From the New York Times:

The president was clearly unhappy that findings from the document, a National Intelligence Estimate completed in April, had made their way into news reports. The New York Times disclosed some of the findings in its issue on Sunday.

Noting that evidence-gathering for the assessment had concluded in late February, and that the report itself had been finished two months later, he said: "Here we are, coming down the homestretch of an election campaign and it’s on front page of your newspapers. Isn’t that interesting?"

 

Interesting? I hardly know where to begin. 

Aw, man, my head is spinning from the spin and counter spin.

The full report is being released after having been systematically leaked by SOMEONE within the Intelligence community to the NYTimes. The larger story from my perspective, but oh well...

Then we'll learn --- what? Um, that invading countries in the Middle East to kill terrorists makes other wannabee terrorists mad and more terroristically terroristic?  Easier to recruit some guys who hitherto were sitting on the fence watching Arabic television documentaries like how PEPSI really means Pay Every Penny -- Save Israel -- clearly an American/Israeli plot!  Count me in on the Jihad, Osama or Mahmoud!  And the Crusaders are right here on our Holy Land too! Yeah, I'll join in!  I'll leave my profitable business, my charming cottage, my beautiful wife and darling children to join the jihad.  Oh, I don't have any of those things?  But I'm so there with you anyway, oh brothers in Islam!

Shocking!

Do I ever crave a mainstream information source that is not attempting to sway opinion. You know the notion -- We report; you decide -- only that's what they REALLY do instead of saying they do. All the news that's fit to print -- only they don't inflate, cherry pick and selectively release government classified documents.

What a dreamer I am, huh?

Case in point with the NYTimes, which I STILL subscribe to while hating myself. This past Sunday, a front page story was on Donald Rumsfeld. Fair enough, right? He's the key man in the administration -- Secretary of Defense. But what was the 'story?' It was about Donald Rumsfeld's squash game. He cheats, you know. He doesn't back away after his turn allowing his partner to have access.  He ends up scoring extra points that way, but it's really not fair.  He plays an old man version of squash. Rumsfeld plays like he runs the war. He plays "hardball." Here we have two diagrams illustrating the old squash court compared to the new squash court. Listen to the witnesses who have never played with Rumsfeld but have observed his game. He's a baaaaaaaaaaaaad man. His sqaush game only reinforces that judgment. Front page. New York Times.

Directly above that lengthy important story is one about the tender Islamists in Somalia who are setting up ball games, cleaning up Mogadishu and just seem like all around dandy guys. (not at all like Rumsfeld)  They're really getting it all together there in Somalia.  Nothin' like what you saw in Black Hawk Down.

Read on in the movie review section and hear about how John Cameron Mitchell's 'unrated" film, Short Bus, which received a 10 minute standing ovulation at Cannes, deals with sexual hang-ups and turn-ons of 40 some young people he culled from 100s who auditioned to be in his pornographic film. Front page of the film section. Read how one gay couple, who were a real life gay couple, wrote to Mitchell that they wanted to spice up their love life with a third man.  Read how the audition process had each actor ranking from 1 to 4 every other actor's audition tape to decide who they'd be willing to have sex with. Read how the young Korean used-to-be Catholic girl was a tad embarrassed to be nude during her sex scene (tee hee) and how she's banned her family from watching the film. (haha) She was made a little more comfortable by having the crew get naked during the shoot. Oh, it's all so much fun! So artsy! So edgy. So sky's the limit and we're all sophisticated and stuff and besides, you haven't even seen the movie how can you comment. (Even if you did love-love-love Hedwig and the Angry Inch as I did.) There is just something so unseemly and exploitative about this sophomore effort that leaves me uneasy and a little sad for all involved. But not the NYTimes!

Okay, okay. Every weekend as I read my Sunday big fat NYT, I end up talking to myself over what has become of this NEWSpaper. Maybe it's just me. Past the half-century point and feeling it. I've always said that there's a reason humans don't ever live much past 100 even if more humans reach the centarian mark than ever. And that is the mental part of living one hundred years. Too much dissonance to the psyche.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

That's not a conspiracy theory. that's normal actions by people wanting to cause political damange. Conspiracy theory? Bah humbug!!

In any case, I'm not sure if this blog/guy is really who he says he is, but here's some other pieces of information from the same leaked report.

--- 

"seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations."

"A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse."

"Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight."

"Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq."

"There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims."

"Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit."

---

If these kind of comments are in the report then this is actually good for the GOP.  

Jordan .

Parts of it, allegedly, but not the full thing.

Regardless, I'm confident that for every person who finds it completely logical and in-character for the news media to spontaneously collude to damage the Presidency (ignoring the possibility that they may be doing what they're doing out of an honest desire to pursue the news), there's another person who finds it equally logical and in-character for the petroleum industry to spontaneously collude to support the Presidency (ignoring the possibility that they may be doing what they're doing out of an honest attempt to reflect fluctuating oil supply/demand levels).

As opposed to the partial part of the full part of the full report.

Sigh... 

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I'm not actually sure what that means, but if we're at the point where we have to start parsing the difference between "all of something" and "part of something",  then I fear that Up vs Down can't be far behind...

Susan means I think that only a single line or two was leaked to the NY Times. So people will flock to this single line, but then when Bush says that portions of the report will be released, he is then criticized for not releasing the whole thing. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

"I'm confident that for every person who finds it completely logical and in-character for the news media to spontaneously collude to damage the Presidency "

You make it sound like ALL news media published the same story. That's not right. It was one media ouitlet (surprise, surprise, NY Times) and then the rest followed suit basing their stories on this single one. Which is why your oil comparison doesn't work, and can easily be shot down with facts. The facts from this leak are simple - someone on govt illegally (should be thrown in jail) leaked a portion of the classified report to ONE news media and that paper reported it just weeks before an election. Actually, I would argue that the person who leaked it is the one trying to help the election to turn rather than the media. Whereas your gas company example is full of holes because the facts don't hold up to any conspiracy.

Jordan .

EXACTLY, Jordan! That is exactly what I meant about part of the part of the whole.

It's like the documents from the 9/11 Commission Report where a small portion was redacted. Everyone seems to have figured out that they pertained to the Saudi royal family. I would have liked to have seen the whole thing! Eventually we will see the whole thing. But I don't start from the position that the administration (regardless of who is the president, btw) is HIDING something from me that implicates him in whisking off his 9/11 co-conspirator oil buddies back to Medina (ala Michael Moore suggestion). Neither do I think that not allowing a public viewing of Vince Foster's suicide note means the Clintons were involved. Same with only allowing the partial release of the Zapruder film for many many years did not implicate Johnson, an event which is where I date the beginning of the American Mainstream Conspiracy "Don't Believe THEM; Believe US."

I understand that there are reasons why every tidbit of knowledge is not released to the press contemporaneous to its . I understand that members of the administration, members of the opposition party and high paid CEOs and their underlings along with celebrity PR people selectively leak to the press and that is why there are newspapers.

I listened to a number of telephone call in shows yesterday where callers were expressing their belief that Bush made the oil prices go down just at this fortuitous pre-election time. Some felt it was because of his close association with the oil business in the Bush past or Cheney's former running of Halliburton that allowed them control over the global oil pricing. Others believed it was Republicans who run oil companies preferring Republicans in office. Sure, they are more likely to be Republicans but it isn't too difficult to suss out the truth. Without too much effort you can look at the electio of 2004, which even stupid President Bush knew would be very close. You would think it was far more important to Bush that he remain in the White House than keeping a 2006 House and Senate 'red.' But what happened prior to the 2004 election? Gasoline prices went up! And I remember it well HERE on the Gazette. The Saudi prince who was interviewed about promising Bush he'd lower the price before election time. Ah well. As you plug one hole -- as you spritz out one flame -- another hole pokes through and another flame erupts elsewhere. No trust.

The media such as the NY Times or the WaPo, and their spawn CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC (who merely read the paper to come up with their stories) may fool themselves into believing they are neutral purveyors of truth.  So be it.  I'll still read them.  But I'll also read beyond them and get a fuller picture.  They, like many who despise Bush, will say they are only dispassionately offering news or, when it comes to non-news persons, they will be merely 'asking questions.'  Hmmmmmm?  Why did that WTC number 7 go down????

Unfortunately, with an ever increasing large undiscrimating populous with a built-in suspicion after 5 years driven by Bush animus; after the catastrophic attacks of 9/11; after two long lasting wars with loss of life and limb; rather than afford a benefit of a doubt that ANY of these leaked morsels are less than earthshaking, too many folks go from 0 to 60 in the wink of an eye and label it one more example of nefarious Bush fascism without any thinking things through. The cycle continues. And it frustrates me.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

"And I remember it well HERE on the Gazette. The Saudi prince who was interviewed about promising Bush he'd lower the price before election time. Ah well."

i totally fogot about that until your brought it up!! I saw a poll recnetly that showed around 42% of Americans think bush and the GOP are pushing oil prices down for the election even though teh facts say differently. It reminds me of the polls that were taken about if Americans thought Saddam was involved with 9/11 and the energized left who used that as proof of how deceitful the Bush admin is. Don't see anyone complaining about how wrong 42% of Americans are right now about oil....hmmm.....

I really wish I had said it publicly here about the $2/gallon gas prices we would see later in the year. Today, I drove by more usual gas station and it's now $1.99. Reports show that Missouri is below 1,90 now. I could run over to MO side now and probably get gas for about 1.92 methinks.

I think it's time the US govt start to really clamp down and find these leakers of confidential information. I can understand whistleblowers and protection of them, but the leak recently of this report is far from anything whistleblowing. It was intended specifically for political points and it's time that we find these criminals and throw them in jail (if found guilty of course).  

Jordan .

If they share a cell with Armitage and Novak, then we can agree on something.

1) Armitage didn't know it was confidential when he mentioned it. In other words, Armitage talking about Plame was not illegal otherwise Fitzgerald would have more than Libby. In any case, Armitage isn't necessarily a friend of the Bush admin so we know that he didn't offer that info up as political points.

2) The medai reporting classified information is not illegal --- yet. Which is why I didn't suggest we throw anyone ni the NY Times in jail.

As a result, neither Armitage nor Novak could be placed in jail because 1) Novak didn't comit a crime, adn 2) Armitage didn't realize the info was classified, and as a result didn't commit a crime.

On the other hand, the person(s) who keep leaking this classified ifnormation, like an NIE which are all classified and everyoe knows it is simply doing it for political manuevering. That is 100% illegal. The problem is finding the person. I do believe that these leaks all originate from the same group of people or an individual person, but it's like a needle in the haystack.  

Jordan .