Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
airjampanam
Topic Author
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 3:06 am

Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Wed Oct 01, 2003 2:07 am

Has anyone else draw a parallel between the ongoing Hutton inquiry in the UK and the just ripening Bush controversy of the naming of a CIA informant?
It seems awfully similar situations of both sides of the Atlantic and the naming of sources all having to do with Iraq.
Maybe the UK members can weigh in on this.
The US controversy is just gaining steam.
Suing is the new Lotto... if u wanna win u gotta sue!
 
GC
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:03 am

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Wed Oct 01, 2003 3:00 am

Well, if he gets the public mauling Blair is getting, he better get his ejector seat ready Big grin
 
airjampanam
Topic Author
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 3:06 am

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Wed Oct 01, 2003 3:09 am

We should only be so lucky!
I was in the UK recently and couldn't believe the furor.
Blair didn't deserve it.
That informant should have kept his mouth shut instead of blabbing to the BBC.
His suicide was unfortunate, luckily for Bush no one has gone belly up yet
Suing is the new Lotto... if u wanna win u gotta sue!
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:23 am

The media/DNC driven CIA leak that everyone is babbling about is going to blow up in the faces of Chuckie and the rest of the idiots who think it is the next Watergate.

I'm really surprised one of our rabid Bush bashers hasn't posted something about it already and called for Bush to be executed for treason. I think they've seen the stories that show this is going to turn out to be a lot of noise and absolutely no substance.
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
mopac
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 12:05 am

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:37 am

One thing to keep in mind is that members of the media F***ed up big time also... by releasing the name of the CIA agent. Yeah someone in the White House got over zealous and shot off, but the media then shot off to the public. Typically it is against media protocol in such cases to publicly disclose the name of the agent as that may bring harm to her and her subordinates.

IMO this thing is not going to gain near the steam as the British episode because the further this hype goes the worse the media looks, and we certainly can't have that happen.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Wed Oct 01, 2003 5:33 am

A few things I don't understand.

Why is anyone insisting on a special investigation? Why can't they simply have a court ORDER this Novak character to tell them who spilled the beans to him. As it is, Novak is guilty of a felony by publicizing the name of a CIA operative. I think he will talk if it's made clear that he IS going to jail, it's just a question of whether it is a maximum security cell with a big dude nicknamed "The PileDriver" as a roommate, or a minimum security resort-type prison.

Why all this pussyfooting around with the press? Of course it's pretty obvious where the press's allegiance lies - CNN is salivating and is stirring the pot as much as it can.

Bush's father once headed the CIA, and I'm sure that his own father would personally shoot GW in the head is he ordered the name leaked. I just don't see SW Bush doing it. MAYBE someone in the administration did it. It could also be some petty bureaucrat that got RIFF'ed.

But unless Novak decides to jump under a train, there is no need for a special prosecutor. Novak knows! Beat it out of him!

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
airjampanam
Topic Author
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 3:06 am

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Wed Oct 01, 2003 5:49 am

Cfalk I tend to agree with you, but being a die hard Democrat, I'll add this much, If this had been Clinton, a Kenneth Starr type would be on the case, subpoenas flying left right and center, and the bodies would soon be discovered!
But alas its a Republican Administration, so those bodies will NEVER be found!
So back to the awarding of post Saddam contracts!
Suing is the new Lotto... if u wanna win u gotta sue!
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:06 am

There are no bodies. We know who knows. Novak cannot say "I can't recall"

The biggest difference between Whitewater and this case is that Whitewhater was a crime that had to be proven as a crime, and then you had to find out who-knew-what, etc. Quite complicated.

This is simple. A CIA officer's name was revealed. That's a crime. We know Novak revealed the name. Toss him in jail. Dangle a plea-bargain in front of his nose to get him to reveal the other criminals. In any case, if there is justice in the U.S., Novak's remaining years as a journalist will be as his network's permenant correspondant to Leavenworth.

Very simple.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Wed Oct 01, 2003 8:11 am

As far as I know, more than one journalist had been approached by the "leakers".
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:12 am

I don't think anything should happen to Novak. (Incidentally Novak is a conservative commentator) Apparently he believed that Mrs. Wilson was a CIA operative in the past. He did not realize that she was currently employed in that capacity. He apparently relied on Bush Administration sources who ostensibly were acting on a vendetta.

There has been apparent crime committed against this country. Whatever the person's intent, they have committed treason. Whoever is responsible in the Bush Administration should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[Edited 2003-10-01 02:18:58]
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Wed Oct 01, 2003 2:24 pm

N79969,

Tha's my point - Novak committed a crime, but appears to be getting away with it because he is a jounalist. His jounalistic ethics (now there's an oxymoron) also seem to tell him that it's OK to hide his source, even when the source is guilty of treason. It's not supposed to be that way.

Novak should go to jail along with everyone else he can name. I am absolutely sick of journalists believing that their "principles" somehow supercede the good of their country. Of course they don't have principles. Look at it this way. Novak could speak up - the guilty one(s) get sent to Alcatraz or wherever they send them nowadays, and the story dies down after a couple of weeks. Or Novak can stay silent, and whip everyone into a frenzy over this thing, televised investigative committee hearings, high ratings, high newspaper and magazine sales for a year or more, ideally long enough to affect the election next year. This isn't journalism - it's corporate profiteering, which is also illegal where it takes unfair advantage of others.

The ONLY people who can possible benefit from this situation, they way it's being done, is the political opposition. Not Justice, certainly.

Charles

[Edited 2003-10-01 07:33:03]
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Wed Oct 01, 2003 2:40 pm

If a crime was committed (at this point no one is sure that one actually was) Novak won't be punished for it one bit. In fact, he'll be protected by the law.
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:54 pm

How come? What law protects him? If the name and function had been communicated to him, that is one crime. His publishing the name is another crime. If he wanted to obey the law, he would have not published the information, and preferably would have reported the source to the FBI, but that does not sell print.

I don't think there is any question that a crime was committed. A CIA operative was identified as such, in public. That is a felony, as far as I can tell - period. Ignorance is no defense - if you are a journalist, you have a professional obligation to know the laws that pertain to what you do.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:05 pm

Cfalk,

I disagree. Based on what he has said so far, he was just passing along information about a former CIA operative in his mind. 'Former' is the key word. He did not have the intent necessary to commit a crime. To be frank, I am not well-versed in criminal law but I am comfortable in saying that it would be hard to show that it was Novak that committed a crime.

In contrast, someone in the government knew exactly what they were doing when they passed this information to Novak.

However someone in the Bush Administration did. I also think there is metaphorical body in this case: the cover of an operative was compromised.

B753,

There is no question that a crime has been committed.

 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:29 pm

AirJamPanAm:

I believe there are similarities between both cases. In the Hutton-case, the investigation is to find out whether Dr. Kelly's suicide was induced, either directly or indirectly, by the British Government and/or the Department of Defense (DoD).

The Wilson case ia somewhat different as Mrs Wilson is, afortunately, still alive. But one cannot deny the danger to her personal security as a result of someone revealing her CIA affiliation.

In both cases, there seems to be 'involvement', either actively or passively, of the highest positions in Government and the President's/PM's 'inner circle' of people.

B757300:

"The media/DNC driven CIA leak that everyone is babbling about ...."

Media driven CIA leak? Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Somebody who knew Mrs Wilson works for the CIA contacts 7 journalists. Now I can somehow imagine an unintentional 'slip of the tongue' when a Senior Administration Officials talks to a reporter, but seven 'slips of the tongue' to seven different reporters seems like intentional to me. Don't shoot the messenger!

"I'm really surprised one of our rabid Bush bashers hasn't posted something about it already and called for Bush to be executed for treason."

Well, last time I checked, Bush IS the President and as such he is responsable for his Administration Officials and what they do and say. Mrs Wilson's security has been put in serious jeopardy, not only for now but also for the future and all fingers point into the same direction.

Cfalk:

"Why can't they simply have a court ORDER this Novak character to tell them who spilled the beans to him. As it is, Novak is guilty of a felony by publicizing the name of a CIA operative."

Ah, so Mr Novak really is the Bad Guy. Yes, let's 'hang him high'! Forget about the 'leak' itself and the fact that he/she contacted another 6 reporters. Shoot the messenger!

"But unless Novak decides to jump under a train, there is no need for a special prosecutor. Novak knows! Beat it out of him!"

Send Novak to Guantanamo! He obviously is a dangerous terrorist (to this Administration, anyway)!


N79969:

"There has been apparent crime committed against this country. Whatever the person's intent, they have committed treason. Whoever is responsible in the Bush Administration should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

This doesn't happen very often but I completely agree with you!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:43 pm

The media/DNC driven CIA leak...

 Laugh out loud  Laugh out loud  Laugh out loud  Laugh out loud


It was a leak, allegedly from within the White House, to conservative reporters, like Robert Novak, but it's media/ DNC driven. Oh, my God, you're killing me, B757300! That's one of the funniest things I've ever read.

How come? What law protects him?

The law protects THE CIA AGENT, CFalk, not her husband. But, if her name was leaked as a political too to hurt her, it warrents an investigation. Jesus, but you've become as apologetic as B757300 in trying to protect anyone in this Administration.

Why is anyone insisting on a special investigation? Why can't they simply have a court ORDER this Novak character to tell them who spilled the beans to him.

Because, long ago, it was deemed OK, even necessary, for reporters to protect their sources. Go back to the mole "Deep Throat" who was allegedly the one who gave Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein all the poop on Watergate, and that's a classic example. Journalists have gone to jail to protect sources.
 
airjampanam
Topic Author
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 3:06 am

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Wed Oct 01, 2003 10:43 pm

Schoenorama, thanks for directly addressing my original thread, points well noted.
Dr Kelly's name was publicized by the BBC who supposedly got it from a Government source, hence the Hutton inquiry.
All over the same issue(Iraq).
Interesting to say the least!
On the day of Tony Blairs testimony the lights go out in London!
One can find demons around any and every corner if one cares to look.
Just me thinking aloud again.
For the record, I respect Tony Blair.
I cant say the same for GWB.
Suing is the new Lotto... if u wanna win u gotta sue!
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Thu Oct 02, 2003 1:16 am

Alpha 1,

Jesus, but you've become as apologetic as B757300 in trying to protect anyone in this Administration.

I'm not apologizing for anyone. This is a serious matter, and whoever it is who leaked the info should be prosecuted fully, whoever it is. That includes, IF it is found that Bush himself gave the green light to do it, possible impeachment proceedings.

Given what I know and have read about Bush and his upbringing however, I highly doubt he would do this. His own father - a war veteran and ex-CIA chief - would probably shoot him. But perhaps someone at the White House did. There are an awful lot of personal agendas in Washington DC. Whoever it is, he/she must be found - quickly.

Journalists have gone to jail to protect sources.

Then let him go to jail. If he wants to take the rap for someone who decided that the press would make a good attack dog for his own purposes (and commiting treason in doing so), so be it. But Journalist-Source confidentiality should not be an impenetrable wall.

We are not talking about a source revealing secrets about Ben & J-Lo. The proper functioning of the country is at risk here, and the opposition is doing everything they can to push suspicion on the President and pushing for a long, drawn out investigation, for the express purpose of hurting Bush's re-election bid, and by-the-way, (and more importantly) interfering with the management of a nation involved in foreign conflicts and whose economy is still in the early phases of a recovery. This of course helps the democrats, so they quite obviously want to drag this investigation out as long as possible.

This investigation should not take more than a week or two. The "people who know" are known. Threaten them with obstruction of justice in relation with a possible charge of treason, in order to get them to smoke out the rat, put the right guy in jail, and ensure that the administration can concentrate on the business of running the country.

Schoenorama,

Ah, so Mr Novak really is the Bad Guy. Yes, let's 'hang him high'! Forget about the 'leak' itself and the fact that he/she contacted another 6 reporters. Shoot the messenger!

If he is protecting a traitor, that makes him a bad guy, in my book. I'll be more than happy to see him go free if he give the name of the source. But by protecting the source, he is "aiding and abetting" a felon.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Thu Oct 02, 2003 1:52 am

Not quite, AirJamPanAm, Dr Kelly WAS the BBC source. The BBC at no stage publicised his identity, it was the Ministry of Defence that did that. Dr Kelly was a civil servant, not a member of the government, but he was one of the foremost experts on WMD's in the West. The BBC ran a story saying that the government dossier on Iraq's WMD's was "sexed up", based on the information Kelly gave a BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan. The government then outed Kelly through a "twenty questions" response to enquiries as to the source's identity. The BBC refused to confirm or deny the accuracy of the claims until after Kelly's suicide.

The issue then became one of whether the BBC had accurately reported Kelly's concerns or not, and whether the MoD had acted properly in allowing his identity to become public.

It is going a bit too far to suggest that the government had a hand in Kelly's death (not that I am saying you are suggesting that), they certainly didn't, if for no other reason than that his death has caused far more problems than had he lived, but it certainly is an issue as to whether his employers, the MoD acted with a sufficient duty of care, or whether the government deliberately exposed him to pressure which led to his suicide.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
airjampanam
Topic Author
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 3:06 am

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Thu Oct 02, 2003 7:47 am

Banco....Dead on summary!!!!
I love this board!!!!!!
Nuff Said!
Suing is the new Lotto... if u wanna win u gotta sue!
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Thu Oct 02, 2003 9:06 am

Cfalk:

"If he is protecting a traitor, that makes him a bad guy, in my book. I'll be more than happy to see him go free if he give the name of the source. But by protecting the source, he is "aiding and abetting" a felon."

The strange thing is, that if it weren't for Mr Novak, we would never have found out about this. Imagine this 'leak' didn't contact Mr Novak nor 6 other reporters but instead decided to 'leak' it at some foreign embassy cocktail party, to name just one. In your reply to Alpha 1, you stated that the proper functioning of the country is at risk. I couldn't agree more. But for a country to be able to functioning properly, the General Public needs people like Mr Novak, to give them a real and good insight at what is really going on every now and then.

Now I might not agree with why Mr Novak did what he did nor what he writes, but in doing his job as a reporter he actually has done the General Public a great favour, namely confirming that even using foul play is 'justified' when protecting this Administration.

The person from where this leak originated (and his or her protectors) are the true risks for the proper functioning of the country, even more when these people are supposed to be running the country and protecting ALL its citizens, including Mrs Wilson and Mr Novak!


Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
DC10GUY
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 5:52 am

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Thu Oct 02, 2003 9:21 am

Its clear to me ... Bush/Blair wanted a war with Iraq at any cost. They did a bad job of coming up with reasons for the war. People who told the truth and pointed out the flaws in the plan where taken care of. No post Watergate politician will ever leave tracks that lead back to the man at the top ... I'll bet someone will step up and take the blame to try and get the heat off the president.
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Thu Oct 02, 2003 3:02 pm

Dc10guy,

You display all the qualities of prejudice that make leftists like you so ironically funny.

You have clearly judged Bush and condemned him of being guilty of a crime with no evidence. I thought you were liberal  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Schoenorama

The strange thing is, that if it weren't for Mr Novak, we would never have found out about this.

We weren't supposed to find out - not the name, anyway. Novak broadcast restricted information to a wide audience. That's a no-no.

If Mr. Novak had reported that "An official source has provided me with information concerning the identity of a CIA operative." and left it at that, then he would not have done anything wrong - strictly speaking. But the fact that there are 7 reporters who are all protecting a traitor speaks volumes, I think, for that profession's moral code. The spirit of Edward Murrow must weep.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
DC10GUY
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 5:52 am

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Thu Oct 02, 2003 4:14 pm

Cfalk, Your 100% correct. Bush is clearly guilty to me. I hope Dubya and his gang are kicked out of Washington and tried for treason. Nixon would of never had to resign if it wasn't for that dam liberal media too.
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Thu Oct 02, 2003 5:16 pm

Guilty of what, exactly? Do you have any evidence at all? It could have been Barbara Streisand for all we know.

It could have been Jane Harman, D-California, Alcee Hastings, D-Florida, Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, Leonard L. Boswell, D-Iowa, Collin C. Peterson, D-Minnesota, Bud Cramer, D-Alabama, Anna Eshoo, D-California, Rush Holt, D-New Jersey, Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland, Nancy Pelosi, D-California. All of them are on the House Intelligence committee and would have access to the information, and some of them, I'm sure, would love to stir some sh&t around, by finding a convenient and sympathetic mouthpiece within the Executive Branch.

You base your accusation on your assumptions. And as we know, ASSumptions will make an ASS out of you.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
DC10GUY
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 5:52 am

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Thu Oct 02, 2003 5:25 pm

Bush is the ASS I'm talking about ......
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Bush/Blair And The Naming Of Sources

Thu Oct 02, 2003 9:05 pm

Cfalk:

"We weren't supposed to find out - not the name, anyway. Novak broadcast restricted information to a wide audience. That's a no-no."

The interesting thing is that the column written by Mr Novak has had quite the opposite effect of what Mr Novak and his anonymous source initially pretended.


It is not up to the media to decide what information should be known by the General Public and what not, as Mr Novak pretended when he wrote his column. The General Public, as this case has shown, is perfectly capable of filtering the news it is presented and decide for themselves what is acceptable and what not. Despite Mr Novak's intentions when he wrote the column, his job was and is 'to inform the General Public' and one can only assess that he has done a remarkable job, although his column did not have the effect he anticipated but completely the contrary.

"But the fact that there are 7 reporters who are all protecting a traitor speaks volumes, I think, for that profession's moral code."

First of all, not all seven reporters went public with the information ('leak') they received. Secondly, the fact that some of these did not go public but nevertheless do not wish to reveal their source, is a very good example of the profession's excellent moral code (in this respect). To go back to the initial thread, imagine the BBC had revealed its source prior to Dr Kelly's suicide. Imagine the consequences this would have had for Mr Kelly. As things have turned out, I believe Dr Kelly's suicide would have happened nevertheless but much earlier, as a direct result of the BBC revealing him.

The General Public, whether this is in the UK, the US or in France, heavily relies on 'whistle-blowers', 'Government Leaks' and alike as a counterweight to the 'Official Information' put out by the Governments and Ministries. Reporters should not be forced to reveal their sources, even in the case this would speed-up an official investigation. Reporters are an essential part of any Free Press. As soon as one starts questioning their functioning, a Free Press as such is also questioned and its future is at risk.


Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cpd, Dutchy and 22 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos