Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

EXCLUSIVE: White House Forbids Publication Of Op-Ed On Iran By Former CIA Official (Think Progress)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:03 PM
Original message
EXCLUSIVE: White House Forbids Publication Of Op-Ed On Iran By Former CIA Official (Think Progress)
EXCLUSIVE: White House Forbids Publication Of Op-Ed On Iran By Former CIA Official

Former CIA Middle East analyst Flynt Leverett, now a fellow at the New America Foundation, revealed today that the White House has been blocking the publication of an op-ed he wrote for the New York Times. The column is critical of the administrations refusal to engage Iran.

Leveretts op-ed has already been cleared by the CIA. Leverett explained, Ive been doing this for three and a half years since leaving government, and Ive never had to go to the White House to get clearance for something that I was publishing as long as the CIA said, Yeah, youre not putting classified information.

According to Leverett the op-ed was all based on stuff that Secretary Powell, Secretary Rice, Deputy Secretary Armitage have talked about publicly. Its been extensively reported in the media. Leverett says the incident shows just how low people like Elliot Abrams at the NSC will stoop to try and limit the dissemination of arguments critical of the administrations policy.

Transcript
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/15/nyt-cia-oped/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. Can he post it in a blog?
That's technically not considered publishing and isn't covered as far as I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. Just checked No Quarter to see if Larry Johnson has chimed in on this one.
Nothing yet. Making a mental note to be sure and check Johnson's site often in the next few days. This sounds like something he would latch onto like a terrier to a rat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. No
He can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
minnesota_liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #12
39. Why the hell not? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #12
57. I Guess We Should All Be Grateful Tom Paine Didn't Ask for George III's Permission
to publish, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. OK, NOW can we call them Nazis?
They're telling the NY Times what they can print, and the Times is obeying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
19. For sure
This is prime example of Nazi style oppression.
The fact that he is a FORMER CIA official would lend one to believe that he no longer is bound by his employers rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sirveri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #19
36. He is still bound by certain rules.
Like not divulging classified information. He couldn't say anything about say, person XYZ did job X in country Y and installed sleeper agents G, M, and W. That's why we know ABC. He couldn't say anything like that, and depending on how it all links back he might not even be able to divulge ABC. It's similar to signing an NDA, except it involves the government and they can throw you in jail for a real long time for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. The CIA itself already said it was not classified information.
Edited on Sat Dec-16-06 01:45 PM by TankLV
So, altho your argument is considered, it is not applicable to this case.

If you would have read the original article, you would have known this.

This is a case of the repuke administration covering it's crimes, again...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sirveri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #37
56. I agree 100%, just saying that he's not fully off the leash
of his old employer even though he is technically retired. And I did read the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
followthemoney Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #36
58. Read the story again. CIA says it is OK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Gauger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
49. Prior restraint is not allowed.
The government can only forbid the publication of an article if they can prove to a judge that the publication will endanger national security, as decided by the Supreme Court in NYT vs. USA. Of course, Bush breaks the law with impunity every day. I think he'll get away with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #49
62. I think they all know this, except the article isn't clear about it.
Edited on Sat Dec-16-06 10:54 PM by Seabiscuit
See my post below - I think they WH merely pressured the NY Times with the threat of prosecution, and the Times caved in, even though it probably knows the WH wouldn't stand an ice cream cone's chance in Hell of getting a court to agree with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. I think he should publish anyway and sue them if they come after him
no way such a ban is legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Let's not forget that the TImes withheld inciminating evidence
about the WH war run-up, and held off publishing it until after the election in 2004. They work for Smirk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. They withheld a lot before the 2004 election
Even small things critical of Bush - like how a NASA scientist had deduced that the bulge in the back of Bush's suit from the debate was some sort of receiver to give him talking points during the debate. The Times quashed that report as well - maybe out of fear of being Rathered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Any court would easily slap it down on 1st Amendment rights
What could the the WH do after that? A civil suit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
44. TheWH and MSM have tried to silence Leverett before

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/06/b1746445...

Think Again: Media Amnesia on Iran
By Eric Alterman

June 7, 2006

SNIP

Reporters are falling all over themselves to report an alleged about-face in the administration's position vis--vis Middle East negotiations as a result of its newfound vision and wisdom. Yes, Iran ends with an "r" and really does have a nuclear program, and that other country ended with a "q" and barely had sticks and stones. But we will one day read the equivalent of the Downing Street memo that will likely prove, as one former official told the New York Times: "It came down to convincing Cheney and others that if we are going to confront Iran, we first have to check off the box" of offering negotiations.

SNIP

As MediaMatters pointed out earlier this week, the Sunday talk shows hailed the new Bush administration policy across the board: "During interviews with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the June 4 editions of CBS' Face the Nation, Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, and CNN's Late Edition, the shows' respective hosts -- Bob Schieffer, Chris Wallace and Wolf Blitzer -- noted that the Bush administration's recent offer to hold direct talks with Iranian officials on its nuclear program is a significant shift for the White House, describing the move as 'a change in U.S. policy,' 'a major new diplomatic initiative,' and 'a dramatic development,' respectively." This is not only bad history vis--vis Iraq; take a look at what everyone appears to want to ignore about Iran as well. While hailing the move as the good news it undoubtedly is, each of the talking heads, in turn, failed either to ask Secretary of State Condi Rice or to note themselves that back in 2003 the Bush administration reportedly refused Iran's request for negotiations over this very issue. Another salient fact lost on the chat-fests was that Iran was providing assistance to the United States during the invasion of Afghanistan, before being alienated by the president's "axis of evil" State of the Union speech in January 2002. The administration's previous unresponsiveness to Iranian overtures is not exactly top secret information. A May 3 Financial Times article that built on a prior FT piece in March 2004 reported: "Iran was ready to enter comprehensive talks in May 2003, shortly after the fall of Baghdad. On the table then was a proposal to discuss issues, including weapons of mass destruction, a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the future of Lebanon's Hizbollah organization and co-operation with the UN nuclear safeguards agency."

But instead of practicing diplomacy, the hawks in the administration rejected the overture. As the FT notes, "Instead, Washington protested to the Swiss Foreign Ministry, upbraiding Tim Guldimann, the Swiss ambassador to Tehran, who had been involved in communicating the offer and gave his opinion that it was an authentic proposal by Iran's leadership." For argument's sake, one could conclude that maybe the TV talking heads (or their research staffs) don't read the FT, yet the same information could be found in the New York Times in January of this year. In an op-ed, Flynt Leverett, a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council in the Bush administration, wrote that, "In the spring of 2003, shortly before I left government, the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences. The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. It was presented as having support from all major players in Iran's power structure, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei." What's more, Leverett said that in October 2003, several European governments convinced Iran to agree to suspend enrichment "in order to pursue talks that might lead to an economic, nuclear and strategic deal. But the Bush administration refused to join the European initiative, ensuring that the talks failed." If the TV guys got it wrong -- as they so often do -- one would hope that the print folks might be able to use Nexus, or at least have read the papers. For the most part, though, the ink-stained crowd also failed to pick up on the Bush administration's incompetence. Still, they came closer to hinting that this wasn't Iran's first go-round in negotiations. On Saturday, the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler was one of the few members of the mainstream media to report, in a story buried on page A8, that "Iranian officials secretly approached White House officials in 2003, seeking a dialogue, but the offer was swiftly dismissed. Three years later, Iran finds itself in a much stronger position -- oil prices are at record highs, its nuclear program has made technological strides and the United States suddenly wants a seat at the negotiating table." The Post's original piece on the issue, a June 1 page A1 story, wasn't so forthcoming. It failed to mention the fact that that United States had previously rebuffed Iraq's efforts. On the same day, however, buried back on page A13, Kessler hinted at his later candor, writing that Secretary of State Condi Rice "insisted that the decision to support the Europeans did not mean the Americans would join the talks. (Lower-level U.S. officials on occasion have talked to Iranian counterparts about Afghanistan and Iraq.)" Try finding that information in any hard news story in the New York Times, however, and you'll come up empty. Apparently, stuff like that is only fodder for the op-ed pages. The most damming evidence of many mainstream media reporters failing to give the public the full story on the history of rejected negotiations with Iran comes from the noted historian Gareth Porter in the current issue of The American Prospect magazine, where he proffers the most thorough rundown of Iran's overtures to date. According to Porter, back in 2001, "Iran offered search-and-rescue help, humanitarian assistance, and even advice on which targets to bomb in Afghanistan, according to one former administration official." In the spring of 2003, Porter said that Iran "offered concrete concessions that went very far toward meeting U.S. concerns." Perhaps some of these initiatives might not have amounted to as much as they first appear. We'll never know. But you would think that reporters celebrating the newfound openness to negations on the part of the Bush team might at least find so direct a precedent at least relevant.

SNIP

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. If it's cleared by the Agency, he can publish.
The nondisclosure agreement signed by retired CIA says that former employees are free to release cleared materials. Period.

The White House has no independent power to block publication by former gov't officials. They can go take a flying leap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
26. The position
of the Agency has changed since the post-9/11 consolidation of intelligence operations. They answer to a different chain of command now. Hence, a general policy from the past should not be considered the rule today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #26
43. Are you saying that the Director of National Intelligence (Negroponte)
now has the right to gag order RETIRED CIA officers, even when there's no question of classified info being released?

What legislation authorized that power?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
38. "Leveretts op-ed has already been cleared by the CIA."
Why do you and others continue speculating on something that this case is not?

ONCE MORE FOR THE INTELLECTUALLY LAZY: THIS IS NOT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

Read the damn article...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. You misread my comment.
I said, if the material was cleared by the Agency for classified material (in other words, it doesn't reveal any), then there's no mechanism under law for the President or anyone else to halt its publication.

Better watch your accusations, lest they end up reflecting only your own state of mind.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
6. Counting the days until January & SUBPOENA power!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caligirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
8. so he helps dumb*ss embarrass himself further by letting us know the idiot son
once again is an idiot son.

Just publish the thing here sir. We want to read your paper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kikosexy2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
10. Try...
the Wash.Whore-Post...better than NYwhoreTimes....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
5X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
13. K & R, mostly because thinkprogress is now down....
and when doing a google search for
"White House Forbids Publication Of Op-Ed On Iran" I get from google
did you mean "White House Forbids Publication Of Op-Ed On Iraq".

Interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MetaTrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
14. And yet the White House released to the NYT the identity of an undercover CIA operative
and exposed the entire nuclear monitoring network she was working for. What's wrong with this picture?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zambero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
15. Is this yet another re-definition of executive privilege?
The "privilege" to confiscate one's first amendment rights for blatant political purposes? The N.Y. Times should go ahead and publish anyway. Would they have a dog in this fight, as far as freedom of the press goes? One would certainly think so!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nuxvomica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
17. Their unqualified use of the term "engage" really had me confused
Without the adverb "diplomatically", I naturally assumed they meant "to go to war," which is what the term would mean all by itself, as in "rules of engagement." I couldn't figure out why a voice calling for military engagment with Iran would be silenced by the WH. After reading the text of Leverett's remarks, the story now makes sense.

It is not surprising that this administration has consistently avoided diplomacy -- first in Palestine, then North Korea, then Iraq, now Iran. Diplomacy is the battlefield of old men and those who avoided real fighting in their youth -- as most of the principals in this administration did -- are likely to avoid the personal risks of diplomacy now. I don't think this is a strategy. I think they are just plain afraid of diplomacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maestro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
18. If the CIA approved it (I didn't know they had to), what is the reason
that the White House is blocking it? And how could the White House block it? National Security via the NSC? What a bunch of crap!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. Regarding the CIA.
If someone has sensitive information and they don't want to leak secrets, they'll run it by the CIA. It's common.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tecelote Donating Member (645 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
20. When we're done bringing democracy to Iraq...
...can we have it back?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
21. If the New York Times had any courage and/or integrity,
they'd publish it anyway.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
22. If it's not illegal
put it out. And if it is, clean it up and put it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
24. If there is a legal issue in the way - ideas are ideas, he could
write something new with the same ideas, and leave out anything covered by security issues.

But just the fact that the Chimpadministration thinks arguments will go away if they are just not publicized speaks volumes. There could be a legit security issue, but with the Chimpster's constant invocation of that over nothing, it's hard to buy the fifty millionth time he cries wolf on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OregonBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
25. Here is NYT contact link. Let them know what you think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #25
66. thanks for the link. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
27. I'm sure I'm being naive here and missed another post explaining why
would the WH have any input??? If it was cleared by security, CIA, whatever, why does the WH have any say whatsoever? This smells of dictatorship, usurping of freedom of speech and all that other good stuff. I'm really in the woods here...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. it is a puzzle. unless they cited 'nat. security"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
29. ThinkProgress site down? I can't get to the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Yes it is, and it's STILL down...
Makes me very curious - was thinkprogress not supposed to divulge even that information, that the WH censored the story?

I wonder if Bush ordered a DoS attack on the ThinkProgress servers... they've been down for a while now.

I can't believe no one is investigateing this, calling the owners of ThinkProgress to find out what's going on...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #31
69. Back up now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
30. Do we have a genuine 'information war' going on here? Did thinkprogress publish the article anyway?
Did the WH block thinkprogress?

WTF is going on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Witch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
32. K&Red, because now think progress is down....
must make ppl see it before DU goes down --
save your cache files now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. it is
I cant load the link either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #32
42. Looks like perhaps it's just a coincidence
You'll notice the "perhaps"--I don't trust the cabal as far as I can throw them, of course.

If you search Google news for "Think Progress," the top headline is:
ThinkProgress will be down today from 10:30AM 7PM EST.

(I'd post a link, but the same thing might not come out at the top. Can't follow the link to the Think Progress story because, well, it's on Think Progress.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geardaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
34. Buh-bye First Amendment! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nutmegger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
35. Ah, now they're working on the
First Amendment I see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CompassionateLib Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
40. Non story
How does the first amendment apply? He took a job, he agreed to rules. He could have declined it and said whatever he wanted. That's not what the first amendment is about. No one's mind is going to be changed on Iran by whatever he has to say anyway.

I think we need to push progressive causes with substantiative issues and not partisan bickering over non-stories. The public are like hockey refs. They see two guys going at it and give them both 2 minutes. We need to persuade moderates that Republicans are wrong, which they are, and Democrats have better answers, which they do.

Blasting each other over every petty issue doesn't accomplish that. I'm a happy guy at a great time in a wonderful country. And that message sells. How could two guys, Clinton and Reagan, with such different views have been similarly successful? They were positive communicators.

That's why I'm the compassionaate lib. Let's put a smile on our face, and crush them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. its an OP-ED using public statements and info thats already out there
Edited on Sat Dec-16-06 03:43 PM by LSK
How does that violate the rules?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CompassionateLib Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #45
51. As I understand the rules...
... it's not up to him. He agreed to subject writing on security issues to CIA approval when he accepted employment with them. I don't know why they would object to an opinion based on public information, and that sounds stupid to me if true, but we actually don't know there is nothing in them, that is just a stated opinion. No minds will be changed. If in fact it is public information, all the moreso, right?

But keep in mind this wasn't my point. I am saying we have a war in Iraq, Republican attempts to have government tell us what we can do with our bodies, we can better help the disadvantaged, improve the environment, and so on. When we get into partisan bickering, and this looks like that to me, we detract from that.

So I'm not arguing against publishing his opinion. I'm arguing the priority. If this is true, what do we gain by this when the info is public already?

Fact: Moderates are not going to have a cow because a former CIA employee covered by a security agreement cannot print anything they want regarding security. We are not going to gain from this. No way, no how.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Witch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #51
60. It's just one more to add to the pile, that's all.
Of the times these guys have stretched the rules. There's only so many "nonstories" before it starts to add up to one hell of a story. It's just one more straw on that camel's back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PegDAC Donating Member (906 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #51
78. He DID submit it for CIA approval,
and they approved it. He followed the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #40
48. If it's a non-story (in your opinion) and it's public info, why do you not see
that this is a ridiculous attempt by the WH to control their image - this has nothing at all to do with his employment contract. You sound a little smug in your self-description there - it takes all types as you will soon find out.

Welcome to DU btw :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CompassionateLib Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. Thank you
I don't see how this helps the White House personally. At best it accomplishes nothing. At worst they look silly.

On the self-description my intention to have fun rather than be smug. And I like to make fun of "Compassionate Conservative" Republicans. I never did figure out what that means. Then again. I never figured out what a "New Democrat" was either. Though I think politics generally is too negative and I tend to dislike and distrust all politicians.

But I did understand the welcome to the DU, and thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OregonBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #40
53. Per the story Leveretts op-ed has already been cleared by the CIA
It is not the CIA that is blocking this, it is the White House. So, if the CIA cleared it and there is nothing in it that is classified, why doesn't the White House want it printed?

When the White House forbids publication on anything because they don't like what is in the story (or in this case the op/ed) I think it's a very big story. He's a president, not a king!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #40
67. yes, let's ignore all the crimes bush has committed and we'll just
"crush" him by giving him a big fucking smile.

and then we'll shine on all the shit the republican administration has pulled and we'll just "crush them" with our smiles. and we'll just let them keep pulling shit for as long as they can while we just smile smile smile.

we should let a smile be our umbrella and then we'll never walk alone.


that should do it.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CompassionateLib Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #67
70. Smile?
I guess the question is what you want to accomplish.

We have a horrible President with a dreadful record. He dug a hole in Iraq that could have been avoided by doing anything but actually invading. His party has been scandal ridden and has done pretty much done nothing about anything, except the war, which is a complete screw up.

Yet, we barely have majorities in both houses and the Senate is imperilled because of one Senator's illness. Do you not hear the country telling us something? Like they see us as basically the same thing? And why do you suppose that is?

My proposition is that this tit for tat obsession with stupid issues like having a cow over a CIA employee being subject to review before printing security pieces is KILLING us. Who cares? I dont' even care. The guy was a CIA employee. The only ones not saying "so frigging what?" to this are people who are already voting Democratic.

My point with smile, which you seem not to have grasped, is not to smile at the Republicans and what they are doing. My point is to be more positive. Offer an agenda. Bypass them with the American people. Make the country think we ARE different. And end this endless anal gotcha politics. At what point will we realize that if we can barely get a majority over George W Bush, the public is sick of us too?

So you can ignore what's in front of your face, but the current Democratic agenda is to preach to the choir. I am advocating we need to expand our base. And we don't need to change our policies a lot to do that, but we do have to stop obsessing on gotcha politics that clearly isn't working and focus on real issues and solutions, that will. Republicans are clueless, and we are playing their game.

Doesn't it scare the crap out of you that we have such a small majority after 6 years of Bush? It scares the crap out of me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #40
68. Welcome to DU CompassionateLib.
What I would like to say to you would get my post deleted, but I'm thinking it, even though I'm not saying it. :hi:

I personally do not see the suppression of free speech in this country as a non-story, nor do I see discussion of the issue as "partisan bickering".

I'm not running for office, so I don't have to pretend to "have a sunny disposition", and can just be me, and thank God I have a place like DU where I can freely express my opinions even if you don't happen to approve of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CompassionateLib Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #68
71. Cool
We agree, we can both express our opinions.

Note: That I have a different opinion is not disapproval of your opinion. And it's not that I disapprove of your opinion so much as I'm just not seeing how someone who chooses to join the CIA and sign an agreement they will have their materials be reviewed jeopardizes free speech. I actually want that for obvious security reasons. I don't want someone printing secret information and I dont' want them to decide what is secret.

Though in this case I would at least agree with you that it sounds stupid and short sighted for the White House. If the CIA cleared it, their blocking it makes it more of a story then it would have been. But free speech? To me that doesn't apply, this guy had a choice to join the CIA and sign the agreement. He made his choice. That was freedom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. So when you join the CIA
you're not only agreeing to have your writings reviewed by the CIA for the presence of information that could jeopordize security...I'm with you on that. But you are also agreeing on top of that, to submitting any materials additionally to the White House, whichever one is in power, for the presence of any kind of information that the White House may deem to be overly critical of it's policies. For the rest of your life. You made the choice to work for the CIA at one time, and now if you want to write an editorial that any future administration may have a political disagreement with, they can stop you from publishing it, even if the CIA has cleared it. So you have no freedom of speech rights at all if you have ever worked for the CIA, and that constitutes freedom and choice.

Sorry, you just kind of lost me there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CompassionateLib Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. I said...

... he had freedom to join the CIA and sign the agreement or pass and say whatever he wants. What's not clear about that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. So you said that anybody who joins the CIA
is freely choosing to forever sign away all future freedom of speech for all time should the White House disagrees with what their opinion, and that they exercise that freedom by joining the CIA.

Perfectly clear what you're saying. I wonder what a Constitutional scholar would have to say about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CompassionateLib Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. These agreements have been in place...
...pretty much forever. So if a Constitutional scholar would object and had a legal basis for that objection, they're being slow about getting around to doing something about it.

Why would the Constitution limit our choices anyway? Why would we want it to? Shouldn't the Constitution give us MORE power to chose, not less?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. Agreements to submit the material to CIA approval
not to White House approval, so far as I know.

Maybe our Constitution should once again give people freedom to live under slavery, you know, like it used to. Sad that so many of our freedoms have been taken away like that. :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CompassionateLib Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #80
82. Thanks...
What you said makes no sense. I'm talking about freedom to choose. Slavery is by definition absense of choice.

But have a Merry Christmas and God Bless!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
46. U.S. media went from Defend our Rights - to - Facilitate Right
Edited on Sat Dec-16-06 03:46 PM by higher class
Wing Politics and Crime - and - Jump On and Facilitate Campaigns Against Democrats On Behalf of the Right Wing and Baron Party. We are no better off than the citizens and slaves of the USSR and People's Republic of China at their peaks of repression. Except for some brave souls who do investigate and publish and a few brave lawyers and judges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CompassionateLib Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #46
72. Curious
So should we be free to enter into agreements? Had this guy not joined the CIA and signed the agreement, he would have been subject to no limitations on what he could say.

Shouldn't he have been free to make that agreement? Are you advocating freedom or suppressing it? Why is he NOT free to make that agreement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. You're curious and I'm confused - I'm talking about the newspaper.
We live and suffer under a tightly controlled mega news system. We are saved by those investigative reporters who for the most part do not get a check from the Mega White House CIA Pentagon State Dept news partnership. I'm talking about the media and you're talking about the author. I guess I goofed in expressing myself.

Of course ... any employee is free to sign whatever they want to or need to sign. Hopefully, signing doesn't involve what our prisoners have to sign - the Mexicans and Central Americans who are getting picked up - the Moslems who are getting picked up - and flown home or flown away in a Boeing or Leer jet - to exotic destinations with prisons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
47. Heil Hitler y'all
This is getting stupid - they can't even complain about being called Fascist on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Counciltucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
50. Don't forget: Bush's power is more important than our freedom of speech. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
54. Related Video: Stephen Colbert's "So You're Living in a Police State"
So You're Living in a Police State -- Colbert will show us how the curtailing of our civil liberties doesn't have to be oppressive.

<http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play... >

I found this backdoor link to all the available videos from The Daily Show (and just about every other show you can think of are at this link too, but you have to hunt a little for them):

<http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/brow... >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrJJ Donating Member (657 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
55. Our DOD at Work
I cant figure Y its out there.....

Our DOD at Work... Posted on multiple sites

U.S. militarys new 282-page counterinsurgency war-fighting manual.

Now you and everyone, including Al Qaeda terrorists and insurgents, can read the entire 282-page manual.

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/Repository/Materials/COIN-FM...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrJJ Donating Member (657 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
59. Propoganda Report
Disregard last post. Its a Report actually... looks like propoganda. pretty dam smart though heheh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
61. ..."blocking the publication..."??? WTF?
Edited on Sat Dec-16-06 10:50 PM by Seabiscuit
The article uses this phrase to characterize the guy's spoken words about the WH falsely claiming his piece contains "classified information".

What's unclear is:

(1) Who at the WH is saying this and to whom? To the author of the piece? To the NY Times? To someone else in the press?

(2) The WH can't "block" anything. Only a court can.

(3) I get the impression someone at the WH is telling both the author of the Iran piece and someone (who?) at the NY Times that they don't want this piece published due to their false claim that it contains "classified information" but even this isn't made clear in the article.

(4) Therefore, the only people who can "block" this piece is the NY Times itself, if in fact that's what happening - that the NY Times is telling this guy that the WH is telling them that they may bring charges against the NY Times if the piece is published based on their false claim of "classified information".

(5) If (4) is the case, the NY Times is complicit in this - once again caving in to WH pressure, when by now it should know better.

(6) And if (5) is the case, why doesn't this guy just go to the Washington Post or Boston Globe or San Francisco Chronicle, etc., etc. for publication?

I don't understand why this guy or why the article itself couldn't clarify any of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yukari Yakumo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. You have a point on 6.
If Chimpy tries to block it on several papers, everyone will start to notice. Then Snow Job would have to dodge more uncomfortable questions.

I'm sure Pelosi would like to know what he has to say too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
63. Thta's ok, after January 8th 2007 oversight will be reinstalled, Bush bullshit
will begin to diminish, Bush is running on empty and hasn't a clue what a lame-duck president is capable of doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 01:24 AM
Response to Original message
65. that fucking liberal new york times media screws up again
maybe we should start calling it:
the new york i can't kiss bush's ass enough times times
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
75. PNAC fascism in action. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DerwinUMD Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 04:43 AM
Response to Reply #75
81. Its two day later, and I still can't get the link
Perhaps the site is down again, but I find this frustrating, over an interval of two days I have not been able to access the primary source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul 28th 2014, 05:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC