Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

guy44 · 07-12-2006, 07:33 PM

I have to say, with regards to leaks:

There are two kinds of leaks: good ones, and bad ones. Good ones often are divulged by so-called "whistleblowers," because the source is revealing secret wrong-doing by the government. These leaks one essential defense against government overreach. Notice, also, that there are virtually no examples of important, legal government programs essential to national security being leaked to and written about by the press. This is because the press gives great deference to every administration regarding national security, and ensure that they are not actually doing harm to a benevolent program, often by coversing off the record with an adminstration official.

Bad ones can take many forms. One form, that the Bush administration used frequently, is a "leak" from a top official who is releasing select or misleading information to advance a government position. However, this is not to say that one of these leaks is necessarily awful, as they happen all the time (trial balloons, interagency bickering, etc.). Of course, these can be terrible, if they are truly misleading on topics of paramount importance (i.e. how the Bush administration leaked only cherry-picked evidence regarding Saddam's WMDs and al Qaeda connections, and not the important qualifiers, to shills like Judith Miller).

The worst kind of leak is a government official truly violating national security in order to score a political point. Such is the case with Valerie Plame, who as everyone knows was an undercover CIA operative whose identity was revealed by Rove and Libby at the behest of Cheney for no other reason than to "get back" at her husband, Joe Wilson, for alerting everyone to the truth that the Bush administration was making up evidence about Iraq's purchase of yellowcake uranium. Even the CIA requested they not reveal her name. This leak served no national security purpose, revealed no untoward program or action by the government, and did literally nothing to improve anything but the Bush administration's political position - which would be alright, except that it revealed an undercover CIA operative's identity!

So I would ask those who try and make this an issue about "all" leaks to understand that it is by no means hypocritical to praise those who reveal secret government programs of dubious legality while simultaneously attacking those who would endanger national security for naught but political points by leaking the name of a CIA operative.

07-12-2006, 07:33 PM	#18 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	I have to say, with regards to leaks: There are two kinds of leaks: good ones, and bad ones. Good ones often are divulged by so-called "whistleblowers," because the source is revealing secret wrong-doing by the government. These leaks one essential defense against government overreach. Notice, also, that there are virtually no examples of important, legal government programs essential to national security being leaked to and written about by the press. This is because the press gives great deference to every administration regarding national security, and ensure that they are not actually doing harm to a benevolent program, often by coversing off the record with an adminstration official. Bad ones can take many forms. One form, that the Bush administration used frequently, is a "leak" from a top official who is releasing select or misleading information to advance a government position. However, this is not to say that one of these leaks is necessarily awful, as they happen all the time (trial balloons, interagency bickering, etc.). Of course, these can be terrible, if they are truly misleading on topics of paramount importance (i.e. how the Bush administration leaked only cherry-picked evidence regarding Saddam's WMDs and al Qaeda connections, and not the important qualifiers, to shills like Judith Miller). The worst kind of leak is a government official truly violating national security in order to score a political point. Such is the case with Valerie Plame, who as everyone knows was an undercover CIA operative whose identity was revealed by Rove and Libby at the behest of Cheney for no other reason than to "get back" at her husband, Joe Wilson, for alerting everyone to the truth that the Bush administration was making up evidence about Iraq's purchase of yellowcake uranium. Even the CIA requested they not reveal her name. This leak served no national security purpose, revealed no untoward program or action by the government, and did literally nothing to improve anything but the Bush administration's political position - which would be alright, except that it revealed an undercover CIA operative's identity! So I would ask those who try and make this an issue about "all" leaks to understand that it is by no means hypocritical to praise those who reveal secret government programs of dubious legality while simultaneously attacking those who would endanger national security for naught but political points by leaking the name of a CIA operative. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"