Politics: J'accuse!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
That's right: The Administration is using the CIA to do opposition research for domestic political points, and it bragging about it to the press.

Uh, who would YOU want vetting the info to make sure it's releasable without endangering someone? Novak? Honestly, you can spin intrigue out of anything, when it suits you.

[dtb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I don't feel bad. The poll was a fucking joke and I was pointing that out.

FWIW - my buddy in Madrid tells me that the middle class over there are already lamenting the vote.

I was in Madrid for a week a few days following the bombing. Granted, the majority of people I spoke with (family members) were very upset about the vote -- several family members cried (no, literally!!) when the PP lost. I got no arguments from anyone when I voiced my opinion that the perception from the outside is that Spain capitulated to terrorism. I expected to hear non-stop anti-American diatribes, but the responses I heard were more like, "Well, DUH!"

Even my cousin's husband, who in the wake of 9/11 when they were visiting, was a little squeamish/appalled about my (OK, admittedly reactionary) view that we should just take over the oil fields and be done with it, had arrived at the view that perhaps those who would act in this way to achieve their ends really can't be dealt with rationally.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Uh, who would YOU want vetting the info to make sure it's releasable without endangering someone? Novak?

If this were something that the commission wanted done to further its ends, fine. But this is something that the administration is doing for purely political ends. Those CIA staffers might as well be paid by the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign.

It also smells that they're going to selectively declassify to make Clarke look bad. Not the first time they've done this. This is where the credibility gap comes from.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If this were something that the commission wanted done to further its ends, fine. But this is something that the administration is doing for purely political ends. Those CIA staffers might as well be paid by the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign.

It also smells that they're going to selectively declassify to make Clarke look bad. Not the first time they've done this. This is where the credibility gap comes from.

I believe that any request to declassify, no matter from who, has to go through the CIA. If Clinton requested it, it would still go through them.

And I imagine that the request from the Bush camp will be for certain types of materials, all with an obvious purpose of impeachment of Clarke's current musings, but, again, that's what they're looking for, and the CIA merely then looks to the dangers of declassification.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I believe that any request to declassify, no matter from who, has to go through the CIA. If Clinton requested it, it would still go through them.

And I imagine that the request from the Bush camp will be for certain types of materials, all with an obvious purpose of impeachment of Clarke's current musings, but, again, that's what they're looking for, and the CIA merely then looks to the dangers of declassification.

You seem to be missing the point, which is that the whole exercise in selective declassification here is being done for domestic political reasons, not in any way to promote national security. That is an abuse.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Well, Condi's testifying but the commission is agreeing not to treat it as precedent. So it's kind of like the publication of unpublished opinion -- sure, ya, that's not precedent, but we're going to remind you about it anyways.

So, does the W.H. save any face on this, or is this too silly even for face-saving?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Well, Condi's testifying but the commission is agreeing not to treat it as precedent. So it's kind of like the publication of unpublished opinion -- sure, ya, that's not precedent, but we're going to remind you about it anyways.

So, does the W.H. save any face on this, or is this too silly even for face-saving?

This is a stupid move by the WH. They do not save face. They should have stuck to their guns, as they were in the right on this, and now have eroded the powers of the executive.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is a stupid move by the WH. They do not save face. They should have stuck to their guns, as they were in the right on this, and now have eroded the powers of the executive.

I figured this would eventually happen. I think Rice has testimony that should come out, and they probably realized that a week ago, but they had to stonewall temporarily just to drive home the point. I doubt they've eroded anything - they've still asserted the separations issue, and then voluntarily appeared, and everyone is accepting this as voluntary, and not the product of the power of the commission, so, no harm, I think.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You seem to be missing the point, which is that the whole exercise in selective declassification here is being done for domestic political reasons, not in any way to promote national security. That is an abuse.

No, it's not an abuse. Declassification is not that uncommon a thing, usually done in response to a private (and, yes, politically-inspired) request. Classification and secretiveness are supposed to give way in the face of a request, in the absence of renewal and ratification of the reasons for classification. That's the way the relevant statutes read.

(ETA: it's also done in response to purely profit-driven requests, usually concerning formerly classified info on weapons systems by manufacturers, etc.)

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, it's not an abuse. Declassification is not that uncommon a thing, usually done in response to a private (and, yes, politically-inspired) request. Classification and secretiveness are supposed to give way in the face of a request, in the absence of renewal and ratification of the reasons for classification. That's the way the relevant statutes read.

I agree that there is no one more qualified to declassify docs than the CIA, but I thought Ty's beef was with the second part of the request: "They said that at the request of the White House, however, the CIA was going through the transcript to see what could be declassified, with an eye toward pointing out contradictions."

If that's a statement of what the GOP intends to do itself with the universe of all declassified documents, that's one thing. But if it's part of the selection criteria given to the CIA, that's quite another. I don't want the CIA to respond to "Investigate and analyze statements made by my domestic political enemies" requests. If it's a routine request to declassify broad categories of docs, that's a different matter, and one that I suspect Clarke wholeheartedly supports, given his tough talk in response to the GOP threats to declassify.

[SlaveNoMore]

dtb
I was in Madrid for a week a few days following the bombing. Granted, the majority of people I spoke with (family members) were very upset about the vote -- several family members cried (no, literally!!) when the PP lost. I got no arguments from anyone when I voiced my opinion that the perception from the outside is that Spain capitulated to terrorism. I expected to hear non-stop anti-American diatribes, but the responses I heard were more like, "Well, DUH!"

Even my cousin's husband, who in the wake of 9/11 when they were visiting, was a little squeamish/appalled about my (OK, admittedly reactionary) view that we should just take over the oil fields and be done with it, had arrived at the view that perhaps those who would act in this way to achieve their ends really can't be dealt with rationally.

Real opinions don't count. Only polls do. See Tyrone, ltlfb above.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, it's not an abuse. Declassification is not that uncommon a thing, usually done in response to a private (and, yes, politically-inspired) request. Classification and secretiveness are supposed to give way in the face of a request, in the absence of renewal and ratification of the reasons for classification. That's the way the relevant statutes read.

(ETA: it's also done in response to purely profit-driven requests, usually concerning formerly classified info on weapons systems by manufacturers, etc.)

If they don't declassify stuff that Dems and/or Clarke want declassified to corroborate what he recently said, that will be an abuse, right?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Real opinions don't count. Only polls do. See Tyrone, ltlfb above.

If you wanted a better understanding of why Clinton won in '92, would you ask a Bush or Perot supporter, or would you look at a poll?

Sure you would.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If they don't declassify stuff that Dems and/or Clarke want declassified to corroborate what he recently said, that will be an abuse, right?

That's too dependent on the validity of the need for classification to answer by itself. If they refuse to declassify material that is just as amenable to declassification as what they declassify for Frist's request, then, yes, that would be an abuse.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
That's too dependent on the validity of the need for classification to answer by itself. If they refuse to declassify material that is just as amenable to declassification as what they declassify for Frist's request, then, yes, that would be an abuse.

I think the only difference between us on this issue is that you're pretending that's not exactly where we're going to be. You seem to think that Clarke and/or Dems will just recall the stuff they want out, and ask for it. It's obviously more complicated than that. If the executive branch has the only people who get to see the stuff now, then the process isn't really designed to get out the truth.