Hi Julius, >I can see how, generally speaking, hearsay and embellishment are > objectionable. And, clearly, it's not cool to preempt the President.
I think that when newspapers embellish hearsay having to do with something as serious as nuclear weapons during a time when the U.S. is engaged in a war to defend itself is beyond despicable. It's fine to preempt anyone generally from a leak but a leak of classified Pentagon material??? That used to be definitely uncool but ethical standards have been so lowered that most don't even blink an eye over it. However............after my initial reaction it did occur to me that it *could* have been intentionally leaked to check out public opinion. Maybe I'll pretend those screaming meanies and nasties at the Guardian are really double-agents for the CIA - that might make me feel better ;-) > Notice how there's no condemnation of the leak from the Administration like > there was when someone from Congress leaked sensitive war policy earlier in > the Bush administration? That's an earmark of a leak by design. Clinton > used the leak technique masterfully during the Lewinski debacle. It's about > managing expectation. I did see a headline the other day about Rumsfeld condemning it and calling for an investigation of the L.A. Times but didn't read the article. By the way, it is interesting to hear you mention the Clinton leak technique - the Master of manipulation indeed! >I think that's pretty cool and I'm psyched when the press > ferrets these things out. Remember Watergate? Yeah, but this is different - we are trying to protect our country. Would it be cool if people on a regular basis start leaking all our current strategic military defense plans to the world, too? What scares me is that there are some people who think that would be very cool. Thanks for bringing your intellect into the discussion, Julius. When you get a chance, maybe you could elaborate on the finer points of alternative energy ;-) (I'm serious!) Kakki
