Rogue Elements
The New York Times publishes yet more "secret" government reports. Other papers follow out of competitive necessity. The Democrats begin an all out campaign based on those leaks. The blogosphere goes into overdrive.
Just another day in US politics.
Just another day of anonymous sources leaking portions of highly classified assessments which may or may not be accurate or in context. Just another willing reporter - as usual from the New York Times first - spinning those undoubtedly already highly spun words. And everybody goes right on in the same pattern. The same pattern that brought three years of highly manufactured outrage over Valerie Plame.
More importantly, the same pattern of highly classified information used for political purposes coming out of an agency that is supposed to be helping keep the nation safe. Instead, certain rogue elements within that intelligence community are leaking information for partisan political purposes. The Democrats and the left pounce on the information and cheerfully use it to club the administration. Business as usual. Frighteningly so.
No matter what political party you support, or even if you support none whatsoever, you should be very worried about what is happening here. We have unelected officials from government bureaucracies using official US intelligence for partisan politics. You should be angry that first, these shadowy anonymous sources are revealing secrets and second that these shadowy sources are busier playing politics than they are doing what they are supposed to be doing - keeping the country safe.
You should be worried. You should not be embracing this behavior. This is exactly the same scenario as when the Democrats trotted out a revolting group of retired generals to denounce the war. Do you really want the military involved in domestic politics? Do you really want a Praetorian Guard? I ask the same question now: do you really want rogue elements in intelligence services involved in deciding elections? Do you want them as your new Praetorians?
Because if you do, then you have let ideology blind you to the road to tyranny you are walking on. Do you really want government functionaries deciding who will govern? Because how long do you think it will be until they decide to cut out the middleman, so to speak.
By syn, Monday, 25 September , 2006 @ 5:20 am
This needs repeating again and again, “We have unelected officals from government bureaucracies using official US intelligence for partisan politics”
Those who hate Bush will find relief from their torment after Bush completes his term in office, the rest of us will still be stuck dealing with a shadow government of unelected official.
Just because certain shadow government functionaries are working to feed the Bushhaters now does not mean this shadow government will one day feed upon the Bushhaters.
Not to go Orwellian here but this covert relationship between unelected government officials and the media is Big Brother.
I really do not understand those who consider Bush to be Hilter do not have their eyes open to the idea that they are simply being used as tools for aiding this shadow government.
I am worried, how does one redress a shadow government?
By Dan, Monday, 25 September , 2006 @ 8:12 am
I am angry. I’m angry that these sources need to be shadowy and anonymous b/c we have an Executive administration that doesn’t think truth is a commodity best shared with the public. I’m angry that conservative partisan hacks focus on “the leak” rather than the fact that there’s disconnect between the “classified” version and the version released to the public.
I’m also a bit confused. I love the idea that syn thinks Big Brother is a bad thing, but probably has no issue with Bush’s phone tapping. I love how syn is afraid of shadow governments but is in love with an executive branch that does all it can to keep the realities of the situation as far away from the public as it can. So, now we have 3 or 4 reason for having gone to war and 2 sets of results for how the war has impacted terrorism worldwide. Should we be sheep? Should we walk with the conservative flock that plays the collective ‘yes’ man to the Bush administration?
Or should the public embrace it’s democratic and constitutional responsibility to keep the government accountable to its people? Republicans would have us all follow King George like lemmings, hating the day that revolutionaries through off tyrranical rule, and wishing that everyone would just listen and do as they’re told.
By syn, Monday, 25 September , 2006 @ 12:28 pm
Dan
You are making assumptions without any basis in reason.
I tend to define myself as a classical liberal, the JFK/FDR ‘were shall bare any burden pay any price’ kind of liberalism. As a matter of fact up until 9/11/2001 the only reference I had to conservatives was hearing jokes made in the theater dressing rooms about Rush Limbaugh (whom I had never listened to) or those up-tight, backward puritian Christers. Unfortunately I missed the entire Reagan Revolution, I was too busy like most in the artistic world to pay attention to anything other than self-serving narcissistic indulgence.
Actually I was all for Clinton’s 1998 Iraqi Liberation unfortunately he never actually meant anything by it.
Two days after 9/11/2001 I purchased a home computer and began to read material other than Samuel French plays. I began reading works by people I had never heard of before such as Thomas Sowell, Victor Hanson, David Horowitz, then the writers at National Review, Weekly Standard (particularly Stephen Hayes).
As I read, I began to understand that the ideals I once believed ie classical liberalism, were not really that at all. Somewhere along the road (I believe it to be around the 1970’s) Collectivist ideology ie Marxism, Communism, Socialist overthrew American Liberalism.
Though I did not recognize it at the time my change actually occurred during the Clinton/Lewinsky episode when NOW (National Organization of Women) embraced and supported Clinton. I’m 45 years old today yet for most of my life I was raise under feminist ideal regarding the male chauvanist pigs war my sisterhood so proudly waged against males. When NOW embraced the very chauvanist pig I was supposed to abhor I began to wonder exactly what it was I had believed in.
After reading many idea from conservative thinkers over the past five years I now understand clearly that throughout much of my adult life I was led to believe in a false illiberal philosophy because it was the cool thing to do and because I was never around anyone who ever challenged my beliefs.
I am not demanding that you lock-step behind ‘King George’ whereas you are insisting that should I not lock-step under you I am therefore a sheeple conservative. I’ve heard all your diatribe in the dressing rooms of theaters here in NYC long before ‘King George’ was ever elected President so spare me your repetitive diatribe of how righteous you are for not supporting the war in Iraq or hating those conservatives.
You may not remember but the collective Leftists declared Guillani ‘Hitler’ long before they began declaring Bush ‘Hitler’. All of your fears of some gestapo-like theocratic Nazi government spying on you, going to war to imperalize the world all for oil is nothing more that a con game played by the Left in order to garner political power.
By Dan, Monday, 25 September , 2006 @ 1:54 pm
First of all, I’ve never made known my opinion on the war, but thanks for playing. My personal politics actually never made it into my post. I merely found the element of hypocrisy interesting.
That said, you can point to all of the fringe elements you want and call them liberals. That doesn’t make it so. I could, in turn, seek out those friendly folks at the Westboro Baptist Church and call them conservatives.
“After reading many idea from conservative thinkers over the past five years I now understand clearly that throughout much of my adult life I was led to believe in a false illiberal philosophy because it was the cool thing to do and because I was never around anyone who ever challenged my beliefs.”
So basically you are saying that first one group of people told you how to think - all the liberal theatre dressing room friends who imparted their coolness on you. And then, at the first hint of a challenge, in the form of all those brilliant conservative writers, you abandoned the liberal ideology and signed on with conservatism. Some folks cave to peer pressure, and some don’t. I don’t know what to tell you. After seeing that your reading repertoire included nothing but uber-conservative writers, I can’t say that I’m shocked you left with a poor taste for liberalism…nor can I say that I care.
“I am not demanding that you lock-step behind ‘King George’ whereas you are insisting that should I not lock-step under you I am therefore a sheeple conservative.”
Bulls**t you aren’t. I’m just calling you a lemming straight up. You beat around the bush because you lack the spine and commitment to say it outright. You let your conservative “thinkers” do it for you when they imply that those liberals that are against the war are de facto supporters of terrorism. So spare me your dim sarcasm, and your stupid assumptions about my politics.
By Gaius, Monday, 25 September , 2006 @ 1:58 pm
Dan, Syn was not hostile to you, your response was unwarranted. Your comments are very close to getting you banned.
By Dan, Monday, 25 September , 2006 @ 2:13 pm
Oh sure, take its side.
By Bill Franklin, Monday, 25 September , 2006 @ 2:40 pm
The White House has been caught selectively declassifying documents for political purposes, yet I heard no cry from the right.
The swift boat vets is put together by a wealthy RNC contributor for the sole purpose of smearing Kerry, and I heard no outcry from the right.
What’s left of the intelligence agencies (many senior members of the CIA were fired by Bush lackeys) sees how the Whitehouse is using a disinformation campaign to claim the Iraq invasion is going well and that we need to attack Iraq, when actual intelligence shows otherwise. I say it is the patriot DUTY of these “shadowy figures” to expose fraud and deception of the American people. You call that Big Brother, I call it sticking it to Big Brother.
And as for waiting around until 2009 for Bush to leave, what about Clinton, who Republicans impeached for impropriety with an intern. Talk about trying anything to get rid of a President. Not sure how many US Soliders were killed by Clinton’s affair or how many BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars were wasted. Actually under Clinton the deficit was eliminated and we had a surplus.
The neoconservative movement is full of ex-communists and ex-socialists syn. Seriously, look it up.
By Blackhawk, Monday, 25 September , 2006 @ 4:43 pm
Leaks from an executive agency are not the checks and balances the Constitution outlined. We have the right checks and balances: Congress. The various committees need to do their job, and build enough trust and confidence with the public so that we believe them without the deluge of leaks.
I recall accusations of the Clinton administration using the FBI and IRS to pressure their political opponents. That was just as wrong as these leaks, regardless of what position the leaker supports. It is flat out wrong for any administration to abuse their executive powers in such a manner. It is Congress’ responsibility to fix this, not nameless unelected officials.