Powered by TypePad

« Which One Does Not Belong? | Main | But Blond Jokes Will Never Die! »

March 05, 2006



That 21st paragraph from the WAPO brings up a question. Did the reporter deliberately conflate the leak of Plame's name with the allusion to revealing classified information by Libby, or is he too stupid to know the difference. The justaposition suggests deliberation. I'll shield him from the consequences of his dishonesty? How?

Cecil Turner
The precedent was set, ironically, by the special counsel investigating leaks by White House officials, including (we now know) Karl Rove and I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby.
And now The Master's™ brilliance becomes apparent, even to the infidels. Bwaahahaha [mustache twiddle].
Beto Ochoa

That Rockefeller guy just cracks me up. What the hell is wrong with the citizens of West Virginia? And for that matter, Massachusetts? Their choice of representation is an injury to the entire experiment.


Dear President Bush-
Don't forget we own the presses. Mess with us, and you'll see what unfavorable coverage really looks like.

Downie & Keller


A new variable has been added in W. Va. Rocky's gonna be down and counted out next round.


A Federal Shield Law is such a horrible idea. What might someone write, if they knew nobody could ever check the source they say he quotes? Conversely, what kind of garbage might someone feed a reporter, knowing he can never be revealed?

Par R.

Glenn Reynolds had another good take on this fevered WaPo story:

"But having made a big deal of leaks and their alleged harm to National Security in the Plame case, they're in a poor position to complain. Bill Keller's outrage is particularly out of place, and his suggestion that the Bush Administration is waging war at home on the values we profess abroad is just a political sound-bite: There's not even a right of journalists to protect leakers under the U.S. Constitution, despite journalists' representations, and doing so has hardly been a slogan on the war on terror. The tendency of the press to conflate its own desire for guild-like special privileges with the protections of the First Amendment is one of the reasons for its decline in trust and popularity."

Hearing someone from the New York Times talk about this issue is a bit like listening to Joseph Goebbels speak of the sad experiences of Jews in 1930s Germany. One needs only to look at some of the sad history of the NYT over the twentieth century to see how frequently they have favored their and others interests over America's. Think of Walter Duranty, their Pulitzer prize winning Soviet correspondent whose contrived and lying reporting in the 1920s and 1930s contributed to the deaths of countless hundreds of thousands of Russians through its false reporting to the outside world on the enforced starvation of some ten million Russians. Or think about the NYT's holocaust coverage, or more correctly, the lack of coverage until virtually the war was over.

Even today, long after publication of the Venona transcripts which indisputably proved the guilt of the NYT's and the Left's favorite "McCarthy victims," - Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - the NYT continues its periodic defense of these individuals with favorable articles at least two or three times a year.

It continues to amaze me that so many people continue to read the NYT and patronize those firms that advertise in it.

Rick Ballard


State shield laws are as bad or worse. They were inacted by cowardly legislators currying favor with the presse ancien when it still had power. There is absolutley no logical reason to extend a privilege to a trade without ethical standards and in particular to a trade or craft without means of enforcing those standards.

The inherent illogic is going to become glaringly apparent when a blogger who derives significant ad income from his site posts something absolutely scurrilous concerning a public figure in a state situation and then camps behind the press shield to ward off legitimate inquiry.

Other Tom

I am extremely happy to learn that these investigations are in fact underway, and that polygraphs are in use at the CIA. That place is a hell-hole of agenda-pushers, as is State, and some long prison terms would be delightful. Say what you will about Dubya, I don't think he'd hesitate for one moment to prosecute the New York Times.


"We do not want to inadvertently threaten human life or legitimately harm national security in our reporting," he said. "But it's important . . . in our constitutional system that these final decisions be made by newspaper editors and not the government."

Best line, IMO. I wonder what Article he's talking about?

Would like to know the "..." rest.

Florence Schmieg

This has been one of my pet peeves for a long time. The "profession" of journalism is no such thing and should not have special privileges under the law. Unlike medicine and law they have no rigorous entrance standards and licensing exams to pass before they can practice their craft. Once practicing it, there are no accountability boards, malpractice boards, nothing. Without such standards they cannot be given special protections. True professions police themselves first.


I thought this story was fun, too. How could they not have seen that train coming down the track, and is Rockefeller purelu disingenuous or just bone stupid?

Par R exactly. I thought I'd miss the features when I cancelled the NYT after having read it every day of my adult life. Not at all. In fact, everything in the paper now looks shallow and stupid to me, (Well I miss the double acrostics, but that's why there's a Plame case.)


Remove the subjunctive. He is not going to hesitate to prosecute the NYT, and probably the Pinch and Bill Show personally, too. The gauntlets went down at the early December meeting and it's clear Pinch has maddened. Where's the board?


I wonder if having been asked by the admin. to not print the NSA story, waiting then going ahead, if that makes it especially uncomfortable for the NYT's.

In this case, they were informed it would damage national security and disregarded that warning. Does that make a difference legally speaking?


Yes. Bush has followed due process.

sammy small

I can see it now....frogmarched


Bush could shutter the Gray Lady as seditious. Wouldn't that be fun? People WOULD still get the news.


Byron too!

"Too late, the Times and its allies realized that a terrible precedent had been set. Now some of them try to argue that the Wilson leak was an act of retribution, while the NSA and secret prisons leaks were the work of good-government whistleblowers, so one should be vigorously prosecuted while the others are ignored. It won't work. Leaks are leaks, and the NSA and secret prisons leaks were, by any estimation, far more damaging to national security than the Wilson leak. (In that case, the special prosecutor said in court recently that he did not intend to show that any damage occurred from the leak.)

So now there are more investigations going on. The Times and its supporters wanted this kind of thing. Now they've got it."


Another irony. Schumer. Calling for an investigation for a so-called smear campaign, meanwhile 2 of his staffers are under investigation for illegally obtaining a credit report using the opponents social security number during op-research in order to use that to "smear" an opponent.

Can't make it up.


Powerline has interesting comments as well:

(there's more than 3 paragraphs and lots of links to...)


Top secret

One of the deepest secrets in the exposure of the National Security Agency surveillance of al Qaeda-related conversations by the New York Times is that the publication of the story is itself a crime. Publication of the story violates, for example, one highly specific provision (18 U.S.C. section 798) of the Espionage Act that prohibits the disclosure of communications intelligence. Violation of the statute is a felony punishable by imprisonment up to ten years.

The "nearly a dozen" current and former government officials who leaked information regarding the NSA surveillance program to the Times violated the statute. So did the Times itself. Yet the Times has barely mentioned its own legal jeopardy in its continued reporting and commenatary on the story.

The Bush administration of course asked the Times not to disclose the existence of the surveillance program, but the Times proceeded to publish the story when it satisfied itself that it "could write about this program -- withholding a number of technical details -- in a way that would not expose any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record." Thus Times executive editor Bill Keller spake in his statement on the story. (We noted General Hayden's disagreement with Keller in "Crimes of the Times.")


I'd like a special shield law for myself too. That way I could do anything I like and not have to worry about the law, or what's right, or my actions' impact on others, or any of the consequences.

I rate one at least as much any reporter.

Rick Ballard


Here is the text of the act itself. Fitz has been using 793(d) as his club (wrt Libby) in the Plame matter and perhaps 793(e) wrt scaring Novak into keeping his mouth shut.

Where I see the Times as being in very deep trouble is wrt 793(e) and in particular "which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States ". The President's meeting and request not to publish removes any "gee, we didn't have any idea" defense from the Times and particularly from Keller and Risen. Sulzberger has already said in interviews (lying through his teeth) that he didn't really know what was involved. That won't stand any scrutiny at all and if Pinch wants to try and deny then I don't know why he thinks any underlings wouldn't swap proof of perjury on his part for a bit less time in the hoosegow.

Btw - the President is not pushing this - it is a DoJ matter and better be pursued without regard to political implications. Let the wheels grind without political intervention. This isn't the Waco Massacre DoJ anymore.


One thing I found interesting about this article was it's lack of info on the "possible" government sources.

I don't know if using "possible" is just funny of SOP (well they weren't private citizens just walking down the street), but if Jed Babbin has been able to sniff out some info on specific government sources you'd think the powerhouse WAPO could too.

And if the Plame matter is the measuring stick of coverage on identifying subjects of investigation then NSA subjects rate too.


Perhaps we should start digging thru the archives and pulling out the stuff in the NYT where they said how important it was to protect super duper secrets like Plame and how the prosecution should go on to the end of time until the leakers were prosecuted, etc.

We want to be able to act fast when the news of a gj being empaneled breaks.

Beto Ochoa

Well Clarice,
If they bring it on down to Austin, Ronnie Earle will impanel as many GJs as it takes. Why he'll even have previous jurors call the next lot to convince them to indict.
I've known Ronnie since 1972 when he was a traffic court judge. He was a real stand up guy. It seems the loss of power for Austin Clique was more than he could bear.

In a land of giants, past the port of Timbuktu,
Was a hero named Ronald, we all swore was true.
His conquests unnumbered,
His sword sheathed in truth.
His path unmolested,
His spirit aloof.

As all things are traded he traded his honor,
For a few pints of beer at the pub on the corner.
For a moment of conquest in search of control,
To seize the day from another poor soul.

So thus we're divided, and sold for a pence,
Our masters' obliging for self recompense.

richard mcenroe

"Historically, leaks have virtually never harmed national security in even a minor way, despite plenty of shrill commentary to the contrary."

So Kevin Drum doesn't give a damn about the CIA agents Agee and Leahy got killed with their leaks? Or, as another great Democrat once said, "Screw them."


The arguments--arrogant aren't they?--that the press, not the Executive must have the power to decide which information harms our defense is just another instance of the left's constant effort to separate power from responsibility. When Sulzburger and Keller police the borders and airports and get voted out of their office (and stock options) for failing to do thst job, they may have a point. But we all know that they will print anything no matter how damaging for the bucks it brings in and attack viciously the President for any failures occasioned by those leaks.

Rick Ballard


If the Times is convicted (or possibly without a conviction) and a terrorist attack occurs I would think that the Times would have brand new owners fairly quickly. I wonder how their casualty underwriters are looking at this liability exposure.

I immagine that a statement from the NSA subsequent to an attack that said: "We had the group under surveillance up until the publication by the NYT of the general surveillance teghniques being used." would cause every PI & class action attorney in the United States to start a search for clients damaged by such an attack. $4B isn't a huge kitty but it's not tiny either.


Now there's a thought. Let's find out who are their underwriters and drop them a line in case they overlooked this.That could be a more effective and faster way to reduce revenues than a boycott.



I know you see this as a political issue, but I see it as a national security issue, one the president has every right to be involved in.


Full speed ahead with the investigation. The NYT needs to be brought to its knees on this. They were warned, it's all about money{specifically Risen and Rocky have to be held responsible as well as editors of the NYT.} No holds barred. They{NYT} have gotten arrogant and power hungry since Jayson Blair fiasco. Comeuppance is long overdue.


"Historically, leaks have virtually never harmed national security in even a minor way, despite plenty of shrill commentary to the contrary."

Obviously, Mr. Drum didn't write the copy for Fitzgerald.

Gary Maxwell

Do these guys ever bother to read their own prior editorials? Does the editorial board change so much in three years time that there is no corporate memory of positions taken? I am asking but of course I think the answer is that they know they are being mendicious. Dont they expect to be taken to task for it? How does word leak through to unsuspecting readers? Blogs yes but it seems there are still a great mass who have no clue but if they did would find it massively insulting to their intelligence.


Oh man. I bet Rockefeller really wishes he had a rock to hide under, there is his secret (only to he and the NYT's) handwritten letter... and this this just keeps popping up like a bad penny (and I bet the penny has found it's way to FBI investigators pocket too!)

"The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives."


A good yardstick to measure all of this is Watergate.

Just how many classified documents did Woodward and Bernstein leak as part of their Watergate coverage ? I could be wrong, but hardly any, if any.

Now, contrast that with the NYT story on NSA surveillance program. The government should bring a tort in federal court to recover costs of lost assesses.

Gary Maxwell

Someone find Mr. Drum doing his college cheerleader routine for the appointment of Fitz to invest a leak of "national security". I am betting it wont be hard to find, as he is genrally quite predictable.


OT...But Russert really showed his ass today in grilling Gen. Pace on MTP. I think he brought up every conceivable Dim talking point.

I've concluded we are stuck with the chicken little press until the disparity btween the "reality" in Iraq as portrayed by the press and reality will be too glaring for the public to ignore.

Gary Maxwell

I am betting on a crow dinner for Mr. Drum of some vaguely familiar "shrill commentary".


It would be wrong, but--I expect the way to make the paper sweat even more is an ad in the American Trial Lawyers of America mag indicating we have compiled a brief of (a) all the NYT's security leaks and (b) their editorials railing against how such leaks damage national security, and (c) how those leaks made defending against such terrorism more difficult. We include this: In the event of another attack lawyers may find this compendium useful in any lawsuit naming the paper as a defendant .(How much should we charge for this?)


Do these guys ever bother to read their own prior editorials?

A cocoon, ignorance or arrogance? Or maybe they've just come to terms with their multiple personality disorder.

Hmmm...what's my opinion today?

Other Tom

I love Keller's reference to the "tone of gleeful relish." Couldn't have expressed my feelings any better than that. And a note about "whistle-blowers": there is a specific federal statute specifying what a government employee is to do when he feels that a given practice related to national security intelligence violates the law. It specifies the individuals the employee is to notify, and the New York Times is not included.


there is a couple more options...

Or maybe they've just come to terms with the declining readership so they figure no one will notice...or the old op-ed's reside under lock and key behind that smashing success Times Select ( Times Select had some built in advantages in case it didn't take off)


Kevin Drum--(took one minute on google and I grabbed the first):
Steyn, along with most of the right these days, spends nearly the entire column flinging mud at Joe Wilson, and I suppose I might do the same if I found myself in Steyn's increasingly uncomfortable shoes. After all, it's been obvious for some time, and is even more obvious now, that multiple people in the White House spoke to multiple reporters about Valerie Plame's CIA status even though that information compromised a potentially important covert operation. There's really no honorable way to claim that this is an OK thing to do, so the only option left is to try and divert attention away from that basic fact.

It's pretty sad when conservatives become so obsessed with protecting their own that they're reduced to claiming that outing a CIA agent is no worse than outing a Home Depot clerk. That's some heavy duty moral clarity for you, folks.

Shooting fish in a barrel.

Beto Ochoa

Don't forget to a good faith attempt to tally the tax dollars and time wasted in pursuing these cases Clarice. A class action lawsuit might be in order.

Rick Ballard


I don't see it as a political issue at all. It will neither hugely hurt nor hugely help either side no matter what the outcome.

I see it as an institutional issue and a matter of restoring confidence in the DoJ as not just a political tool. We have lost "politics stops at the waters edge" due to political exigency. We have lost all sense of the proper place and actions that lend respect to former Presidents. With the firing of all US attorneys by Clinton in '93 I began to lose all respect for the DoJ - as an institution. With Wilson's shenanigan - I lost respect for the CIA (and State's) ability to conduct themselves in a non-political manner.

I sincerely hope that the Times gets clobbered on the NSA leak in a manner never before seen. They deserve every bit of anything that befalls them. But I would lose some respect for the President and the Presidency were he to come forward and say much more than he has already. He pointed at the problem and he pointed at the culprits. Now it's time to let the wheels grind - and hope that they grind exceedingly fine.

Upon disposition of the case I believe that any President would be justified in making a statement - just not during investigation, charging and the trial itself.


Fair enough, although I am not advocating for Bush to make speeches about the investigation. Just to make sure the investigation is going forward.

JM Hanes

Amen to that, let them grind exceedingly fine.


Despite the Grey Lady's attempt to thrust her reporters into the lede, this is the most important news item:

"In recent weeks, dozens of employees at the CIA, the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies have been interviewed by agents from the FBI's Washington field office, who are investigating possible leaks that led to reports about secret CIA prisons and the NSA's warrantless domestic surveillance program, according to law enforcement and intelligence officials familiar with the two cases."

Adding to what Rick said -

"This isn't the Waco Massacre DoJ anymore",

and hopefully the CIA and State, too.

Rick Ballard

"It would be wrong, but--"

Well if it's wrong we certainly wouldn't want to do it.

Very often.

So, how about a shareholder class action based upon management's failure to disclose a significant risk in it's 10K risk analysis? Those are always a lot of fun and it's not as if the President's warning didn't constitute warning of potential problems.

It would be worth buying one share just to send a letter to the board on that one.


Don't leave out the FISA judges themselves. Some of them are on my radar screen, too.


Mac has something on this today:
"Yet according to sources, the DOJ has already "fleshed out the repercussions" and is even now preparing cases against key players in the leaks - the first of which will involve the CIA prison leak and the NSA leak - who have one and the same culprit. Others are being implicated - thus the wide net. Some of who are in Government, others in the MSM. The prevailing opinion is that that Chapter 18 U.S.C. section 798) of the Espionage Act is in play.

Like I said, "No more Mr. Nice guy". It's going to get real interesting I assure you."



Historically, leaks have virtually never harmed national security in even a minor way, despite plenty of shrill commentary to the contrary.

Clarice is too quick for us all. Well, too quick for me.

Simply contrast the Drum of 2006 versus the Drum 2005.

Drum, Marshall et al. were screaming about the Plame leak and the serious damage it had done to our covert operations or ability to recruit agents.

Does anyone remember the cries of "treason" directed at Rove from certain quarters? Bill Press? Howard Dean?

"Shrill commentary" indeed.

Google is a liberals worst nightmare.

Hmm, you don't think Lord Rove invented Google?




I think we need to start a then and now thread,TM-

I heart google.

Rick Ballard


I really find this section of 798 heartwarming:

"(d)(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law -

(B) any of the person's property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation."

I wonder if a corporation might be construed as a "person" in this instance? Would the GAO run the new "Federal Times"?

I wish I knew the name of the Times liability carrier. There is a great opportunity for a premium increase here.


Generally speaking American law regards a corporation as a "person", Rick.

How much could ads in the ATLA mag cost anyway?

We could tag Cecil as our expert witness..

"TAC Legal Resources. A group organized to help civilians and military families recover against those media which published classified information which jeopardized the safety of Americans here and abroad.
Expert witness.
Detailed press research.
Fair fees.
Available immediately."

Rick Ballard

Geez, if I read this correctly:

From 798

"(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1)."

'shall' makes the forfeiture mandatory - not discretionary. If the DoJ names the NYT in the indictment then selling NYT short is potentially a very good investment move.


Heh..From Lifon's analysis of their financial reports, shorting the NYT was already a good bet.


Re forfeitures--Some years ago in DC the FBI took possession of some strip joints (tax non payment IIRC) and were actually running them until they could find buyers. LOL So they have some experience applicable to managing the NYT.

Gary Maxwell

Naw the strip joints had nothing to hide. Far different from the paper of record.

which suggests that I would wallop Chuck Schumer at chess. Or checkers, even - heck, any game requiring the ability to look even one move ahead.
Kind of OT, but you brought it up... When is the last time you played checkers? I wrote a videogame checkers a couple of years ago, and it was depressing just how badly I was getting my butt kicked by the AI. After a few months of testing the program I got pretty good at it, but it is no sissy game.

cathy :-)

Beto Ochoa

Strip joints aren't whore houses so there may be a disconnect in the "experience" needed to run the NYT.

Beto Ochoa

I've seen drunken brawls over a game of checkers. It's not a pass time for the timid in East Austin.

Rick Ballard


If memory serves, the Feds wound up with the Mustang Ranch in Reno. They may have a little of the necessary experience.


Polygraph is an 'employment screening tool' and basically disounted after it is used to void a hire.

There have been alot of articles about classified DOJ prosecutions and plea bargains on behalf of CIA like, for example, Plame.

These records are not available.


I am interested to find out that in both the NSA and the secret prisons is the same leaker. Any speculation as to who it might be? Who are the government or press{msm} sources?


Only few people outside the NSA knew of the surveillance program. Rockefeller and Durbin are the key suspects..though for a nonsecond they and their press buddies tried to make it seem as if that shnook Tice was the man.

Beto Ochoa

You're absolutely correct Rick. If memory serve me right though, all the Ladies quit before the takeover. They already had to pay a fee to the house for their room and having to pay taxes to the house.....well, that was one screwin' they weren't going to put up with.


It is my personal malicious speculation that at least one career guy in Comey's office and one or moe judges on the FISA court should engage counsel if they have not already.

Beto Ochoa

In December I heard that there was trouble with leaks in the FISA court going back to 2001 and there was already an investigation underway. Remember this date: September 18th 2001. I suspected the Times and the Post ran their stories as a CYA move to claim the same kind of retribution theme they had already employed with the Wilson kerfluffle.


Re: Times hypocrisy on the Plame case - keep in mind that the Times eventually editorialized that the Plame leak did not violate the IIPA.

Mickey Kaus and James Taranto checked the Times for constancy, and surprisingly, there were not a lot of examples of the editors calling the leak a crime (although they certainly wanted it to be investigated.)


How in the world might the DoJ investigation be progressing?

Would anyone actually be crazy enough to 'fess up to leaking to Risen? Whither the Fifth?

But if no one admits to being a leaker, then eventually (per DoJ guidelines), having exhausted all reasonable alternatives, Risen gets his subpoena.

Or is it possible some folks have confessed? Maybe they were faced with phone records and meeting logs that put them and Risen together, and just took a deal.

Rick Ballard


That would be a teaser, right? RCP had a Tice linked to Risen story some time ago. Did Tom Bevan recant?


I have a feeling Hill staffers are rolling up faster than anchovy tin tops..having a good first hand view of the integrity of their bosses ans their loyalty to the staff.


Leaking classified info. cannot, for obvious reasons, be condoned, although I can understand why the press feels differently. The press wants to sell papers, consider themselves a counterbalance to government power,etc - I am sure there are many journalists who have wet dreams about being the new Woodward. What galls me is that there have been numerous leaks in the last couple of years, many of which harm national security, and the only leak to which the press has objected is one which countered the lies of a charlatan and had no or negligible effect on national security. A bizzare situation in which the press is outraged at a leak...because it helps the govt´s position. I can imagine a NYT editorial applauding Libby´s conviction next to another one condemning the investigation of say the NSA leak. Funny in a sick kind of way.
What is really amusing is that the press, by pushing for an investigation into the Plame affair, is shooting itself in the foot, and at the best govt. sources will be less reluctant to divulge information to them. If adopting a position against your interest simply to hurt the Administration is not a sign of bias, I don´t know what is.

Rick Ballard

Dem Staffer cafeteria:

S1 - So, Wuddathey offerya?

S2 - Six months - no fine.

S1 - Gonna take it?

S2 - They've got me on tape, man. Hell yes, I'm gonna take it.

S1 - Does Rocky know?

S2 - Unless he's dumber than a sack o'hammers, he knows.

S1 - Hey! Who are you? FBI? - show me your credentials? ......Oh.

S1 - You bastard.


"You Know It's Hard Our Here for a Pimp"

Song by "Three 6 Mafia" is not only nominated for the Academy Award tonight but most bet it will be the winner.

If TM ever goes into pod casts, might want to consider as background music to the breaking news that the NYT's has been indicted.

Rick Ballard


Theme from "Rawhide" -

Move 'em on (Head 'em up)
Head 'em up (Move 'em up)
Move 'em on (Head 'em up)
Cut 'em out (Ride 'em in)
Ride 'em in (Cut 'em out)
Cut 'em out (Ride 'em in)

Keep movin' movin' movin'
Though their disapprovin'
Keep them doggies moving
Don't try to understand them
Just rope, throw and brand them
Soon we'll be living high and wide


TM--IIRC they editorialized it was no crime when it was evident it wasn't. I can imagine what their view would have been had no SP been appointed..Had reporters been snared in the trap and forced to teestify..

In any event, we'll always have Kevin Drum.

Lew Clark

Since the NYT has done a 180 and instead of reporting on crime and cover-up, they do crime and cover-up, does that mean that organized crime will be tasked with reporting on this?


Should read------Had reporters been NOT snared in the trap and forced to teestify..


"But it's important . . . in our constitutional system that these final decisions be made by newspaper editors and not the government."

One of the damnest statements I have read to date....almost as good as 'we should have a Shield Law' so we can quit spinning and just make it all up.

I want a list of all dozen leakers (okay will settle for eleven) and that huge WaPo list. Then give me a breakfast menu and show me which Dem operative is sleeping in which witness bed.

Oh and put me down on that Glee List....hee hee hee. It's about time because I did not find what they did the least bit funny.


Theme from Rawhide perfect...

Beto Ochoa

Sure the Rawhide Theme is good but the theme from "Cops" is better.


I like this line:

"...investigating possible leaks that led to reports about secret CIA prisons and the NSA's warrantless domestic surveillance program."

Possible leaks?


You know, like Kristof made up the Wilson claim that he'd seen the forgeries, Specter..LOL


NYT and WaPo Lead Articles:

Quoting unamed, secret experts, it has been determined that it is possible the sun will rise each morning....Stay tuned.


BTW Clarice - I will pitch in for the ad...


Newspaper publishers have to puff up their own importance. Why do you think they own presses? Pinch has done it; put himself in important trouble.


Great! Nothing gets my juices flowing like the idea of the press getting what it deserves.

Beto Ochoa

...the press getting what it deserves.
You can't horsewhip anymore. Not even in New Mexico.


Surely you've read Mark Twain about being a newspaper editor and publisher.


How often we recall, with regret, that napoleon once shot at a magazine editor and missed him and killed a publisher……. But we remember with charity, that his intentions were good.”

Rick Ballard


I might have a start for next week - Standing on 43rd St., the Bald Man smiled thinly as he watched the L being afsixed where once a Y had been...

Rick Ballard



So how come these AIPAC guys get prosecuted for the same thing that occurs on a daily basis with leaking to the media? Selective prosecution? How come UGO doesn't get prosecuted for talking to Novak?

What exactly is alleged that Franklin told the lobbyists?


That Israeli agents in the Kurdish area were in peril and that he wanted help getting the NSC to consider his views on how to deal with Iran IIRC.


Found this at American Thinker:

The New York Times Co. paid Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. a salary and bonus of $1.6 million for 2005.

The New York-based media company also said he received options on 150,000 shares and got a grant of restricted stock units valued at $817,500.

Those figures compared with a salary and bonus of $1.9 million the previous year, with grants of 59,000 options and restricted stock valued at $433,840, the company said Friday in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Bummer - he got a pay cut....wish I could get a pay cut like that....

JM Hanes

The guy gets a bonus for '05? Who's minding that store? Oh, wait....


May future Republican Administration learn and never ever ever give people like David Gergen credentials ever ever again.
Here he is on Reliable Sources:
Noel Sheppard on NewsBusters

.....courtesy of Crooks and Liars.

KURTZ: Let me break in, David, because I want to get your thoughts on one other thing...


KURTZ: ... and that is the story on the front page of this morning's "Washington Post" about White House effort to stem leaks. And it talks about the administration, the Bush administration, having launched initiatives targeting journalists and their possible government sources. These involve federal employees being questioned on "The New York Times" story about the national security wiretaps, on the "Washington Post" story about secret CIA prisons, Valerie Plame, all of that.

Do you -- you have been on both sides of this fence. Do you see this as an administration that really is going after journalists, or just legitimately trying to stem the flow of classified information leaking out to the press?

GERGEN: I am glad you brought that up. This administration has engaged in secrecy at a level we have not seen in over 30 years.

Unfortunately, I have to bring up the name of Richard Nixon, because we haven't seen it since the days of Nixon. And now what they're doing -- and they're using the war on terror to justify -- is they're starting to target journalists who try to pierce the veil of secrecy and find things and put them in the newspapers.

Now, in the past what the government has always done is go after the people who leak, the inside people. That's the way they try to stop leaks.

This is the first administration that I can remember, including Nixon's, that said -- and Porter Goss said this to Congress -- that we need to think about a law that would put journalists who print national security things to...

KURTZ: Right. Let me briefly...

GERGEN: ... bring them up in front of grand juries and put them in jail if they don't -- in effect, if they don't reveal their sources.

KURTZ: ... get to Linda Douglass.

DOUGLASS: And the Justice Department is talking about using a pre-World War I law to prosecute people who receive classified information. That could be journalists. So now they're talking about potentially prosecuting journalists who simply receive information.

KURTZ: We will be talking about this on many programs to come. Perhaps with all of you.

Sheppard points out

"about using a pre-World War I law to prosecute people who receive classified information."

we still prosecute people for receiving stolen property.

They must think that Constitution is so "living" that TREASON is just so
not current thinking.


May future Republican Administration learn and never ever ever give people like David Gergen credentials ever ever again.

larwyn, so true. I have griped at FOX until I am blue in the face over this twit but I can name you many many twits that now live at FOX.

Gergen shares our Grand Overseer Disease. He is concerned. Heck, that poor man is worried. I picked up on him several years ago and held my nose and watched him. He goes on every single TV channel and they introduce him as if he is God's gift to Republicans. Then this twit does a 'McCain eyebrow raise' and preceeds to express a good impression of a Hagel, Vonavich, DeWine, Specter, Collin and Graham Concern' and finishes it all up with a grand trashing.

He is a Termite with BDS.

The comments to this entry are closed.