Sanger at NYT: "The Washington Secret Often Isn't"

[Hissyspit]

And why is this the "most secretive White House in modern history"? Do they not trust the American people?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/weekinreview/23sanger.html

The Washington Secret Often Isn't
By DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON — There are still lots of real secrets in Washington. But the most secretive White House in modern history has learned the hard way - even while its spokesman reflexively utter the caution, "We don't talk about intelligence," or, "Sorry, that's classified" - that it must reveal a pretty steady stream of secrets all the time.

That is one reason journalists and some government officials are so wary of what might happen next in the C.I.A. leak case, which could conclude with indictments within a week. What began as a narrow case on a specific leak, many fear, has morphed into a broader threat to the way business is done here, a system that often benefits both sides.

- snip -

My colleague James Risen unearthed a story about a firefight between American and Syrian forces along the Iraq border. Together, we began to explore its larger meaning: An internal White House debate over whether President Bush should formally allow the war to spill over the Syrian border, so that insurgents massing there could be stopped before attacking American troops in Iraq.

The president's top foreign policy aides met to discuss this subject on Oct. 1, though officially the White House would not acknowledge that the meeting took place.

But once they understood we were writing the article anyway, they felt compelled to talk, so that they would not appear to be stumbling into an expansion of the war. It was almost impossible to discuss the policy without wandering into events that were never made public and the debate over whether the president should issue a classified "finding" allowing action in Syria.

MORE

[Lancer]

1. Keep inventing enemies,

keep stretching troop strength and the military budget to the breaking point, keep sacrificing innocent lives and lying about all of it and comparisons with Germany in 1939 don't seem implausible in the least. And in Tony Blair, we've even got a Chamberlain.

[TacticalPeek]

2. Bullshit. They want to provoke an escalation.

Tell Syria where the terrists are massing and let them handle it, as they will be glad to do, since they, like Iraq before them, are a target for violent religious extremists.

Tell Blix where Iraq's WMD are and he removes them. Oops, no war.

Bullshit.

[regnaD kciN]

3. Wow...

My colleague James Risen unearthed a story about a firefight between American and Syrian forces along the Iraq border. Together, we began to explore its larger meaning: An internal White House debate over whether President Bush should formally allow the war to spill over the Syrian border, so that insurgents massing there could be stopped before attacking American troops in Iraq.

I would think that anyone who remebers as far back as 1970 should feel slightly ill upon reading that last part; it's exactly the same rationale Nixon used to justify invading Cambodia (remember Dicky pointing out the "Parrot's Beak" on the map of Vietnam during his nationwide address on 5/1/70?) and Laos.

[aquart]

4. Oh, look. The new Judy Miller.

Does this fool have security clearance, too?

[creeksneakers2]

5. And when the sources lie?

Who is held responsible for lies when the source is secret?

[beingthere]

6. Just a bit of image repair by the NYT

[Neil Lisst]

7. Here's a radical idea ... they could stop lying

The problem is not as this author stated. The problem is a government that refuses to be honest with its citizens about what it is doing and why it is doing it. If they would stop trying to manipulate the news and simply tell the press what they are doing, then all this would not be a problem.

Only in a world where the government says one thing publicly while doing a different thing privately are these issues a concern. What we need is a presidential press secretary who doesn't lie every time he opens his mouth. We need administration officials who will just report what they want to do and why, not invent stories, create imaginary bad men, and sell us like a life insurance salesman.

[leveymg]

8. The real story: why isn't this debate being carried out in the open?

The White House seems to have permanently usurped the constitutional responsibility of Congress to declare war. This debate shouldn't even be carried out in secret by the Executive branch until there has been a resolution by Congress extending a state of war to Syria.

Here's the solution. The White House must publish the text of all internal conversations, memoranda, documents, and communications on all subjects unless and until Congress declares war.

That will stop all leaks and secret wars. :bounce: B-) :bounce: