Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditLast weekend, I wrote here about the history of US government attempts to suppress information. My case study was the Kennedy Administration's successful effort to delay publication of the New York Times' story about CIA planning for the Bay of Pigs disaster. (Since then, several generations of Times editors have publicly regretted that decision. "Our biggest failures," Executive Editor Bill Keller wrote last year, "have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After the Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco.")
Yet in these last two days, the Times has acceded to Bush Administration requests to withhold information from the American public.
In yesterday's edition, the paper of record reports that it was "asked to withhold any mention of [Cheney's] trip until he had left Pakistan." What conceivable national security purpose was served by swearing the press pool to secrecy about this trip? And doesn't accepting these ground rules play into the hands of a hyper-secretive Vice-President whose signature contribution to our security has been misleading us into a disastrous war and carpet bombing our constitutional system? The secrecy does expose a national security problem: the "war" on terror is a rank failure and Pakistan is not the stable country that White House talking points try to sell us.
Here's another instance of White House pressure. A front page article in Monday's New York Times --providing conditional evidence of Iranian weapons in Iraq--acknowledges that the paper acceded to Bush Administration requests that it withhold specific details about the weapons. As the Times reported: "In the course of the detailed briefing on the Hilla discovery, Maj. Marty Weber, an explosives expert, said that most of the E.F.P.s in Iraq use C-4 plastic explosive manufactured in Iran. At the request of the Bush Administration, The Times is withholding some specific details about the weapons to protect intelligence sources and methods."
Hours after the story appeared, Congressman Dennis Kucinich issued a statement -- "The New York Times Plays into Bush Administration's Hand." "The White House," Kucinich says, "is up to its old scams again: Providing information by anonymous sources ..... This time, however, they added another trick to their bag: providing the information and prohibiting the Times from publishing it.....The New York Times should not print unsourced, unattributed assertions and then voluntarily hide the details from the American public..." The paper, he went on to argue, "is playing into the Administration's hand and providing further justification for an attack on Iran."
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
off topic, but hey, more honesty from this admin:
Associated Press Wednesday, February 28, 2007; Page A02
A judge sentenced former Food and Drug Administration chief Lester M. Crawford yesterday to three years of supervised probation and fined him about $90,000 for lying about stocks he owned in companies regulated by the agency.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/28/2007 @ 11:07am
If, as Cheney has said, we are beating the Taliban, how the hell did they get within yards of the VP and set off a bomb? I guess it is a sign of the "last throes" of the desperate?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/28/2007 @ 11:09am
KVH
What EXACTLY is wrong with withholding information about a trip to Pakistan? And wanting to protect intelligence sources?? who are probably risking their life to provide information to us?
Does the lure of a "scoop" trump national security and lives?
Posted by CPT at 02/28/2007 @ 11:10am
Posted by CRABWALK 02/28/2007 @ 11:09am | ignore this person
Actually it was within a mile....and BTW any chump with suicide bomb belt can kill people at the gate. I was at Bagram for 5 months of my Afghan tour....that guy hit the 1st GATE, there are two more then he must run a mile to where the ops center is and not to mention all the 1,000 troops housed in between.
If that was an attempt on the VP, it was a pathetic attempt. But hey it killed others in an attempt to get the chance.
HMMM, i said the same thing would happen if Bush girls were sent to combat. You see cretin enablers, they never got the VP, but they got others. Look at AQ is saying if Prince Harry goes to Iraq, will they get him if he goes, unlikely, but how many others will they get?
Gosh, i hate being right all the time.
Posted by CPT at 02/28/2007 @ 11:17am
CPT Bush isn't trying to protect intelligence sources.He just doesn't want anybody to take a close look at his "evidence" of iranian involvement.It is the fault of bushco that you have to doubt their claims.
Posted by i'm nobody at 02/28/2007 @ 11:18am
Too many conservative posers on here.
Posted by i'm nobody at 02/28/2007 @ 11:19am
But CAP, I thought the Taliban were routed.
why is the military failing to route a relatively small group of lightly armed thugs from Afghanistan. As I see it, YOU are failing in 2 countries.
why can't the Twins do back country work? Why can't they serve in Kuwait, Germany, Japan, North Carolina? What are they sacrificing in the GWOT?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/28/2007 @ 11:26am
MASCH, LUVVY:
I know how much you guys HATE socialism, so here are some comment from your business partners:
Renmin University vice president Xie Tao, suggested that China should move speedily toward a Scandinavian-like social-welfare democracy.
Wen, who recently was reported to be in charge of preparing a leadership platform for the party congress, reached into familiar Marxist vocabulary to build an argument that China is not yet ready for such a democracy, even though it remains a distant goal for the "socialism with Chinese characteristics" that the party hopes to build.
"We are still far away from advancing out of the primary stages of socialism," he said. "We must stick with the basic development guideline of that stage for 100 years."
At the same time, Wen said that "the socialist system is not contradictory to democracy," adding: "A highly developed democracy and a complete legal system are inherent requirements of the socialist system and an important benchmark of a mature socialist system."
Posted by crabwalk at 02/28/2007 @ 11:29am
Gosh, i hate being right all the time.
Posted by CPT 02/28/2007 @ 11:17am | ignore this person
you are your biggest fan. if you wish others to praise you, don't praise yourself.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/28/2007 @ 11:39am
What EXACTLY is wrong with printing information about a trip to Pakistan?
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/28/2007 @ 11:40am
If he doesn't do it, nobody else will.
Posted by mtspence05 at 02/28/2007 @ 11:49am
Posted by I'M NOBODY 02/28/2007 @ 11:19am
It's all about spreading fear and divisiveness...after all, there is an election coming up. I guess they figure it worked in 04, why not try it again. I think (I hope) we are smarter than that, although things like THIS make me wonder sometimes....
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/28/2007 @ 11:55am
The sad thing is that the NYT never seems to learn from past mistakes. The paper was already burned in the run-up to the Iraq war for having swallowed Bush regime lies hook, line and sinker. Now it is doing it all over again, accepting at face value the lies being told about Iran to justify a war that is already planned and could happen as this Spring.
Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 02/28/2007 @ 12:01pm
Gosh, i hate being right all the time. Posted by CPT 02/28/2007 @ 11:17am
Which is the reason, I suppose, that CPT is right less often than Tommy Franks.
For the sake of balance, I wish every story that talks about these "EFP's from Iran" would include the number of Stingers we sent to the mujaheddin in Afghanistan to use on the Russians. Raise your hands, now, which dumbshits among you didn't think Iran would try to take a few shots at us when we were next door in Iraq? Did you forget that shit happens in war?
Posted by nathanhale at 02/28/2007 @ 12:25pm
Zero I have put 2 on iggy,but I'm trying to give the others a chance.Plus,I like to see who the 30% really are.
Posted by i'm nobody at 02/28/2007 @ 12:25pm
CPT,
Though I've ceaselessly assailed you and your vile occupation, I want you to know that I'm fighting alonside you in your battle to do away with the miltary's discriminatory policies against soldiers who seek to have a sex change. Whether man or woman you'll stil be able to do your duty with the same ignorance and childish mimicry.
Posted by chimichenga at 02/28/2007 @ 12:39pm
NOBODY: there is an "ignore this person" link you can click to never again be bothered by someone whose drivel is just too much.
Posted by ZERO 02/28/2007 @ 12:20am
or if you're like ZERO and you don't want to see ANY opposing views.
Posted by Mask at 02/28/2007 @ 12:56pm
on topic....
Bitch all you want about the NY Times, but they lead the networks (even CNN). And are usually paralleled by the Washington Post and the LA Times and others.
And despite the "growing blogs"...90% of America gets their news from all those guys.
Posted by Mask at 02/28/2007 @ 12:58pm
Posted by CPT 02/28/2007 @ 11:10am |
actually...agree in this case. like him or not, he IS the veep...and not a good idea to advertise all his comings and goings in war zones...which makes me seriously wonder about sending harry pothead into the zone in iraq...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/28/2007 @ 1:26pm
actually...agree in this case. like him or not, he IS the veep...and not a good idea to advertise all his comings and goings in war zones...which makes me seriously wonder about sending harry pothead into the zone in iraq...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/28/2007 @ 1:26pm | ignore this person
Pakistan is not a war zone.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/28/2007 @ 2:15pm
Jeez, what ever happened to perspective?
The Taliban gets lucky, notices the uptick in security preparations, and expends one of the faithful on what must be an important gathering of the nonbelievers and their enablers. By now well-versed in the Great Satan's PR skills, their spokesmonkey claims credit for an attack on the veep. (Good timing.)
The veep, well aware that historically, attacks on our political figures generate national sympathy for same, lets the assassination spin continue. (Hard-nosed though he may seem, no living politician needs image points more than Darth Dick.)
Consequently, like Pavlov's drooling canine, all the kneejerk wingnut fucksticks instantly drop their drawers and offer up what little is left of our right to know what's going on.
What a cartoon...
Posted by drhammer at 02/28/2007 @ 2:23pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/28/2007 @ 1:26pm | ignore this person
Agree, why is Harry being allowed to go? It is not that i think these peoples arses are more precious than any other...it is simply that jihadists will accept more risk at the chance of trying to kill them.
The pathetic attempt against Cheney in Afghan, unfortunately illustrates the point i made with regrads to this situation.
The jihadist would not likely succeed in touching their intended target, but, as Afghan shows, they will kill other in the attempt, were as before they would not take such risks otherwise.
The Brits really need to consider the bullet-magnet that Harry AND his UNIT will become.
Posted by CPT at 02/28/2007 @ 3:15pm
The sad thing is that the NYT never seems to learn from past mistakes. The paper was already burned in the run-up to the Iraq war for having swallowed Bush regime lies hook, line and sinker. Now it is doing it all over again, accepting at face value the lies being told about Iran to justify a war that is already planned and could happen as this Spring.
They operate from the Bush playbook. It won't matter what you do as long as you either: 1. Deny it, or 2. Offer regrets afterward (though this is only if you're caught red-handed).
They have no intention of doing the right thing in the beginning. It's not journalism any more (see PBS series referred to in article).
Posted by jlsolley at 02/28/2007 @ 3:16pm
Pakistan is not a war zone.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/28/2007 @ 2:15pm | ignore this person
Pakistan is were alot of extremist jihadis make their home, many AQ have been captured IN Pakistan
Posted by CPT at 02/28/2007 @ 3:18pm
cp, true, but you can't call it a warzone, as they are not in a war. you can call it something else. you can also put this in context. when Rice visits paki it's announced.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/28/2007 @ 3:34pm
If KVH can't see the need to keep it quiet when the vice president of the US flies into Moslem held territories during a war with Moslem terrorists, then she needs to find a new line of work. They almost got the son of a bitch as it is.
CT
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/28/2007 @ 4:20pm
Regarding our "ally" Pakistan, I can tell you from IM conversations with a Moslem woman in Karachi, that the Pakistani's are friends with us only because Musharraf says they are. Its a terrorist haven, Bin Laden's probably there, and a good portion of the population dislike Musharraf because of his relationship with us. Somebody's going to pop him one day, and there goes our last "friend" in the region.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/28/2007 @ 4:25pm
many AQ have been captured IN Pakistan
Posted by CPT 02/28/2007 @ 3:18pm
But not Osama bin Laden....where is he?
Posted by Mask at 02/28/2007 @ 4:30pm
you can't call it a warzone... Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/28/2007 @ 3:34pm
Can you call it a GWOT-zone?
Posted by nathanhale at 02/28/2007 @ 5:08pm
Can you call it a GWOT-zone?
Posted by NATHANHALE 02/28/2007 @ 5:08pm
But by definition, the so-called Global War on Terror Zone would be everywhere, wouldn't it?
Maybe I should LURP my neighbor in his sleep just to be on the safe side?
Posted by skeletonman at 02/28/2007 @ 5:42pm
'Capt'
Dude, I've made this offer before - if you dislocate your shoulder while you are patting yourself on the back, I can put it back in for you.
I'm so good that I can get 'er done without conscious sedation. Or pain medicine.
Posted by skeletonman at 02/28/2007 @ 5:51pm
Moslem held territories during a war with Moslem terrorists,
what the hell is that? moslem held territories? this is their fucking country, and we are not at war with Pakistan. very sloppy rhetoric, dishonest even.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/28/2007 @ 6:04pm
Raise your hands, now, which dumbshits among you didn't think Iran would try to take a few shots at us when we were next door in Iraq? Did you forget that shit happens in war?
Not in the least bit surprised. Kinda justifies an air show over Tehran if the carrier groups need to do some training. Don't you think? I suppose it would be fair both ways, no?
Posted by Sliver at 02/28/2007 @ 6:45pm
Posted by CRABWALK 02/28/2007 @ 11:29am
I hope China stays socialist with its 1. 3 billion...let them bog down their ecnomy in the future with health care and all the entitlements we have being provided by the govt ..it should keep them broke and spending like drunken democrats or the last batch Rinos fired in 06..I hope they import feminism as it is practiced by NOW, I hope the unionise their industry to paralysis levels , I hope they flood their military with gay rights lawsuits..once these guys (1.3 billion or so) start demanding all sorts of services and products as "rights" to be given as opposed to earned and paid for,...well, then our next generations can sleep safely at night...unless of course the ZEROs win out here first...then all bets are off...
Posted by john maasch at 02/28/2007 @ 7:21pm
At the same time, Wen said that "the socialist system is not contradictory to democracy," adding: "A highly developed democracy and a complete legal system are inherent requirements of the socialist system and an important benchmark of a mature socialist system."
Posted by CRABWALK 02/28/2007 @ 11:29am
Gee, what a missed opportunity. If Chimp & Cap had been around and making the decisions in the 1970's the Asian land mass would now be a gigantic glass bowl and we would be at about a 1930's level of economic development.
Posted by fromredbird at 02/28/2007 @ 7:34pm
But not Osama bin Laden....where is he?
The same place I told you earlier in another thread; the valley of Dir near the Khyber Pass.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/28/2007 @ 5:17pm
It's good to have people like you around who are absolutely sure of themselves. You guys make great leaders. That's why the war on terror has been so successful.
Speaking of which, someone should get a Medal of Honor for warning brilliant statesman Cheney to not go anywhere near the front gate.
Posted by fromredbird at 02/28/2007 @ 7:46pm
The Times once again is being duped by Bushies...first Judith Miller supplied her fantasies, and now this...a black eye on The Times.
Posted by MCE337 at 03/01/2007 @ 04:08am
It means there are some places in the world where people can hide and there is no practical way to capture them.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/28/2007 @ 5:17pm
Like, uh....downtown Baghdad?
Posted by Mask at 03/01/2007 @ 09:13am
"In May 1975, Seymour Hersh reported in the New York Times on how the CIA had sought to recover a sunken Soviet submarine with a deep-sea mining vessel called the Glomar Explorer, built by Howard Hughes. When Hersh's article appeared, Cheney wrote memos laying out options ranging from indicting Hersh or getting a search warrant for Hersh's apartment to suing the Times and pressuring its owners "to discourage the NYT and other publications from similar action." "In the end," writes James Mann, in his indispensable book, "Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet," "Cheney and the White House decided to back off after the intelligence community decided its work had not been significantly damaged."
HNNHistory News Network;11-28-05; The Long March of Dick Cheney By Sidney Blumenthal
The assault on freedom of the press by these guys goes way back.
Historically, I've always admired the NY Times for giving us a modicum of truth. Think this is in part why the blogosphere is so critical today, but even that is under attack by government eavesdroppers. Who can you trust anymore with an editorial policy like this?
Posted by OneVote at 03/01/2007 @ 09:45am
Posted by SLIVER 02/28/2007 @ 6:45pm
Yeah, wouldn't that be the coolest? I'm getting tired of having this "one bomb a day" thing going on in Iraq that depresses everybody. We need to really start blowing-things-the-fuck-up again! That'll make everybody happy!
Posted by nathanhale at 03/01/2007 @ 10:44am
Pakistan is not a war zone. Posted by JOHANNESROLF
According to the administration it isn't. The Pakistani government is portrayed as a staunch US ally in the region; Musharif, however, cannot control large areas of the country, especially along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/01/2007 @ 11:02am
Cheney and the White House decided to back off after the intelligence community decided its work had not been significantly damaged."
Posted by ONEVOTE 03/01/2007 @ 09:45am
OV, curious....what if the intell community had decided that its work HAD been significantly damanged? Any change in attitude on your part towards Hersh?
just curious.
Posted by Mask at 03/02/2007 @ 1:50pm