Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Thread title: Rove was the leak. Can we at least try to discuss that and not send every thread veering off into sweeping generalizations and indictments?
|
I've put in too much time, getting to, "knowing what I know", to let these comments pass unanswered:
Quote:
|
"I would like to see how those supporting open rights for press "uncovering" classified knowledge will justify their desire for Rove to face some sort of punishment."
|
&
Quote:
|
"Curious how the NYT et al lather themselves into hysterics.......yet have no trouble pursuing and publishing a seemingly endless stream of government secrets directly involving the security of the country."
|
Those "statements" are....I'll leave it up to others to decide what they are.
I take the high road, I present the facts, taking pains to post them, unfiltered, right from the official government pages where accusations against
the press, for disclosing "secrets", were made by officials authorized to speak for the U.S. administration. I then post two news articles, one that is 8 years old, and the other that is 5 years old...both of which describe the specifics of the "secret program". I didn't just put that information here, I detailed it on the other recent "NY Times" thread, too.
This forum is dead....very little new activity. Recent posts are not easily missed. We've descended into a status quo, where one POV simply makes statements like the ones above, and the other carefully documents that the opposite has the higher probability of being accurate...closer to the truth....and why. No amount of effort in this regard, influences those who make statements, like the two examples above, to.....you decide.
powerclown, a suggestion, this is a link to a place that displays information that you, or anyone else, is permitted to edit. The catch is that your edit must be verifiable, and from sources of known, reliable reputation, and your edit must have a POV that is neutral. If you don't agree with this, change it.
The difference between "there" and here, though, is that "there" they'll require you to back up your statements:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson
Career
Wilson was a member of the U.S. Diplomatic Service from 1976 through 1998. From 1988 to 1991, he was the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. He was hailed as "truly inspiring" and "courageous" by George H. W. Bush after sheltering more than one hundred Americans at the embassy, despite Saddam Hussein's threats to execute anyone who refused to hand over foreigners. As a result, in 1990, he also became the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein (Wilson, 2003). When Saddam sent a note to Wilson (along with other embassy heads in Iraq) threatening to execute anyone sheltering foreigners in Iraq, Wilson publicly repudiated the dictator by appearing at a press conference wearing a homemade noose around his neck and saying "If the choice is to allow American citizens to be taken hostage or to be executed, I will bring my own fucking rope." Saddam offered a public apology for the diplomatic note.
Wilson later served as U.S. ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe under President George H. W. Bush and helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton.....
|
powerclown, note that "the press" wasn't the first entity to, in your words,
"herald[ed] her anti-war husband a hero". Apparently, the the POTUS's father, a former POTUS, was the first to do that. If you don't agree with that, c'mon over and edit it out...replace it with your version.
....but you'll have to do it on a playing field that, unlike here, requires you to support what you change or add, with neutral, verifiable information: