A Reliable Source?
The New York Times is in a state of high dudgeon right now about the "Bush leaks" story. It's an odd little editorial bearing more resemblance to a post on Daily Kos than to a normal editorial. Let's examine a few things.
Mr. Bush did not declassify the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq — in any accepted sense of that word — when he authorized I. Lewis Libby Jr., through Vice President Dick Cheney, to talk about it with reporters. He permitted a leak of cherry-picked portions of the report. The declassification came later.
What accepted standards are those? Accepted by whom? Quite frankly if the President of the United States cannot decide to classify or declassify something, who can? Oh, silly me, why it's the NYT itself that is the standard. They accept that THEY are the proper judge of what should remain classified.
And this president has never shown the slightest interest in disclosure, except when it suits his political purposes. He has run one of the most secretive administrations in American history, consistently withholding information and vital documents not just from the public, but also from Congress. Just the other day, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the House Judiciary Committee that the names of the lawyers who reviewed Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program were a state secret.
I'm struggling to see how this is different from any president. I just can't do it. I think what I'm hearing here is that the president just doesn't leak enough to make the NYT's job easier. Again, it's the NYT itself that they hold up as the standard.
Obviously, we do not object to government officials talking to reporters about important matters that their bosses do not want discussed. It would be impossible to cover any administration, especially one so secretive as this, unless that happened. (Judith Miller, who then worked for The Times, was one of the reporters Mr. Libby chose for this leak, although she never wrote about it.) But the version of the facts that Mr. Libby was authorized to divulge was so distorted that it seems more like disinformation than any sincere attempt to inform the public. (Emphasis added)
I see. So the Times, of course, is able to tell the absolute completeness and accuracy of every leak they publish (gleefully) with absolute certainty that what they publish was not leaked to them for some sort of gain for the leaker. Uh huh. That old Times standard again.
About a month before, Mr. Bush rushed to announce that American forces had found evidence of a biological weapons program in Iraq — trailers that could have been used to make doomsday devices. We now know, from a report in The Washington Post, that a Pentagon team actually on the ground in Iraq inspecting the trailers had concluded two days earlier that they were nothing of the kind.
I've already covered this in earlier posts. This is an attempt to hold Bush accountable for something that would be impossible. And the Times knows they could not possibly meet the standard they require of the president. The Post piece they cite is shoddy and inept, and if the editors at the Times can't tell that, why are they editors? Must be the Times standard at work again.
This messy episode leaves more questions than answers, so it is imperative that two things happen soon.
I quite agree. The Times should get editorial writers who are capable of actually being somewhat in touch with reality and the Times should get immediate treatment for a raging case of Times Standard Syndrome.
Because your standards suck.
Other Links to this Post
-
The Mahablog » Just Bad — April 16, 2006 @ 8:06 am
By Gauis Arbo, April 16, 2006 @ 8:26 am
This is amusing. I’m classifed as a “Kool-Aider’ by the folks over at Mahablog.
Perhaps folks following their link should look around a bit prior to leaving a comment.
By Black Jack, April 16, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
Well, considering the source, I see it as proof that bringing light to a confused issue quickly results in an attack by the forces of darkness.
It’s a gold star by your name. And, notice the “Kool-Aider” label. When the Moonbats start cooping Conservative’s epithets, you know they’re intellectually exhausted and can’t even come up with an original retort. It’s a twofer.
By Gauis Arbo, April 16, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
Well, it’s kind of funny, too. National Journal cited me as a lefty based on one of my posts!