is ask them why a leak comprimising national security was so egregious against Valerie Plame (which the Special Prosecutor has since determined WASNT) but real actual comprimises against national security like alerting terrorists to the NSA monitoring of international phone calls isn't.

The answer is obvious with anyone with half a brain, and it's going to be hilarious to watch the press squirm in answering.

another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon.

Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon.

WHATEVER

Giving our state secrets to the enemy is not freedom of speech.  I believe it's normally called espionage.

Besides that's not the real issue in all this.  The real issue is calling the fucking press on its double standards.

Every day, the press demonstrates the following to the White House (not just George Bush): "We hate you.  We want to destroy you.  And we'll blow up any story no matter how bullshit or meritless it actually is into a Watergate-scale scandal in order to do so, and we'll do it with pleasure."

And now they're going to scream like babies when the White House doesn't lie down and take it passively any more, after 5 years.

Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendmenttreasonist's, must be the 2nd A's turn soon.

Did the media have the "right" to announce to the Germans when D-Day would be? Did the 1st ammendment protect the right to announce the Doolittle raid?

Repeat after me, "The 1st ammedment is not a suicide pact"

Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. WHATEVER Giving our state secrets to the enemy is not freedom of speech.  I believe it's normally called espionage. Besides that's not the real issue in all this.  The real issue is calling the fucking press on its double standards. Every day, the press demonstrates the following to the White House (not just George Bush): "We hate you.  We want to destroy you.  And we'll blow up any story no matter how bullshit or meritless it actually is into a Watergate-scale scandal in order to do so, and we'll do it with pleasure." And now they're going to scream like babies when the White House doesn't lie down and take it passively any more, after 5 years.

keep drinking the koolaid.

Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon.

Have you yelled "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre lately when there was no fire?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. WHATEVER Giving our state secrets to the enemy is not freedom of speech.  I believe it's normally called espionage. Besides that's not the real issue in all this.  The real issue is calling the fucking press on its double standards. Every day, the press demonstrates the following to the White House (not just George Bush): "We hate you.  We want to destroy you.  And we'll blow up any story no matter how bullshit or meritless it actually is into a Watergate-scale scandal in order to do so, and we'll do it with pleasure." And now they're going to scream like babies when the White House doesn't lie down and take it passively any more, after 5 years. keep drinking the koolaid.

Just understand this isn't coming out of nowhere, and the White House has nothing to hide and has done no wrong.  This is a reaction to the transgressions of the press, who will be found guilty if they are held up to the same standards they demanded the White House was held up to (and was found INNOCENT after a 2 year investigation they insisted be conducted).

Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon.

I agree with Fourays to a certain extent.

The potential of being hauled before a grand jury or getting a visit from the FBI can have a "chilling effect" (as the courts would say) on the press. While I'm sure some of you here would be happy with that, it's a shortsighted opinion.

Compare to this: some of us won't keep a SBR upper in our safes (or even in our house) with a lower until we have the ATF paperwork back for fear of getting "busted." That's fucking absurd. That's a "chilling effect" that abridges our rights although we're not breaking any laws.

Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. I agree with Fourays to a certain extent. The potential of being hauled before a grand jury or getting a visit from the FBI can have a "chilling effect" (as the courts would say) on the press. While I'm sure some of you here would be happy with that, it's a shortsighted opinion. Compare to this: some of us won't keep a SBR upper in our safes (or even in our house) with a lower until we have the ATF paperwork back for fear of getting "busted." That's fucking absurd. That's a "chilling effect" that abridges our rights although we're not breaking any laws.

I'd agree with you........if the press was alerting the public that the White House was doing something wrong and illegal.  How would you react if someone kept on accusing you of being a criminal and wrongdoer when you weren't, and was not just unrepentent but took joy from relentlessly trying to destroy you?

How long could you put up with someone who had made it their mission in life to destroy you, not because of anything bad you did, but simply because of who you are?

Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. I agree with Fourays to a certain extent. The potential of being hauled before a grand jury or getting a visit from the FBI can have a "chilling effect" (as the courts would say) on the press. While I'm sure some of you here would be happy with that, it's a shortsighted opinion. Compare to this: some of us won't keep a SBR upper in our safes (or even in our house) with a lower until we have the ATF paperwork back for fear of getting "busted." That's fucking absurd. That's a "chilling effect" that abridges our rights although we're not breaking any laws.

I hope it's like a sunami from Greenland on treasonist activities.

Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon.

You sound like an idiot who knows nothing about the constitution, the bill of rights or American history.  Before you open your mouth and prove that true, why don't you read the bill of rights and the federalist papers.  Then read the history of WWII paying close attention to the measures taken by the POTUS to prevent internal espionage and the leaking of secrets to the enemy.  

Then maybe you can come back and comment on the issue without sounding like an uneducated moron.

Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. I agree with Fourays to a certain extent. The potential of being hauled before a grand jury or getting a visit from the FBI can have a "chilling effect" (as the courts would say) on the press. While I'm sure some of you here would be happy with that, it's a shortsighted opinion. Compare to this: some of us won't keep a SBR upper in our safes (or even in our house) with a lower until we have the ATF paperwork back for fear of getting "busted." That's fucking absurd. That's a "chilling effect" that abridges our rights although we're not breaking any laws.

Apples and oranges.

Uh…huh you just keep fooling yourself this has anything to do with a free press and not an out of control mob that will get people killed to make up political gotcha games to play.

The press is real concerned with free speech… sure they are. It is OK to print secrets that endanger national security but the MSM will not print cartoons that might offend Muslims.

The MSM has proven they cannot be trusted and are playing political games with national security it is about time someone said enough.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. I agree with Fourays to a certain extent. The potential of being hauled before a grand jury or getting a visit from the FBI can have a "chilling effect" (as the courts would say) on the press. While I'm sure some of you here would be happy with that, it's a shortsighted opinion. Compare to this: some of us won't keep a SBR upper in our safes (or even in our house) with a lower until we have the ATF paperwork back for fear of getting "busted." That's fucking absurd. That's a "chilling effect" that abridges our rights although we're not breaking any laws. Apples and oranges. Uh…huh you just keep fooling yourself this has anything to do with a free press and not an out of control mob that will get people killed to make up political gotcha games to play. The press is real concerned with free speech… sure they are. It is OK to print secrets that endanger national security but the MSM will not print cartoons that might offend Muslims. The MSM has proven they cannot be trusted and are playing political games with national security it is about time someone said enough.

The press might not be, but I am.

Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. You sound like an idiot who knows nothing about the constitution, the bill of rights or American history.  Before you open your mouth and prove that true, why don't you read the bill of rights and the federalist papers.  Then read the history of WWII paying close attention to the measures taken by the POTUS to prevent internal espionage and the leaking of secrets to the enemy.   Then maybe you can come back and comment on the issue without sounding like an uneducated moron.

+1 to that.

Are They Insane?

The short answer to that question is, "Yes."

Insane? Spend too much time close to politicians nowadays and suddenly that's a good question. This week the New York Times in the course of deconstructing the bad relationship between the Bush White House and the pressies who shout questions at it quoted a clinical psychologist who claimed to have had as patients several White House correspondents--all suffering from what she calls "White House reporter syndrome." Something about being "emotionally isolated." This story already has plenty of clowns, so by all means, send in the psychiatrists. [...] Rational problem-solving generally requires adhering to the rules of the game, and in politics those rules are often informal. One such rule in Washington is that a politician is as good as his word. Perhaps nothing has been more destructive to Washington's current ability to function than the belief that "Bush lied" about WMD, most notably Joe Wilson's foundational charge in the New York Times that Mr. Bush lied about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium from Niger. This persistent belief that George Bush committed a major moral crime, which was refuted by the Robb-Silberman Commission, had consequences. It has led many people in Washington's standing institutions--Congress, the press, the intelligence and foreign-policy bureaucracies--to think they've been released from operating inside the normal boundaries that allow political Washington to function, that allow partisans to do business, whether on foreign policy, Social Security or homeland security. Over the Bush years that code has been displaced by a new ethos that to resist policies that flowed from such a "lie," anything goes--such as leaks about the most sensitive national security programs or published "dissents" by recently retired CIA officials like Paul Pillar. Compare this ethos to that of the U.S. intelligence community that ran the Venona program, producing invaluable signals intelligence on Soviet espionage activities from 1943 onward without any participant revealing its existence. No such achievement is imaginable now.

You cannot reason with these "Bush Lied, People Died" fanatics. No amount of evidence will ever persuade them. Syria could implode today from all the weapons Saddam sent there; the majority of Iraqis expire from some old container of Saddam's biological weapons-- and still they would cling to the mantra, repeating it over and over to gain comfort and solace.

For these crazy people, Bush must must must be wrong. They despise him with an intensity that is hard to imagine. It has eroded their brains like an unrestrained infection. They are, to put it quite simply, perfectly content to destroy the entire country to get at Bush.

People write to me all the time and ask me why? Why do these sad little people have so much hate for the President? What is going on? What is really motivating them?

A large part of the answer is in my previous post on Bush Derangement Syndrome. But there is another factor that is in play that needs to be considered. It is a psychohistorical reason.

George Bush came along at exactly the right time in history. The problem is that for most people of the left, Bush came at the most disappointingly lowest, unquestionably most serious point in several hundred years for their sad little ideology.

It has been noted that Ronald Reagan also received the same kind of vicious attacks on his intelligence; as well as on his administration. I am old enough to remember some people I knew who were jubilant when Reagan was shot, hoping I assume that he would go away. Why? Because Reagan did something that the left was desperately trying to cover up at the time:

Reagan was the person who stood up and shouted that the emperor of Communism had no clothes on. The naked truth about the left's little ideology had been known for some years, but noone called them on it as forcefully as Reagan did. They saw in Reagan the beginning of their end and they hated him for it.

But the left was rescued by the election of Bill Clinton, a moderate Democrat without any moral compass; who would go in what ever direction the wind blew (and still is). Despite the collape of the Soviet Union. Despite the complete debunking of their totalitarian philosophy by both history and reality; they could breath a sigh of relief that a man like Clinton was at the helm. They could press on with their agenda without too much interference. And hope that noone would notice the truth.

All that changed in the election of 2000. They were inclined to dislike Bush as a merely a concept; and the closeness of the 2000 election was extremely frustrating for them (they refeuse to believe that they lost that election to this day; just as they will continue to insist that Bush lied about WMD--its all part of the the same prayer in their ideological bible).

Then 9/11 burst on the historical scene. Bush, who probably would have been a mildly mediocre president without a lot of historical significance, was galvanized into action. Sometimes, leaders are born as we all know; and sometimes they are made. I tend to think that 9/11 made George Bush. Even if he had no vision--and there wasn't much reason to think that he did, just something different from Gore and Clinton-- prior to that date, it is obvious to me that many things crystallized for Bush at that time. He did what he had to do, and all Americans can thank him for keeping us safe these last five years.

Let me say, as I have said many times before, that there are many issues on which I diverge sharply with the President. The GWOT, however, is not one of them. But by pursuing aggressively this global war on what looked like a "new" enemy--Islamic fanaticism; Islamofascism or whatever you want to call it--what most people don't realize is that Bush has inadvertantly has restarted the war on those stalwarts of 20th century totalitarianism. It was a war that began during WWII; continued during the Cold War; was felt to be won for a while; but now is approaching a grand confrontation with the heirs of Hitler and Stalin combined. It seems very likely that the "12th Imam" is nothing more than the mutated offspring of Father Hitler and Mother Stalin, who has been hiding out for the last century or so waiting for a propitious moment to return.

Because the two strains of totalitarianism that we hoped had been wiped out forever after the Cold War and the demise of the USSR; like mad strands of recombinant DNA united to form a perfectly toxic specimen.

I say Bush took up this war inadvertantly, because I don't believe that many people--including many in the Republican adminsitration-- see the most obvious reasons why the left have persistantly and rabidly taken the side of radical Islam in what has been referred to as an "Unholy Alliance". This alliance may be "unholy", but it is neither unexpected nor illogical from the perspective of the intelligentsia of the left. The leaders of ANSWER and UFPJ; the WWP all know that if Bush is successful in the GWOT, it will also bring about that inevitable demise--the final stake in the heart-- of their utopian dreams.

This is not a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of thing. Radical Islam and the left are not enemies at all; but the flip sides of totalitarianism. Think of a coin. On one side is the dragon of leftist tyranny; on the other you will find the dragon of rightist tyranny. No matter how ofen you flip it, it is still the same coin.

So, the left was prepared to hate George Bush from the beginning. What they didn't expect was that he would inadvertantly become St. George who boldly took up arms to slay the real dragons that threatened humanity.

That is why he is more dangerous to them than Osama or Zarqawi. That is why they are so afraid and have to keep stoking the hate and fear in their mindless minions, the neverending fodder for their utopian fantasies--many of whom are leaders in the Democratic Party. Those who understand what is at stake are more than willing to use psychological manipulation to control the masses. They will use lies, distortion and emotional excess to promote their agenda. Anything goes. The times are desperate for them.

Getting back to the original question. Are they insane? Well, most of the left's intellectuals (if you can call them that) know exactly what it is they are doing; and their behavior is deliberate and malevolent. They come closest to the definition of a malignant, psychopathic-leaning narcissist (or narcissitic-leaning psychopath--take your pick).

But the mentally disordered, absurd and out-of-touch-with-reality sidekicks, panderers to, and cutesy hangers-on of these psychopaths certainly fit the most stringent definiitions of the word.

UPDATE: The American Thinker has similar thoughts, more succintly put.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:18 PM Comments (53) | Trackback (1)    

Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon.

It's funny when people post and they don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about that......well maybe more sad than funny.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. WHATEVER Giving our state secrets to the enemy is not freedom of speech.  I believe it's normally called espionage. Besides that's not the real issue in all this.  The real issue is calling the fucking press on its double standards. Every day, the press demonstrates the following to the White House (not just George Bush): "We hate you.  We want to destroy you.  And we'll blow up any story no matter how bullshit or meritless it actually is into a Watergate-scale scandal in order to do so, and we'll do it with pleasure." And now they're going to scream like babies when the White House doesn't lie down and take it passively any more, after 5 years. keep drinking the koolaid. Just understand this isn't coming out of nowhere, and the White House has nothing to hide and has done no wrong.  This is a reaction to the transgressions of the press, who will be found guilty if they are held up to the same standards they demanded the White House was held up to (and was found INNOCENT after a 2 year investigation they insisted be conducted).

You are representative of the piss-soaked cowards who dance in delight as the boot comes down on all of our necks.  Terrorists my ass.  One successful attack five years ago, big fucking deal.  

Go sell somebody else's freedoms, Judas.  You people piss me off.  Go lock yourself in the basement if you're so scared of the light.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. WHATEVER Giving our state secrets to the enemy is not freedom of speech.  I believe it's normally called espionage. Besides that's not the real issue in all this.  The real issue is calling the fucking press on its double standards. Every day, the press demonstrates the following to the White House (not just George Bush): "We hate you.  We want to destroy you.  And we'll blow up any story no matter how bullshit or meritless it actually is into a Watergate-scale scandal in order to do so, and we'll do it with pleasure." And now they're going to scream like babies when the White House doesn't lie down and take it passively any more, after 5 years. keep drinking the koolaid. Just understand this isn't coming out of nowhere, and the White House has nothing to hide and has done no wrong.  This is a reaction to the transgressions of the press, who will be found guilty if they are held up to the same standards they demanded the White House was held up to (and was found INNOCENT after a 2 year investigation they insisted be conducted). You are representative of the piss-soaked cowards who dance in delight as the boot comes down on all of our necks.  Terrorists my ass.  One successful attack five years ago, big fucking deal.   Go sell somebody else's freedoms, Judas.  You people piss me off.  Go lock yourself in the basement if you're so scared of the light.

You just went way over the line. You are a keyboard brave boy that would shit his pant if you were face to face.

STFU

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. WHATEVER Giving our state secrets to the enemy is not freedom of speech.  I believe it's normally called espionage. Besides that's not the real issue in all this.  The real issue is calling the fucking press on its double standards. Every day, the press demonstrates the following to the White House (not just George Bush): "We hate you.  We want to destroy you.  And we'll blow up any story no matter how bullshit or meritless it actually is into a Watergate-scale scandal in order to do so, and we'll do it with pleasure." And now they're going to scream like babies when the White House doesn't lie down and take it passively any more, after 5 years. keep drinking the koolaid. Just understand this isn't coming out of nowhere, and the White House has nothing to hide and has done no wrong.  This is a reaction to the transgressions of the press, who will be found guilty if they are held up to the same standards they demanded the White House was held up to (and was found INNOCENT after a 2 year investigation they insisted be conducted). You are representative of the piss-soaked cowards who dance in delight as the boot comes down on all of our necks.  Terrorists my ass.  One successful attack five years ago, big fucking deal.   Go sell somebody else's freedoms, Judas.  You people piss me off.  Go lock yourself in the basement if you're so scared of the light.

You are certifiable.

Mike's another one of the I Hate Freedom bunch.

Judas.

Quoted: You are certifiable.

Probably.

Also, I'm outta here for the day, have fun yelling at some pixels on a screen.

Fear: charges and counter-charges (the only thing we have to fear is...)

I've been a bit puzzled as to why neocons have been accused so often of being motivated by fear in taking the policy positions they do (see this, for example).

When I've written here about the evolution of my own opinions, I don't see fear as predominating, or even as taking an especially active role. In addition, I would wonder about the emotional makeup of any ordinary citizen who didn't have at least a tiny bit of fear after watching the events of 9/11 unfold, or on observing the spectacle of suicide bombers who seem to relish and seek out the murder of women and children.

But now, reading this post at All Things Beautiful, about the lawsuit brought recently by the NY Times against the US Defense Department, in which the newspaper seeks to gain access to documents about the National Security Agency's domestic spying program, I had one of those sudden Eureka moments. Here's the money quote from Alexandra:

As I have always said, the left hates the President far more than it fears al-Qaeda, therefore any arguments of this nature [that the release of the documents threatens national security] will simply be filed as some sort of phobia, with different words attached to it....that is until the next attack.

Concerns about the dangers posed by terrorists, hesitations about the wisdom of press leakage of possibly sensitive security material, all of these must be labeled as unwarranted fears--as Alexandra explains, "as some sort of phobia"--so that they can safely be ignored to pursue a different agenda. And what is that agenda?

It seems to have two interrelated parts. The first is to have a role in bringing down a detested President--and in this, there is precedent. Apparently, the Times is aching to relive its dragon-slayer days (Richard Nixon being the original dragon): the publication of the Pentagon Papers, when the Supreme Court upheld the Time's right to do so despite government claims of national security threats. The aftermath of this lawsuit helped to bring Nixon down--with his own guilty cooperation, of course, since the Watergate burglary was motivated partly by a desire to get the goods on Pentagon Papers leaker Ellsberg (see this).

In 1997, Adam Clymer of the Times wrote, in a review of a new book--The Day the Presses Stopped: A History of the Pentagon Papers Case, by David Rundestine:

The Supreme Court's 6-to-3 decision in the Pentagon Papers case was a monumental victory for The New York Times and The Washington Post and a huge defeat for the Nixon Administration. In practical terms, it meant that the United States Government bears an awesome -- perhaps impossible -- burden before it can censor the press. But the opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan did not tell courts how to weigh that burden, though it made clear that a just claim of injury to the national security is not enough.

So, "a just claim of injury to the national security is not enough." Think about it: what would be enough? How bad an injury to the national security is sufficient to muffle a story, and how certain does this injury have to be?

The Pentagon Papers case marks the point at which the Court set the bar very high in favor of the press and against the government's ability to claim national security as a reason to stifle information. In his Times article, Clymer goes on to dismiss the book's contentions that the Pentagon Papers' publication represented an actual threat to national security. I'd have to do a lot more research on that subject to venture an opinion as to how large a threat was posed; I simply don't know. But the book's author, David Rudenstine, certainly thinks the danger was a bona fide one:

[Author] Mr. Rudenstine, an associate dean at Cardozo Law School of Yeshiva University, has spent years getting access to secret transcripts and briefs. He uses them to make it clear that Government witnesses like Lieut. Gen. Melvin Zais honestly believed that the country could be harmed by further publication... But Mr. Rudenstine's most striking conclusion -- that there were real threats to the nation in the papers -- is debatable....

So Rudenstine came to the "striking" conclusion that the attempt to stifle the Papers' publication was not just a grudge match by Nixon against the press, but motivated (at least in part) by an honest belief that publication would be dangerous--and that this contention has legs.

And who is Rundenstine? Some Republican party hack, a hawkish Nixon-loving neocon? Apparently not, if you study his bio, here (scroll down a little bit and you'll find it). He seems to have typical liberal bona fides, with a background in the ACLU, legal services, and the Peace Corps. And here's another similar bio of Rudenstine, which includes the fact that he is ex-Harvard President Neil Rudenstine's brother.

I would have imagined that if someone such as David Rudenstine had contended that there was a bona fide case to be made by the Nixon White House of an actual possible threat to national security when the Times published the Pentagon Papers, that Clymer would have paid quite a bit more attention to it than he did. As it is, his dismissal of Rundenstine's claim seems perfunctory, at best. It's hard to escape the notion that Clymer's review is a poorly-disguised a case of butt-covering, by the Times, for the Times, and of the Times.

(As a little aside, while researching Adam Clymer for this post, I was reminded that Clymer himself had a subsequent moment in the sun; apparently, he was the Times reporter whom Bush called a "major-league asshole" during the 2000 campaign, to which Cheney responded "big-time.")

So, going back to Alexandra's quoted accusation about leftists--it seems that the NY Times, as well, could be considered to have a history of hating (or fearing?) certain Republican Presidents more than it fears the consequences of its own national security disclosures.

But I mentioned that the "neocons are motivated by fear" accusation has a second (although absolutely related) agenda, and that is fear of the consequences of overreaching by the executive branch of the government. Many conservatives have this fear, too (and libertarians are extraordinarily sensitive to it). But it's a question of at what point each group draws the line between acceptable intrusions and unacceptable ones, and what they might consider justification for those intrusions. National security is far more likely to be considered a justification by conservatives than by liberals or leftists, who have a history of seeming to actively downplay such concerns.

The legacy of Vietnam is that the left has a lingering mindset that considers national security concerns to almost always be mere excuses for government spying. This is the sort of approach that led to the famous CIA/FBI firewall (I discuss the firewall's development here)). The left, and many liberals, seem to feel that the raising of security issues in these situations is almost always bogus--a sort of screen, used by a proto-totalitarian government to cover its own misuse of power, with the goal of getting away with domestic spying on its enemies, and the further consolidation of its own power.

If this is the conception, then national security concerns must be downplayed in almost all cases, and the role of fear as motivation for those concerns exaggerated instead. The fear of many leftists/liberals is a different one: the evil Cheney is going to tap their phones and look up their library history, to be used for his own nefarious purposes. (That's not even too much of an exaggeration: I've had friends express as much to me, and it sure didn't sound as though they were joking.)

There's an interesting cyclical process going on here: the publication of the Pentagon Papers was one of Nixon's motivations for Watergate, which in fact did represent an abuse of power by the executive branch, which led to further checks (such as the firewall) on that power, which in turn hampered the government's capability to conduct surveillance of terrorists, which then was part of the reason 9/11 wasn't prevented, which later led to Bush's decision to implement the so-called "domestic spying program" in question, which has taken us to the present-day lawsuit by the Times to compel the release of the NSA documents.

So, how does this all tie into the accusation that neocons and Bush-supporters are motivated by fear? The accusers cannot afford to concede that there are bona fide national security concerns involved, or their argument would begin to collapse. That collapse might even end up reaching back in time to events such as the Pentagon Papers lawsuit--which could end up at least partially exonerating the evil arch-enemy Nixon (for his attempt to stop their publication, not for Watergate). Thus we have the need for Clymer's airy dismissal of Rudenstine's research about the Pentagon Papers lawsuit. The collapse might also reach back to the famous firewall, and implicate those who erected it in at least partial responsibility for the failure to prevent 9/11.

Another recent post, "Don't Worry, Be Happy...About Iran," by Gerard Van der Leun, touches on some of the same themes, although it concerns a different issue and a different NY Times article. In it, Van der Leun locks formidable horns with Barry R. Posen, the MIT political science professor whose op-ed piece dismisses, with a perhaps now-familiar breeziness, the security considerations that would be involved in Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons.

Dismissing that particular "fear" is quite a stretch, even for the Times. But Posen seems up to the task. And, on reading Posen's article with my newfound insight about the left's need to deflect such fears and label them as unfounded, it's interesting to see how well Posen's article follows the familiar framework.

Van der Leun writes:

On the one hand, the message of [Posen's] essay is "Don't worry. Be happy," while on the other it is the parallel message of "What? Me worry?"

It's true; the "stretch" in this case seems to take Posen close to Alfred E. Newman territory.

And note how often Posen explicitly and implicitly mentions fear in the first paragraphs of the article (emphasis mine):

The intense concern about Iran's nuclear energy program reflects the judgment that, should it turn to the production of weapons, an Iran with nuclear arms would gravely endanger the United States and the world. An Iranian nuclear arsenal, policymakers fear, could touch off a regional arms race while emboldening Tehran to undertake aggressive, even reckless, actions. But these outcomes are not inevitable, nor are they beyond the capacity of the United States and its allies to defuse. Indeed, while it's seldom a positive thing when a new nuclear power emerges, there is reason to believe that we could readily manage a nuclear Iran. A Middle Eastern arms race is a frightening thought, but it is improbable...

As Van der Leun points out, the arguments Posen musters for that improbability are not exactly convincing. But Posen, by offering them--and the Times, by printing his article--is following in the time-honored tradition of trying to reassure by downplaying national security concerns. I'm not sure what motivates Posen--perhaps he actually and sincerely believes that he's speaking the truth--but it seems that the risks of believing him and of him being wrong are rather high, unacceptably high. And that's not just fear talking; it's common sense.

If you really want to hear fear talking, you can hear it in the voice of appeasement. This appeasement can be seen most clearly in Western Europe today, although it is not confined to it. It bows down--in the name of "tolerance"--to forces that would weaken freedom of speech and a host of other Enlightenment values so dearly won and highly cherished.

As David Warren points out in his recent column, quoting Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the brave woman born in Somalia but residing in the Netherlands, who's not afraid to speak out and to risk her life in the process (emphasis mine):

Publication of the cartoons confirmed that there is widespread fear among authors, filmmakers, cartoonists, and journalists who wish to describe, analyze or criticize intolerant aspects of Islam all over Europe. It has also revealed the presence of a considerable minority in Europe who do not understand or will not accept the workings of liberal democracy. These people -- many of whom hold European citizenship -- have campaigned for censorship, for boycotts, for violence, and for new laws to ban 'Islamophobia'. … The issue is not about race, colour, or heritage. It is a conflict of ideas, which transcend borders and races.

In this conflict of ideas, we cannot win if we are afraid to defend our own values against those who would seek to destroy them.

Warren adds (my emphasis, once again):

Even after the experience of the Great War, and the Depression, people on the eve of the Hitler war could not appreciate what was coming. It is only in retrospect that we understand what happened as the 1930s progressed -- when a spineless political class, eager at any price to preserve a peace that was no longer available, performed endless demeaning acts of appeasement to the Nazis; while the Nazis created additional grievances to extract more. This is precisely what is happening now, as we are confronted by the Islamist fanatics, whose views and demands are already being parroted by fearful “mainstream” Muslim politicians. We will do anything to preserve a peace that ceased to exist on 9/11.

Of course, it's not only fear operating--some of the motivation for appeasement is hope (naive and often misplaced, I'm afraid): the conviction that talk, trust, and kindness will prevail, that all people are reasonable and good and don't really have in mind what they say they have.

And then there's another hope, the one Churchill labeled as "feeding the alligator in hopes it will eat you last." At least that hope is a bit more realistic: it recognizes that sometimes you're dealing with an alligator.

Perhaps the whole disagreement between right and left boils down to this one: who are the alligators, and how hungry are they?

posted by neo-neocon @ 2:19 PM   87 comments  

Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon.

Depending upon the source, various articles have quoted 20,000 to 30,000 laws that infringe the Second Amendment, which, of course, "shall not be infringed."

Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. You sound like an idiot who knows nothing about the constitution, the bill of rights or American history.  Before you open your mouth and prove that true, why don't you read the bill of rights and the federalist papers.  Then read the history of WWII paying close attention to the measures taken by the POTUS to prevent internal espionage and the leaking of secrets to the enemy.   Then maybe you can come back and comment on the issue without sounding like an uneducated moron.

I read the constitution and the BoR before taking the oath of citizenship 2 years ago. maybe you should go and re-read it it doesn't mean what the bushbots want it to mean.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. WHATEVER Giving our state secrets to the enemy is not freedom of speech.  I believe it's normally called espionage. Besides that's not the real issue in all this.  The real issue is calling the fucking press on its double standards. Every day, the press demonstrates the following to the White House (not just George Bush): "We hate you.  We want to destroy you.  And we'll blow up any story no matter how bullshit or meritless it actually is into a Watergate-scale scandal in order to do so, and we'll do it with pleasure." And now they're going to scream like babies when the White House doesn't lie down and take it passively any more, after 5 years. keep drinking the koolaid. Just understand this isn't coming out of nowhere, and the White House has nothing to hide and has done no wrong.  This is a reaction to the transgressions of the press, who will be found guilty if they are held up to the same standards they demanded the White House was held up to (and was found INNOCENT after a 2 year investigation they insisted be conducted).

the MSM are pieces of shit, however the WH may be  no better

Quoted: Mike's another one of the I Hate Freedom bunch. Judas.

Well, yes, but that doesn't make YOU any less of a loon, either.

P.S. -- he also hates (and secretly fears) penguins.

The way to stop leaks is to send the leakers to the Big House for 5 to 10 years for violating Federal law and their oaths to hold the information classified (that is, if it's classified at some level).

The press knows very little of consequence unless someone on the inside passes information.  They can get a whiff via research and other means of inference, but there will be mostly cold trails and dead ends until someone with direct knowledge discloses that information.

You see, in general, it's not the individual's responsibility to determine in a vacuum whether there is a greater good to be served by disclosing classified information; they may not (probable) have the complete picture and can likely cause serious lateral consequences.

If you are on my team, you have to be trustworthy.

There are exceptions in the case of obvious egregious behavior, but those are mostly self correcting by other means anyway, although the fix may not happen quckly.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. You sound like an idiot who knows nothing about the constitution, the bill of rights or American history.  Before you open your mouth and prove that true, why don't you read the bill of rights and the federalist papers.  Then read the history of WWII paying close attention to the measures taken by the POTUS to prevent internal espionage and the leaking of secrets to the enemy.   Then maybe you can come back and comment on the issue without sounding like an uneducated moron. I read the constitution and the BoR before taking the oath of citizenship 2 years ago. maybe you should go and re-read it it doesn't mean what the bushbots want it to mean.

ANother little piece of DU speak...

YOu don't seem to understand the First Amendment. It keeps the federal government from silencing free speech. Free Speech is any speech that is personal in nature, but DOES NOT HARM. Slander is illegal, so right out of the gate there are restrictions.
And if you believe for one second that the press doesn't abuse the First Amendment, you just need to read the papers. Journalists have an ethical obligation to print FACTS (and not cause harm), not conjucture, but any time you read a paper, you are getting a liberal (for the most part) slant to everything. Read just about any aticle dealing with firearms to see the unethical behavior on the part of journalists. Or just go back to 2004, when Rather made up the story about Bush and his military service. THe press didn't condemn Rather over that little escapade, no...They hailed it as a journalistic victory. BUt the truth came out from non-mainstream media sources, and he was quietly repremandid, and allowed to retire on his terms, instead of being fired on the spot for making up a story out of thin air.

YOu need to pull your head out of your ass when it comes to the press and their agenda.

And another case in point: THe Plame incident. She was outed long before Scooter Libby 'MAY' have said anything about her to anyone. SHe appeared in pictures, with captions about who she was, long before there were any whispers of any illegal acts made by an 'administration source'. SHe was not an undercover agent in any manner, shape, or form. But that didn't stop the press from making up the story....

THe LIBERAL PRESS is a threat to our country, and has many times rendered aid to the enemy by printing leaked information. Look at who was waiting for the Marines on the beach in Somolia....How do you think that would have gon down if the militias wanted to attack? Not very pretty....

You are niave to think that the press is a knight is shining armor.

And the NSA issue on the so called 'domestic spying' is very legal, and has been used by every president since Carter.

Quoted: Oooooh, this is gonna get nasty. 'Bout time. Waiting on the howling to come from the Leftists.....

Sooo right! and LONG overdue IMHO. I want the SOB's in fricking JAIL!

Should the day come when the pentagon conspires to build a database of all the guns owners in the country I’m sure all of you will rest soundly knowning that no one will have the courage to come forward.

Quoted: Quoted: You are certifiable. Probably. Also, I'm outta here for the day, have fun yelling at some pixels on a screen.

www.filecabi.net/video/pclunatic.html

Quoted: Quoted: You are certifiable. Probably. Also, I'm outta here for the day, have fun yelling at some pixels on a screen.

There are a lot of idiots out there, and some of them put stupid pixels on my screen.  I don't really care, because at the end of the day, I have my self respect and dignity.

You have none.

Quoted: Should the day come when the pentagon conspires to build a database of all the guns owners in the country I’m sure all of you will rest soundly knowning that no one will have the courage to come forward.

And will you kindly explain HOW the press's leaking of intelligence secrets and classified details is first amendment protected speech?

At best it is vigilanteism by the press, and their motives are completely suspect.

Whats amazing about the folks defending the press on this is that the leaks were classified information, not whistle blowing on some sort of criminal matter.

Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon.

Sorry, releasing secret material is not protected free speech.  If the media gets a hold of the material, they can publish it, but that doesn't mean that the leaker shouldn't be punished.

Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. I agree with Fourays to a certain extent. The potential of being hauled before a grand jury or getting a visit from the FBI can have a "chilling effect" (as the courts would say) on the press. While I'm sure some of you here would be happy with that, it's a shortsighted opinion. Compare to this: some of us won't keep a SBR upper in our safes (or even in our house) with a lower until we have the ATF paperwork back for fear of getting "busted." That's fucking absurd. That's a "chilling effect" that abridges our rights although we're not breaking any laws.

Well said.
As always, the "potential" is what worries me.

I say put Jack Bauer on it, and order up a bunch of body bags. After Jack takes care of business, you can let God sort'em out.

Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. I agree with Fourays to a certain extent. The potential of being hauled before a grand jury or getting a visit from the FBI can have a "chilling effect" (as the courts would say) on the press. While I'm sure some of you here would be happy with that, it's a shortsighted opinion. Compare to this: some of us won't keep a SBR upper in our safes (or even in our house) with a lower until we have the ATF paperwork back for fear of getting "busted." That's fucking absurd. That's a "chilling effect" that abridges our rights although we're not breaking any laws.

But, if someone knew where you had it and told the ATF, hey, that's freedom of speech.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. WHATEVER Giving our state secrets to the enemy is not freedom of speech.  I believe it's normally called espionage. Besides that's not the real issue in all this.  The real issue is calling the fucking press on its double standards. Every day, the press demonstrates the following to the White House (not just George Bush): "We hate you.  We want to destroy you.  And we'll blow up any story no matter how bullshit or meritless it actually is into a Watergate-scale scandal in order to do so, and we'll do it with pleasure." And now they're going to scream like babies when the White House doesn't lie down and take it passively any more, after 5 years. keep drinking the koolaid.

You leftists need to get a new term.  Koolaid?  What a fucking joke.  

If you can't see the difference in this and the First Amendment, it's only because you don't want to.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. I agree with Fourays to a certain extent. The potential of being hauled before a grand jury or getting a visit from the FBI can have a "chilling effect" (as the courts would say) on the press. While I'm sure some of you here would be happy with that, it's a shortsighted opinion. Compare to this: some of us won't keep a SBR upper in our safes (or even in our house) with a lower until we have the ATF paperwork back for fear of getting "busted." That's fucking absurd. That's a "chilling effect" that abridges our rights although we're not breaking any laws. Apples and oranges. Uh…huh you just keep fooling yourself this has anything to do with a free press and not an out of control mob that will get people killed to make up political gotcha games to play. The press is real concerned with free speech… sure they are. It is OK to print secrets that endanger national security but the MSM will not print cartoons that might offend Muslims. The MSM has proven they cannot be trusted and are playing political games with national security it is about time someone said enough. The press might not be, but I am.

Are you so concerned with it that you would allow the press and their agenda to jeapordize not only the safety of the troops, but the general public as well?

This addresses the "leak" double standards we have seen. I just hope they get throw into the "pound me in the ass" prison and not some country club.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. WHATEVER Giving our state secrets to the enemy is not freedom of speech.  I believe it's normally called espionage. Besides that's not the real issue in all this.  The real issue is calling the fucking press on its double standards. Every day, the press demonstrates the following to the White House (not just George Bush): "We hate you.  We want to destroy you.  And we'll blow up any story no matter how bullshit or meritless it actually is into a Watergate-scale scandal in order to do so, and we'll do it with pleasure." And now they're going to scream like babies when the White House doesn't lie down and take it passively any more, after 5 years. keep drinking the koolaid. You leftists need to get a new term.  Koolaid?  What a fucking joke.   If you can't see the difference in this and the First Amendment, it's only because you don't want to.

dude, that's the equivalent of playing the race card.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. WHATEVER Giving our state secrets to the enemy is not freedom of speech.  I believe it's normally called espionage. Besides that's not the real issue in all this.  The real issue is calling the fucking press on its double standards. Every day, the press demonstrates the following to the White House (not just George Bush): "We hate you.  We want to destroy you.  And we'll blow up any story no matter how bullshit or meritless it actually is into a Watergate-scale scandal in order to do so, and we'll do it with pleasure." And now they're going to scream like babies when the White House doesn't lie down and take it passively any more, after 5 years. keep drinking the koolaid. You leftists need to get a new term.  Koolaid?  What a fucking joke.   If you can't see the difference in this and the First Amendment, it's only because you don't want to. dude, that's the equivalent of playing the race card.

If the shoe fits, which it seems to.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. WHATEVER Giving our state secrets to the enemy is not freedom of speech.  I believe it's normally called espionage. Besides that's not the real issue in all this.  The real issue is calling the fucking press on its double standards. Every day, the press demonstrates the following to the White House (not just George Bush): "We hate you.  We want to destroy you.  And we'll blow up any story no matter how bullshit or meritless it actually is into a Watergate-scale scandal in order to do so, and we'll do it with pleasure." And now they're going to scream like babies when the White House doesn't lie down and take it passively any more, after 5 years. keep drinking the koolaid. You leftists need to get a new term.  Koolaid?  What a fucking joke.   If you can't see the difference in this and the First Amendment, it's only because you don't want to. dude, that's the equivalent of playing the race card. If the shoe fits, which it seems to.

not even close.

The White House needs a specialized  team to deal with leaks.  What should they call it?  Hmmmm.... leaks, leaks, let's see.....I have it!  How about "Plumbers?"

More seriously, I think it's the new breed or a more brainwawshed one in the press corps, with their own agenda.  I wonder if some of these clows would have announced D-Day or the Doolittle raid.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. You sound like an idiot who knows nothing about the constitution, the bill of rights or American history.  Before you open your mouth and prove that true, why don't you read the bill of rights and the federalist papers.  Then read the history of WWII paying close attention to the measures taken by the POTUS to prevent internal espionage and the leaking of secrets to the enemy.   Then maybe you can come back and comment on the issue without sounding like an uneducated moron. I read the constitution and the BoR before taking the oath of citizenship 2 years ago. maybe you should go and re-read it it doesn't mean what the bushbots want it to mean.

Maybe you should have studied US history as well.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: another assualt on the 1st ammendment, must be the 2nd A's turn soon. WHATEVER Giving our state secrets to the enemy is not freedom of speech.  I believe it's normally called espionage. Besides that's not the real issue in all this.  The real issue is calling the fucking press on its double standards. Every day, the press demonstrates the following to the White House (not just George Bush): "We hate you.  We want to destroy you.  And we'll blow up any story no matter how bullshit or meritless it actually is into a Watergate-scale scandal in order to do so, and we'll do it with pleasure." And now they're going to scream like babies when the White House doesn't lie down and take it passively any more, after 5 years. keep drinking the koolaid. You leftists need to get a new term.  Koolaid?  What a fucking joke.   If you can't see the difference in this and the First Amendment, it's only because you don't want to. dude, that's the equivalent of playing the race card. If the shoe fits, which it seems to. not even close.

Is it more like Cinderella's slipper?