Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
What a Hypocrite.
Published on December 3, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics


It is remarkable—When the New York Times or some other newspaper releases classified information it is a security problem. Now it turns out that Bush used the New York Times to leak classified information from his National Security Advisor and that is just fine. What a hypocrite!

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 04, 2006
My point is that if it is the NYT that leaks something it is a problem.


The Col has no problem with this.

If Bush or one of him minions does the same thing it is just fine.


The Col has a problem with this.

I'll use your own words ...

What a hypocrite!


on Dec 04, 2006
" My point is that if it is the NYT that leaks something it is a problem. If Bush or one of him minions does the same thing it is just fine."


Because it's Bush's job to decide what can and can't be leaked. Military and intelligence fall under the executive branch. The NYT ISN'T a branch of government. Therefore, when the NYT does it, they are committing a treasonous act of divulging information that the Bush administration hasn't decided to make known.

By your logic spying wouldn't be a crime either. It would be hypocritical to allow Bush to leak information and then punish a spy for selling classified information to our enemies, right? Oh, no, you'd rather try both as a spy, wouldn't you?

Where do you get this way of thinking? I'd take it back and get a refund if I were you.
on Dec 04, 2006
BakerStreet

If you believe Bush decides what should be made public is predicated of our security you are as naive as you could be. It is ALL POLITICAL and has NOTHING to do with what is best to protect this country. It served what he wanted to do concerning Maliki and that it why it was leaked!
on Dec 04, 2006
It is ALL POLITICAL and has NOTHING to do with what is best to protect this country


Tell me, how'd you know this? What/who are your sources claiming such? Otherwise this is just your opinion, nothing more.

***



Okay, so this is what i've found on declassification.

Under the provisions of Executive Order 12958 (Classified National Security Information), dated 17 April 1995, NSA reviews for declassification all permanently classified documents 25 years or older. As these documents are declassified, they are turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).



WWW Link 1

Can someone point me to official documents/sites that talk about who gets to do what, why, etc.... I'm having trouble finding it.

on Dec 04, 2006
This is one of Gene's many ethical & logical blind spots, I'm afraid.
on Dec 04, 2006
My point is that if it is the NYT that leaks something it is a problem. If Bush or one of him minions does the same thing it is just fine.


And my point is that when Bush leaks something it's a problem, and if the NYT leaks classified information it's just fine.



on Dec 04, 2006
This is one of Gene's many ethical & logical blind spots, I'm afraid.


I'm still tring to find where Bush is the one who leaked it to the NYT.
on Dec 04, 2006
What I am saying is the BOTH are wrong to leak sensitive information. What Bush does in some cases is to classify information not because its release would create a security issue but because he does not want the information to be known!
on Dec 06, 2006
Yes, the inverse algorithm theory. If he classifies something, it's purely political; if he declassifies something, it's a crime to have revealed what he shouldn't have classified in the first place. The first and only fundamental law of Gene's universe is... well, you know.
on Dec 06, 2006
I woud rip them from your shoulders because you disgrace them you inhuman pile of rat feces.
on Dec 06, 2006
ParaTed2K

You do not have any such authority or cause. What I have said on this Blog site and in my books is the truth you refuse to acknowledge. You and people like you are the scum that has caused the deaths of our brave military and created the disaster that Iraq is today. There was NO reason to invade Iraq other then the arrogance of GWB which IDIOTS like you supported!!!
on Dec 06, 2006
Come on, Gene. Get the gloves off & say what you really mean. Enough of this mealy-mouthed crap.
on Dec 06, 2006
There was NO reason to invade Iraq other then the arrogance of GWB which IDIOTS like you supported!!!


There you go again, arguing the past. I know YOUR signature on a document is worthless, but when Gen. Schwartkoft signed the Safwan Accords, that commited the US to enforcing the terms.

Of course, what on earth would you know about anythign to do with honor?


:::: Rips off your birds and stuffs them down your terrorist loving pencil neck ::::
on Dec 11, 2006
You and people like you are the scum that has caused the deaths of our brave military and created the disaster that Iraq is today.


Why Ted I ddn't know you were so powerful. Since you seem to be according to Gene... Can you set up an invasion of Canada? The last time I had a Molson it tasted all skunky and I'm pissed.
on Dec 15, 2006
“Rips off your birds and stuffs them down your terrorist loving pencil neck ::::”


WHEN HELL FREZES OVER--You are not qualified to carry my brief case. You and people who supported Bush are responsible for the DEATH of our brave troops and that is the most despicable thing I can imagine!
3 Pages1 2 3