Saturday, April 15, 2006

Newspaper Wars! New York Times v Washington Post

The New York Times takes on the Washington Post in its Sunday edition with an editorial titled, "A Bad Leak". Good. Somebody with some widespread exposure needed to do it.

The NYT piece slams last week's WaPo editorial, "A Good Leak" which supported Bush's role in the leaking of classified information from the now infamous NIE related to the claims about Niger uranium. The only objection raised by the Post's editorialist (who many assume was Fred Hiatt) is that the affair was handled "clumsily".

You're the President of the United States. You don't like criticism of your faulty assumptions based only on intelligence that you liked that led the country into a quagmire of a war. You decide to reveal classified information to a select group of reporters via your VP's chief of staff before you go public with the cherry-picked intel that backs up your claim some 10 days later. That's acting "clumsily?" No. What it stands out as is an arrogant display of a vindictive spirit aimed at those who dare question you. And with Bush, that's an undeniable pattern.

The NYT editorial reminds WaPo that its recent story about the truth behind the intel on the "mobile trailers" shows, once again, how manipulative the administration has been when it comes to covering up its lies. It has continually ignored intel that opposes its narrow-minded vision of global domination by any means possible. Many have tried to speak the truth to the Oval Office's current tenant but they have been met with deaf ears and a closed door.

As for whether or not Bush actually declassified the key findings of the NIE before it was made public, as many of us have previously stated, we cannot be sure about exactly what happened until we know the entire process involved:

Since Mr. Bush regularly denounces leakers, the White House has made much of the notion that he did not leak classified information, he declassified it. This explanation strains credulity. Even a president cannot wave a wand and announce that an intelligence report is declassified.

Exactly. There are official processes for declassification that are clearly outlined in an Executive Order that Bush himself signed in March, 2003.

The NYT concludes:

This messy episode leaves more questions than answers, so it is imperative that two things happen soon. First, the federal prosecutor in the Libby case should release the transcripts of what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney said when he questioned them. And the Senate Intelligence Committee must report publicly on how Mr. Bush and his team used the flawed intelligence on Iraq.

The release of those conversations is not bound to happen anytime soon, especially since the judge involved in the case has threatened a gag order. And we all know that we can't count on the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen Pat Roberts (R-Bush Buttkisser) to get to the bottom of this ASAP either.

And so, we wait. In the meantime though, the Washington Post would do well to take note of the fact that the general public is not buying its tacit approval of Bush's behaviour in this leak case. He will suffer for it in the polls, just as he has for so many of his imperial stances before this. And, we will not relent in our search for the truth. The real truth - not the "truth" espoused by the Post's editorial writers who would rather give this administration a pass when it comes to such crucial issues as national security and the manipulation of intelligence to serve purely political purposes that have undeniably devestating consequences.

No comments:

Post a Comment