WaPO columnist David Broder gets involved in an on line discussion. Emphasis mine. You be the judge.
On Bush's approval of Libby sharing info with the NY Times:
David S. Broder: As you can tell from the current White House briefing by Scott McClellan, the administration is having a hard time squaring the disclosure of the president's role in leaking information adverse to Ambassadfor Wilson with Mr. Bush's prior statements decrying the leaks of any intelligence information. The contradictions are glaring--and so is the damage to his credibility.
Then down below it:
David S. Broder: I cannot give you a step by step walk through the process (declassification), but I have read this morning that presidents have wide discretion when it comes to changing the classification of information or declassifying it.
Interesting, Broder first concludes Bush has damaged his credibility. How? By using his legitimate discretion. Well, there's an object point of view. feh
And this is rich:
Goleta, Calif.: Any word on how Scott McClellan's blood pressure (or general health) is hold up these days?
David S. Broder: To the best of my knowledge, the senator has not made public the results of any very recent medical exams. But I have seen him at work on Capitol Hill and he appears to be healthy and vigorous.
LOL What State does McClennan represent, Mr. Broder? More coffee, or perhaps at least take these things seriously if the Post insists you do them.
Silver Spring, Md.: In the interest of having a reasonable discussion of the issues at hand, don't you think that it is important for the press to keep the public aware that there is a big difference between "declassification" and "selective leaking"? If you disagree, please explain.
David S. Broder: There certainly is a difference in the two terms. The latter implies secrecy--and that seems to be the case here.
Yesterday, breathless news reports suggested that President Bush had directed the "leak" of classified information in July 2003. Yet the "leak" in question was from a document called the National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE - and by the time this "leak" occurred, the contents of the NIE as they related to Iraq were almost entirely public.
On Oct. 7, 2002, nine months before Bush's supposed "leak," the administration released an unclassified version of the very same NIE at the urging of Senate Democrats. And in early 2003, reporters hostile to the administration (primarily John Judis and Spencer Ackerman of The New Republic) were being told all sorts of things about the still-classified portions of the NIE.
On employers using illegal immigrants under a reform plan:
I take a less cynical view of the employers' actions than you do; I think we should not assume bad faith,
How can that be? We're told everyday that illegals here are working hard and contributing. That assumes employers are hiring them in droves against current law. But Broder doesn't assume bad faith? If we could have faith in them, there wouldn't be a problem today. The jobs wouldn't be there and we're told they would all simply go home if that happened. Broder's good faith may be a positve personality trait. But it runs contrary to the facts.
Clearwater, Fla.: What is your opinion about Bob Woodward's comments last year about the Valerie Plame case ... When "all of the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great."
David S. Broder: Subsequent events do not appear to be supporting that forecast.
What subsequent events? To date, nothing significant, certainly not in some Watergate sense, has come from it at all.
Yelm, Wash.: In terms of the USA dealing with some very difficult foreign policy problems, is this not the absolute worst time for Bush to have basically "kneecapped himself" in terms of credibility?
David S. Broder: Yes, it is. Whenever we have a weakened president with many years left to serve, you have to worry that other countries will decide to make trouble.
Again, the NIE issue. I'm amazed Broder would sign on to the term knee-capped in this regard.
Aside from taking a probably well-deserved swipe at talk radio below, I'm disappointed but not surprised to see Broder continue with the wiretapping theme. I've seen nothing to suggest the NSA program is anything other than a prudent way to monitor conversations between suspected terrorist operatives and their support structures within the US. Safe inside the coccon of big journalism, apparently Broder doesn't agree. But then, he is viewed as the Dean of DC journalism by many. More proof that tenure isn't always a good thing.
I was once a fan of Broder. His increasingly seemingly biased approach to reporting has turned me off.
Maplewood, N.J.: Hi Mr. Broder,
Why do you think there was a huge blow-up over the Dubai ports controversy (which really didn't threaten our liberties per se), but not much negative public reaction to the revelation that the government may be listening to our private conversations (which definitely threatens our liberties)? Seems backwards to me ...
David S. Broder: I don't want to point fingers, but talking to members of Congress, it is clear that talk radio jumped on the ports story--often distorting the facts--and helped to whip up a public storm before the administration effectively told its side of the story. Nothing like that happened on the warrantless wiretapping, where the president's actions were defended by many of the same broadcasters.
Comments