Question for SCOTTIE:

[radfringe]

In yesterday's press conference, Scottie said the President released the information (i.e. ok'd it for leaking) because it was in the PUBLIC'S INTEREST...

here's the question: If "LEAKING" of certain information is in the PUBLIC INTEREST - why "LEAK" it instead of issuing a Press Release or other open modes of informing the public?

correct me if I'm wrong....but then general impression of a LEAK carries an impression of secretcy. It's like passing a note to a classmate in school as opposed to standing up in class and announcing to everyone that 'sally has a crush on Joey'.

if information is in the PUBLIC INTEREST - should it be PUBLICALLY ANNOUNCED?

meanwhile: MEME to SCOTTIE --- never use the words LEAKS and DEPENDS in the same sentence....

[rodeodance]

1. So, was Scott referring to the NIE?--

I missed the news. conf. and just want to be sure.

.....In yesterday's press conference, Scottie said the President released the information (i.e. ok'd it for leaking) because it was in the PUBLIC'S INTEREST...

[radfringe]

3. thinks so - I was getting dizzy watching scottie spin

White House defends intelligence leak as `in the public interest'
BY KENNETH R. BAZINET
New York Daily News -- 4/8/06
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/politics/14295291.htm

WASHINGTON - The White House insisted Friday President Bush did nothing wrong in authorizing a leak of prewar intelligence because he had allegedly declassified the secret information.

The White House was silent about the leak for almost 24 hours before spokesman Scott McClellan said the President - who has repeatedly trashed government leakers - slipped the information to the New York Times "in the public interest."

and...

McClellan Spars with Reporters: When is a Leak Not a Leak?
By E&P Staff -- April 07, 2006
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002314220
NEW YORK To no one's surprise, least of all White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, today's briefing for reporters was dominated by questions about the latest revelations in the CIA leak case, with the president being tied more closely to it than ever before.

Here are the relevant portions of the transcript:

Q Back when the NIE was released on July 18, 2003, you were asked that day when that had been actually declassified. And you said in that gaggle that it had been declassified that day. And if that's the case, then when the information was passed on to the reporter 10 days earlier, then it was still classified at that time.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you're referring -- a couple of things. First of all, it was publicly released that day, so that's when a portion of the National Intelligence Estimate that we were making available to the public was released. The second part of your question is referring to an ongoing legal proceeding, and referring to a filing in that legal proceeding. We have had a policy in place, going back to the October time period of 2003, that we are not going to comment on an ongoing investigation or an ongoing legal proceeding. That policy remains unchanged.

But let me point out a couple of facts, step back from this legal proceeding. The President of the United States has the authority to declassify information. I also indicated to some reporters earlier today that the President would never authorize the disclosure of information that he felt could compromise our nation's security. Now, the National Intelligence Estimate was declassified -- portions of it were declassified. We made sure that we did not -- that we continued to protect sensitive sources and methods within the National Intelligence Estimate....

[Elnendil Taramon]

2. xD

That picture is worth a thousand words.

[monarch]

4. Great toon and an argument that I hadn't seen

expressed so clearly before. Part of my giddiness over the last couple of days is that it has now become clear that the internet can be the source of all wisdom, and, aside from the fact that the corporate media knows that it can't get away with crap (I hope that whoever took CBS down the Couric path has had an epiphany)is that any young reporter who wants to get ahead is going to have to start googling anything that he or she writes. I saw a post someplace lately that an energy plan (I think it was energy) that people put together on the internet was much better than anything that the experts have come up with. It should have been obvious before that thousands of minds (some of them experts or inventor types who work independently and not in think tanks) are better than hundreds in think tanks.

Anyway, my point is that even if the corporate media has a role to play in the future, we can never have another Bush administration. So, aside from the possibility that the Republican party may be totally dead for years to come, there is something good that will come out of these last 5+ horrible years. Maybe our soldiers died for a noble cause after all.

[shenmue]

5. Exactly

What was he so afraid of? What did he have to hide? Other than breaking the law and endangering our country, of course?

:grr:

[radfringe]

6. political leaks

there are only 3 reasons I can figure out for LEAKING information:

1. Whistle-blowing by someone who is afraid of retribution but feels the information needs to get out there

2. Testing the waters for public reaction. Meaning, someone has an idea/proposal and is not sure how it will be accepted.

3. Political motives, i.e. damage the opposition. think about it - when info is leaked it is rarely "positive or constructive". If you are going to talk to a reporter and give them "good things" to write about - wouldn't you want some of the credit for it?

when was the last time an anonymous source was quoted as saying "I think so-n-so is doing a GREAT JOB" or "This is a great proposal"

so why leak - when a press release or interview would provide a more open and positive picture?

yeah, I know the talkingheads are saying releaseing of the NIE info was legal - but why was it initially released as a leak - especially if it's purpose was to INFORM THE PUBLIC? When Miller wrote those stories based on info provided by Libby - why was Libby reluctant to have himself quoted as the source? Why didn't bush* come out and publically talk about the info himself - if he didn't want a big press-gaggle, he could have done it through a press release or in his "weakly" (typo intentional) radio address

it still leaves the questions of WHO TOLD LIBBY about PLAME and WHY. How does "leaking" the identity of a covert agent benefit the PUBLIC INTEREST?

[radfringe]

7. kick

[Glenda]

8. HA!

:spray:

Another good one!

:applause: