It’s sad that I have to check with Marcy before responding to anything the Washington Post publishes on national security. What’s impressive is that it is rare that Marcy hasn’t already analyzed the Post’s work by the time I get to it. And today, per usual, she takes apart R. Jeffrey Smith’s work with ease. Mixing up Dan Bartlett and Ari Fleischer is an amateur mistake.
This particular mistake isn’t of much consequence, but it’s telling that it occurred at all. But then, the Post’s coverage of the Plame Affair was always second-rate, biased, and an institutional embarrassment when compared to Marcy’s reporting. Jeffrey Smith packages non-news as new-news in today’s article. The real story is that the Obama administration is arguing in court against disclosing Dick Cheney’s conversations with prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, when no such understanding of non-disclosure was agreed to at the time of the interviews. If Dick Cheney wanted his conversations with Fitzgerald to remain secret he could have simply agreed to appear before a grand jury.
The public deserves to know the whole truth about the Plame Affair. That’s the story the Post should be reporting.
Just one more example of the disgrace that wapo has become. While you on the wapo disgrace, how about adding the “report” on the Sanford Horror. Wapo headline blare out that sanford didn’t use state funds while bawling his lover. YET, in the neaxt breadth they point out that the latest gop whoremaster “reembursed” the state some 3000.00 plus for his trip! Then, not a single word questioning why he needed to give back a single cent!!!!!
I have stopped using wapo to line my birds cage. It is too dirty.
Newspaper is also really useful to clean windows. It leaves very few streaks.
And, someone thoughtlessly repeats the Fleischer error.
At this point, I’m starting to wonder if Obama has some personal complicity in the Plame affair. Why else would his minions work so hard to protect a hugely unpopular political enemy?
precedent.
they don’t want Joe Biden’s conversations with a prosecutor getting published. It’s really that simple.
Maybe the best way to avoid that is for Joe Biden not to break the law knowingly and with intent during his term as VP. Just a thought…
That would be my thought, too. Elected officials in a transparent democracy are certainly entitled to personal privacy, but absent some overriding and narrowly defined national security concern, they should have no expectation of professional privacy. Their professional actions, by definition, are matters of public concern.
Democracy cannot function if the electorate is unable to evaluate the performance of its elected officials. That’s what’s really simple here. If Obama succeeds in setting the essentially authoritarian precedent he is seemingly pursuing in this matter, he will have succeeded in undermining the most fundamental of democratic principles.
If I may borrow an expression from the Secretary of State, that’s change you can xerox, and the original was handed to us by the Bush administration.
I guess this is what’s meant by small change.
So why is Obama covering for one of the worst of the Busheviki crimes?