White House Refuses to Release Full Report

September 27, 2006 at 6:17 pm | Posted in American politics, Iraq, King George, Republicans, War on Terror | 5 Comments

Anyone surprised? Elections are coming up in just a few weeks, and the White House refuses to release the full NIE, that surely will tell it how it is: That our actions in Iraq are furthering terror rather than decreasing it. You want proof? Take a look at the numbers. You’ll see that the number of incidents since the War in Iraq started tripled around the world. So yet again, the Bush administration won’t reveal to the public what the public should know about the war, because in the end it will mean that Republicans will lose their jobs. After all, who wants to vote for failures?

PS: I think this will be fully declassified in like January, well safe from election consequences……

5 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Do you believe there is a place for classified documents or should they all be public? If some things should be classified, who gets to decide? If you support the notion of classified documents, are you bothered that people would leak some or all of their contents without authorization?

  2. There is a place for classified documents. Not all should be made public. The point today is that Bush declassifies something not for the benefit of the American people, but timing it so as to raise the chances of his party getting elected. Why did he release a part of the NIE, but not the whole thing? I bet you anything that when the whole NIE is released it will claim exactly as I’ve been saying, that the War in Iraq undermines the war on terror. We’ve got a snippet of it in the small amount released now by Bush. He of course is attempting to spin it as something positive, but the language, while it could be clearer, states pretty definitively that we’re not doing that well right now under the current strategy.

    If some things should be classified, who gets to decide?

    That’s a tough one, because normally it should be the president, but when your president selectively cherrypicks information to declassify, but keeps classified information that proves his strategy is not working, is that really in the best interest of the nation? How can he be trusted in handling such information if he only releases small dribblets in an effort to build up his own failed strategy? Is that really in the best interest of America?

    If you support the notion of classified documents, are you bothered that people would leak some or all of their contents without authorization?

    Before Bush came to power, yes, I would have been troubled. I would have been troubled if it happened under the elder Bush, or under Reagan, or under Clinton. But again, the manner of the current president, with his efforts to classify every single thing he could possibly get his hands on should be far more troubling than any leak. Is our nation truly at risk of crumbling due to cave-dwelling terrorists? Is our nation really that weak?

  3. Bradley,

    Howard Kurtz says it best in today’s Media Notes:

    Some news organization gets a leak of classified information and President Bush expresses moral outrage, slams the news outlet and says the story has damaged national security.

    Then, when it’s in his political interest, he declassifies the information and tries to seize control of the debate.

    We saw it when The Washington Post’s Dana Priest broke the secret CIA prisons story: months later, the president confirms it and announces he’s transferring 14 detainees to Gitmo and wants Congress to rewrite the rules for military tribunals.

    And we saw it again this week with the political sparring over the NIE.

    Bush is right that whoever leaked the thing did it for political reasons. And the four-page summary that he leaked–excuse me, declassified–does provide a broader picture that includes some points on the administration’s side of the argument. I don’t blame the president for wanting the fuller assessment out there. But I’m struck by the contrast between media leaks (which he hates) and the government taking the secrecy stamp off sensitive information (which is apparently okay).

    Plus, this thing is hardly the Pentagon Papers. Anybody with a television could have told you that Iraq has become a magnet for jihadists and other terrorists, and the rest of it is subject to debate. And there’s no shortage of that, with lefties and righties looking at the same document and insisting it either nails or vindicates Bush.

  4. I believe it is the responsibility of the President to convince the nation that his policies are correct. He has more information than we do about security matters and we ought to be able to trust his judgement on classifying or declassifying documents. You’ve basically said that you’d agree with this if it were any other president than Bush. At least that is an honest position to take.

    Does the president’s ability to release sensitive security information give him a political advantage? Yes, but I’m not willing to give that privilege to others just to “even the score” and I certainly can’t support them taking that responsbility upon themselves without any authorization from the people.

    At the very least, isn’t this leak just as serious as the Valerie Plame affair?

  5. Brad,

    You’ve basically said that you’d agree with this if it were any other president than Bush. At least that is an honest position to take.

    exactly. In my eyes, Bush has lost all credibility to handle national security. His actions over the past several years paint a picture of a man more interested in preserving his party’s rule over America than actually protecting this country. I honestly would not say this of his father, George H. W. Bush, or of Reagan. Both those men were more interested in protecting this country. But the manner in which Bush has run his foreign policy has been a complete disaster, for one reason only: his focus is on ensuring that he doesn’t look bad in elections.

    Yes, but I’m not willing to give that privilege to others just to “even the score” and I certainly can’t support them taking that responsbility upon themselves without any authorization from the people.

    what do you do though when the leader is no longer trustworthy? Do you let him continue destroying your country? Was Mark Felt (aka. Deepthroat) breaking the law in talking with Woodward and Bernstein? Was he wrong? Sometimes the law has to be broken to be a whistleblower on a man bent on destroying the country just so his party can maintain power.

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    At the very least, isn’t this leak just as serious as the Valerie Plame affair?

    Yes it is. But in this case, the truth is being let out. In the case of Valerie Plame, the White House attempted a smear campaign. Do you see the big difference? One leak was intended to give the public information they should have regarding our actions in Iraq, so we can make a just decision about various strategies, while the other was to smear a man who dared question the president! And that is yet another example where this White House is more interested in preserving the image of Bush as our “Dear Leader” rather than sharing the truth with the nation.

    Can you see why I have no trust in Bush regarding national security?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: