Spinonymous: CNN granted Bush official anonymity to criticize Obama
On the February 11 edition of CNN Newsroom, during a report on Australian Prime Minister John Howard's criticism of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Democrats concerning their statements on the Iraq war, CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry cited "one official," who he said "weighed in with support for the Australian," but CNN identified him on screen only as a "senior Bush administration official."
Henry said the official asserted that "Prime Minister Howard knows that setting a timeline for a withdrawal sends the wrong signal to our enemies." He did not say why the White House official required -- or deserved -- anonymity in his criticism of the Democratic presidential candidate.
From the 7 p.m. ET hour of the February 11 edition of CNN Newsroom:
HENRY: Just one day after Democrat Barack Obama launched his bid for president of the United States, a blast from down under.
HOWARD: If I were running Al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and pray as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.
HENRY: A fierce ally of President Bush, conservative Australian Prime Minister John Howard was firing away at Obama's call for pulling all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by the end of March 2008.
The senator quickly fired back.
OBAMA: So if he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq.
HENRY: A two-fer: A shot at the fact that about 1,000 Australian troops are in Iraq and a poke at the plan to send more U.S. troops being pushed by the president, who is tight with Howard.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Somebody said, "Don't you" -- "You and John Howard appear to be so close. Don't you have any differences?" And I said, "Yeah, he doesn't have any hair."
HENRY: White House aides express surprise over Howard's criticism of Obama. But one official weighed in with support for the Australian, saying, "Prime Minister Howard knows that setting a timeline for a withdrawal sends the wrong signal to our enemies."
Democrats, however, told the Aussie to butt out of the U.S. debate.
SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR): The most charitable thing you can say about Mr. Howard's comment is it's bizarre. You know, we'll make our own judgments in this country with respect to elections.
So now the craziness is firmly embedded in Australia, I guess there is no country Bush won't poison to seek out his 30% approval rating. Since CNN won't reveal the source, I will, its Karl Rove.
Absolutely it is Karl Rove. Just the fact that the Bush Administration still tries to justify this war is bad enough, however when cronies like Howard are told by Rove what to say so that they can attempt to “Swift Boat” or discredit a candidate who happens to be correct on the war is a ultimate disgrace. I could not believe what I read this morning on msnbc.com , I did not see the CNN story but CNN needs to come clean on who this source is and they need to do it now. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17113465/
Agree and disagree, Doris.
They can keep their source, it's some soon to be defeated neocon or other. If we have heard on baseless smear we've heard them all.
I was just pleased to see a swift unified counter-offensive to these smear gang thugs.
Obama's too smart too black for these moron neocons. Finally, there is a Democrat sharp and bold enough to attack back. I bet that down under dummy will think twice before he talks any more trash while the spinmeisters tremble behind their sheets. ROFLMAO
How pathetic, how desperate. LOL These cowardly Cons had to go all the way to Australia to find a politician willing to battle Obama publicly - and he gets KO'd in the first round. What's next, a rabbit punch from the Prime Minister of New Zealand? Better watch out for the pimp slap back atcha.
ROFLMAO
It's about time we get someone in the opposition who won't stand for the GOP's happy horse****. The American people are hungry for a Democrat who shows some spine when dealing with the neocons.
Who cares who it is? The phrase "White House officials" is used all the time, this is nothing new or misinformative. Someone in the White House agrees timelined withdrawal is ill-advised, this is news? Who cares if it's Bush himself or the pastry chef, it's obviously expected.
I do agree with Sen. Wyden though, it's our business who we elect as our leaders. He should worry about Australia.
Yes Tommy but this goes above and beyond anything of normalcy. First its a political issue, why shouldnt the Bush Admin person be named? Second its scary that Rove is now dictating to Howard what to do.
Doris, Why bother to name the WH official when everyone here knows it's Karl Rove?
Tommy, the nation needs to know and Senator Obama deserves to hear exactly who the smearmongers in the White House are. Bush is destroying our future relationships with our "allies".
Obama handled it just fine with a pointed response. He is the one who came out looking less partisan. The Australian PM looks intrusive and the WH "unnamed official" is basically irrlevant. Things like this hardly hurt Obama.
So you think it's okay for administration officials to be granted immunity just to criticize opposition? Why? You don't think that is cowardly and unnecessary? If it is Rove (I don't ever go along with the "everyone here knows" strain of logic), why is he too chicken to take credit for his own words? Why is the media enabling his/her cowardice and why doesn't that seem to bother you one bit?
I day doesn't go by without Tommy coming to the defense of these folks by stating that the story doesn't matter or standards are irrelevant.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a response.
Read on below. It is pretty funny IMO how tommy tries to defend his position, but he has become quite the unintended comic lately.
I think it's much simpler than that. Instead of saying it's Karl Rove, just drop "officials" from the line. "The White House said today..."
Presumably this official speaks for Bush if no one will step up and deny or out the speaker.
Exactly. If anonymity is granted to anyone in the administration to say anything, that line should be attributed to the administration. They shouldn't just get a pass on accountability for their remarks.
This was very underhanded.
The difference between the "White House" attribution and the form mentioned here is that this version gives Bush the cover of "plausible deniability," with respect to both the message and the source.
If everyone knows it's Karl, then why the anonymous attribution? Because it's just been done that way is not an acceptable answer.
Hello - the Karl Rove reference was sarcasm since he is normally blamed for everything attributed to this WH. I have no idea who it is.
Do you think people deserve to know who really said it? Who this coward is?
I don't know who it was either. However, you still haven't answered the question...why make it anonymous?
Open and Christian D. I would rather annonymity be protected here, just to keep annonymous sources from being intimidated in the future.
Who cares who it was. It was another dang chickenhawk coward.
The important aspect of this is in the democratic response. Swift, unified reframing is what we are seeing. That is good. It's the best way to keep the debate on your own terms.
Maybe the left learned what not to do from Kerry.
The answer is deniability. If the remarks backfire, Rove can claim he never made the remarks and the media will cover for him by not revealing the source.
Someone wants to have it both ways. They want to be able to criticize without any of the repercussions that might happen from it. And the media are enabling this behavior for no apparent reason.
You know... it's the 'free-pass' thing for the Bush crew that stinks. Obama's correct. And, use of the word 'enemies'... another undefined, overly general word that's thrown around (much like 'evil-doers', etc)...
Instead, CNN could show some backbone and put the White House on notice. Why do they think that? What're some specifics? We get none of that. Only trashing of Obama. That's the core of the misinformation... A bit ciruitous, perhaps. But, misinf all the same.
Who cares who said it? by Tommy
Journalism 101. Limit your use of anonymous sources. I don't believe you Tommy are unaware of this. My guess is you get paid to make your comments on this site.
Another explanation...
Perhaps even some White House officials are becoming embarrassed about having their names publicly associated with the White House/Republican Party positions on Iraq. I am sure White House flaks are expected, even required, to support administration positions... but it must be getting harder for some of them to do it publicly since everything that comes out of the White House sounds like political bumper sticker slogans more than fact-based, well-reasoned or well-supported arguments. The reality is that the White House's credibility on Iraq is right next to nil. The reality is that Iraq is in chaos and the White House still has no clue about how to handle the complexities of gaining control of the chaos and getting us out. It might help if Bush at least listened to advice once in a while, such as the Baker Iraq Study Group report and others. It's time to admit that Iraq is out of control, ackowledge past mistakes and try to bring in the regional and/or international community to at least attempt some sort of diplomatic approach. All we have now are thesepoint/counter-point slogans being exchanged with no real expectation of progress in sight.
Bu to the point of this piece, I agree that the administration official should have been named.
"Spinonymous" sums-up this kind of misinformative White House spin-garbage we've been taking from Bush and Cheney and their apologist boosters for six years. Those days are now over. Kudos to Media Matters, and to Obama for his quick, sharp rebuttal.
We should all care who it is! The phrase "White House officials" is used all the time, this is nothing new but very misinformative. We should all care if it's Bush himself or the pastry chef.
Countries who have historically gotten themselves into trouble by blind faith in bad leadership know this. America is quick to criticize countries who have blindly backed dictators, so why does 30% of America not see this in themselves? Not only do some believe BushCo, but they will believe some anonymous source supposedly in the WH. Great googly-moogly!
It appears there are some (great phrase, eh?) who think it would have been a great idea if we stayed in Vietnam... until we "won." We would still be there. There are some who think we should stay in the Middle East until we "win."
Is there anyone in BushCo who is not profiting from this war? Does that explain the forceful propaganda to the 30% holdouts?
This is not some policy speech asking for any "blind faith in leadership".....it's merely a partisan political condonement of an outsider's comment. The issue is Howard's butting his nose in where it isn't warranted, that's the story. Not some WH official going unnamed.
I also thought Obama had an appropriate response to Howard.
Didn't Obama announce for President weeks ago? How many times do you get to announce? I await Hillarys announcement later this week.
Not to be too nitpicky or anything,
but all the candidates had initially announced their formation of an "exploratory committee" and are now beginning to announce the official entrance in the race. I have no idea why the process works like that, but since every candidate does that, I assume it is necessary.
No, he just announced it this Sunday.
Weeks (or months) ago he formed an exploritory committee (basically to see if he could raise the money and get the support to make a run.)
OBAMA: So if he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq.
Nice comeback by Obama.
CNN should have refused to air the remarks by the "senior Bush administration official" unless he/she withdrew his desire to remain anonymous.
I mean why so secretive? IF you have something to ADD to the discussion then put your name on it.
Especially when, as here, the anonymous official is just parroting official policy. Not exactly sticking his or her neck out.
Agree. That's why I say who cares who it is. It's nothing new or shocking here.
No, it's not new or shocking, but that's not the point. The point, and the reason MMFA has posted this story, is that the mainstream media in conjunction with this administration, has twisted the concept of source anonymity. Source anonymity was intended to foster openness in officials who might otherwise be afraid to speak up, not to be used as a shield from behind which political flaks can launch partisan attacks. It's up to media outlets to recognize the difference and grant anonymity appropriately.
It reminds me of the whole Judy Miller "protect your sources" debacle. This same administration cynically exploited that noble journalistic tenet as yet another tool to allow them to go after their political opponents without accountability. It's cowardly and exploitative of these politicos, but it also requires the collusion, complacency, or just plain laziness of the media, and that's why MMFA keeps their eye on it. Bravo.
By similar logic, why do you regularly critique MMFA topics that provide no obvious citation of misinformation? After all, the practice by MMFA isn't really new and shocking, is it?
Excellent comback. Obama can hold his own apparently. "Put your troops where your mouth is"...
"Excellent comback. Obama can hold his own apparently. "Put your troops where your mouth is"..."
I agree. The mud and trash is flung by the right-wingers like the chocolates flying at Lucy Ricardo. It's important to keep up with it, and step up to it--- forcefully and quickly.
"IF you have something to ADD to the discussion then put your name on it."
Agree with you, Jeter... But, in addition to what I suggested above about Bush may even be losing support among some of his own people, the reason the remark was not attributed to a specific official may have something to do with presidential politics. You'll notice that although Howard's remarks were critical of Barak Obama inparticular, the anonymous administration response only addressed the concept of troop withdrawal... not Obama. Perhaps the White House felt it was not politically prudent to attack a popular black Democratic candidate at this time so they intentionally crafted their response as benign as possible, without naming Obama, and without providing the media an opportunity to publicly question the official who made the response. In other words, sthey felt some response was in order, but the less said the better... politically speaking, that is. Just a thought...
Good point Irony. It was a way to give Obama a backhand slap without mentioning him by name.
Very good observation. It explains a lot.
Exactly. I don't think an official should be granted anonymity unless they are sticking their neck out at least a little bit to uncover some truth that it would be important for the public to know.
It seems that anonymity is granted to Whitehouse officials to tell us the sky is blue.
Just as a side, during the Plame fiasco, Libby wanted to be described as a former hill staffer (or something like that). The press gives the administration too many allowances.
Open,
The subject of anonymity goes to the gravity of the situation. This hardly rises to any level of some coverup or anything more than an already well-known WH policy being repeated against a political opponent. That's it. The suspicious nature of your indignation at something this innocuous is overblown, in my opinion.
You feel it's far more nefarious than I do, we have different opinions.
The subject of anonymity does go to the gravity of the situation. That's why there's no reason to hide the name.
You seem to think the default position is secrecy, not transparency. If it's an important story, only then should we have people's names on record. That's a bit odd. Normally, anonymity is a special circumstance.
So if there's no nefarious purpose, why do it? At the very least you have to admit this is shoddy journalism, don't you?
The media uses unnamed sources all the time. It is standard journalist practices.
MMFA uses unnamed sources all the time as backup for its allegations. For instance, MMFA always uses unnamed CIA sources that claimed Joe Wilson's trip to Niger was not the result of his wife working at the CIA.
It is common practice to get quotes from unnamed sources and sources from within Hillary and Obama's camp are quoted all the time. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and MMFA would be better off to leave this tactic alone.
"For instance, MMFA always uses unnamed CIA sources that claimed Joe Wilson's trip to Niger was not the result of his wife working at the CIA."
HA! That's your refutation? As if that source wouldn't be out on the street in two minutes if the administration knew who it was?
Thanks for showing Tommy the proper time for an anonymous sourcing. This case is not at all similar to that.
Funny, that's not what you said below?????? You agree with CD that it was the same? Whew.........
What did CD's post have to do with this? What the bloody hell are you talking about?
Duh? He brought up Valerie Plame, ask him.
He commented on the "unaniminity" of the White House in that matter, responding to your claim that everything anyone says from the White House is unanimous (therefore it doesn't matter who actually says anything). That was a good point. How is noting that inconsistent with saying that a CIA source should be protected when going up against the White House?
Please be specific, because you're not making yourself clear at all.
I think you misread LH's post as I did. LH was refering to the self-serving leak of Plame's identity in his original post, which should not have been granted immunity because there was no obvious threat of reprisal from the government for doing their bidding.
I thought LH was referring to the whistleblowers in the CIA who refuted the Whitehouse at their own peril, which would have been justifiably anonymous.
No I think I read this right;
"For instance, MMFA always uses unnamed CIA sources that claimed Joe Wilson's trip to Niger was not the result of his wife working at the CIA." (my emphasis)
Sounds like that's against the administration, not the original leak.
Sorry, I was flummoxed by tommy's reply, which I think indicates he was confused in retrospect. Your post is entirely consistent with what you stated below.
There is no real reason to grant anonymity to the administration when they are spreading self-serving arguments with no threat of reprisal. The Administration's Plame leak should have never been granted anonymity either. Officials should have to make a calculation when they are doing the bidding of the administration. Is it important enough information for me to attach my name to. The wimpy press never put the officials in position where they had to make such a calculation.
And because I know you what take Brab's word for it, here it is from the horse's keyboard...what the bloody hell are you talking about?
Again, you are ignoring the relevant context to make your point. There are specific reasons and instances where unnamed sources are appropriate. In the case of Wilson, there is an obvious reason to protect the source from backlash in the administration and/or not intentionally revealing a CIA agent/operative's identity (which is a crime). It is standard journalistic practice to verify independently anything learned from an unnamed source as well to verify the information is correct or based on other evidence.
If the press are granting anonymity to sources within Obama's campaign or Hillary's campaign in order for them to spout campaign propaganda with impuginity, it would be just as wrong as the subject of this thread as well. I would like you to link to an example of either Obama's or Hillary's campaign doing this. I haven't seen it.
Actually, I misread LH's post. In regards to Rove and Libby, there was no reasonable expectation of a backlash within the administration for them doing the bidding of the Whitehouse. Anonymity should not be granted in that case.
I thought LH was talking about CIA agents who were anonymously sourced that refuted the administration line. In that case, since there was a likelihood of reprisal, anonymity should have been granted.
Disregard. I read it right the first time.
That is where we differ. You seem to think that because the remarks are inconsequential, their anonymity should be allowed. I could not disagree more. Anonymity is a privelege that should not just be handed out willy-nilly as it seems you would prefer.
I don't think you have any reasonable concept of journalistic standards and/or ethics from your remarks.
"This hardly rises to any level of some coverup" --tommy
You almost have it. It doesn't rise to the level of some coverup, so it should not be given the privelege of anonymity. It is precisely that simple.
You seem to think the opposite of what real journalism would advocate. No anonymity for whistle-blowers who reveal the administration is "cover[ing] up" something, and great anonymity to spread talking points or common propaganda. Your world is upside down and that makes it really hard to have an intelligent discussion with you on this type of subject.
I don't think there is anything more nefarious going on here (I don't know where that came from) other than the media enabling and rewarding cowardice.
Look, it is hardly some secret that all White Houses speak with one uniform voice, they always have and always will. So a "senior Bush WH official" would be no different, no matter who it is there. And it's Bush White House, so he is responsible for every bit of information, quotes and sourcing that is credited to the "White House", whether he said it or one of his adminstration officials. So as to who to hold responsible for it, or who to blame - it goes to Bush.
When Valerie Plames identity was leaked, was the White House speaking with unananimity?
Good one. A round of indictments, on the House!
"Look, it is hardly some secret that all White Houses speak with one uniform voice, they always have and always will." --tommy
By granting anonymity, it makes it possible for everyone of those people in the administration to deny they ever said such a thing while giving (at least you) the impression that everyone there believes it. It allows officials to speak out of both sides of their mouths. It is a whispering campaign. If the remarks aren't consequential enough to have attribution, they should not have even been repeated. You have an upside down view of anonymity. It is a privelege, not something you do trivially.
"So a "senior Bush WH official" would be no different, no matter who it is there." --tommy
Actually, no. That is not true at all. It was not an officially released statement. It is not owned by the administration, nor anyone until someone takes responsibility (and even then, the person can claim it was simply a personal opinion and not an official one). That is part of what makes it problematic as well. It is a way of releasing unofficial policy as if it was official policy.
"And it's Bush White House, so he is responsible for every bit of information, quotes and sourcing that is credited to the "White House", whether he said it or one of his adminstration officials. So as to who to hold responsible for it, or who to blame - it goes to Bush." --tommy
Actually no. That may be what the press should do to punish frivolous use of anonymity, but that is not at all accurate. It is in no way an official statement of the Bush Administration. If you treated it that way, you would likely be rebuked by the administration for doing so.
MY concept of "nefarious" is best defined by this "darned" administration, every Repugnant extant, the S.C.U.M. (So-Called Unbiased Media - thanks, Easy to Refute Wingnuts) and most defenders of any of these. (In fact, had any aspect of this administratrion EVER been "mended", the entirety of the administration would immediately cease to exist! You can thereby detect the substitution of a word that passes the filters, for one that doesn't pass.
There is nothing ever communicated via the MSM- er, S.C.U.M - from this administration, nor from the Repugnants, nor from the defenders of either, that is not both untruthful and in some degree nefarious, attempting to undermine rather than confront, those who stand in truth.
Consequently, to destroy the administration, all the Repugnants, the S.C.U.M., and the defenders of any of these, is essential to the preservation of our Constitution, and to the very concept of "We, the people." MORA might help, if Rep. Hinchley ever gets it re-submitted.
Gravity of the situation?
This is an extremely important situation. It involves the leader of a foreign government injecting himself into our political process and being supported by a "White House" official who is too cowardly to go on the record.
It is never, ever a trivial matter when Americans are dying and our involvement is being discussed by those who wish to lead this nation.
To imply that this is a trivial matter is absolutely disgusting and I'm really surprised that this would come from you, Tommy.
Actually Tommy was arguing that the more trivial a matter is (as he seems to regard this statement), the more harmless it is (and therefore apparently justifiable) that anonymity be granted to administration officials to disseminate their point of view with impugnity.
Conversely, grave situations like government "coverup[s]", anonymity shouldn't be granted to whistleblowers.
If I have described his position accurately, it is upside down from the current view of journalistic ethics and standards.
Worrier,
What is beneath you is to blantantly mischaracterize what I said. I never said nor implied that what the Australian PM did was "trivial". In fact I even commented on the inappropriateness of it in a couple of my posts. What I specifically said was that the unnamed WH official's identity was not a big deal since it was absolutely expected from anyone in the WH, in the world of politics.
You and many others want to skewer CNN for failing to disclose his or her name, I do not feel it's as egregious an omission as many of you do.
"You and many others want to skewer CNN for failing to disclose his or her name, I do not feel it's as egregious an omission as many of you do." --tommy
Tommy apparently doesn't get it at all. He seems to think that it is okay to grant the privelege of anonymity willy-nilly. If the story is indeed so trivial, why on Earth would you grant the privelege of anonymity? It doesn't make any sense from any rational perspective.
Open,
I am specifically talking about this specific particular instance. I made no generalizing comments about anonymity regarding any other circumstance. If you can't confine your argument to this situation alone, then apparently it goes to the weakness of your position on this issue. Normally not your type of tactic, I am surprised.
Tommy, it's very simple. You're saying "why not give anonymity?"
The question is "why?", not "why not?". Anonymity is not the default. Names are given unless there's a good reason otherwise. That's how it works. You have yet to come up with anything in the same zip code as a good reason why this source should be granted anonymity. Without that, you're in no position to comment on the "weakness" of anyone else's position.
Those that hold strong positions or opinions don't have to expand the argument into an irrelevant area to make their point. I was very specific on this topic alone, I made no reference to anonymity in any other instance.
What "irrelevant area" are you talking about? I'm asking you about this particular instance. What reason is there to grant anonymity?
For the last time, I have answered this. It is so interesting that when some of you cannot accept an opposing opinion it drives you nuts so you keep asking the same question.......get over it, it's only my opinion. It was a political comment from the WH, not some anonymity granted situation because of some crime or secretive situation that warranted it. It was purely political, they took a free shot at a political rival, that's all. It doesn't need to be investigated or scrutinized anymore beyond that - It's politics, the sport of soundbites and posturing........anonymity wasn't "granted", it was more likely thought to be fairly irrelevant beyond just the White House's shot at Obama.
As I said, he handled it perfectly fine and came out on the good side of the whole thing. So calm yourselves. I have stated my OPINION, if you disagree, fine - just stop pounding your heads against the wall trying to make it about anonymity and secrets and spy stuff or whatever.........done.
"anonymity wasn't "granted", it was more likely thought to be fairly irrelevant beyond just the White House's shot at Obama."
Uh, no. This is where you're wrong. As we keep telling you, the default is to reveal the name. It's not like someone thought "oh well we don't see a special reason to include the official's name, so we'll just leave it out". That's absurd. If that is what actually happened, then it's a blatant violation of journalistic ethics and standard practice anyway.
Your argument is "it's ok because I think it's ok". You're welcome to it, but we would like to give you the opportunity to show that you're not that unreasoned and random.
You say anonymity wasn't "granted". Obviously it was. The source was indeed described as "senior Bush administration official". The media didn't say "everyone in the whitehouse believes this and it is official policy". How was that not "granting" anonymity. You are trying to be so abstract to avoid what is obvious that your argument becomes an utter farce.
Nobody is arguing whether this is a "big deal" or whether there should be investigations. You missed the point entirely apparently. It is simply very bad journalism. That is all it is.
I am arguing the press should not have published what the "senior Bush administration official" self-servingly said without telling us who said it. If the senior Bush administration official didn't want to be identified, what he/she said didn't need to be published.
This has nothing to do with how Obama handled it. It is about the media allowing the Whitehouse to use underhanded tactics to spread their political message with impugnity. You don't seem to view that as a problem when it is a Republican administration. It will probably dawn on you if a Democratic Administration pulls the same thing.
Tommy,
Despite the desperate attempts at others here who are trying to elevate this story into some coverup of a source, for whatever reason that escapes me, you are absolutely correct in your assessment of this particular omission by CNN. The crux of the story is about the Australian Prime Minister's interjecting his opinion in our matters, uncalled for, I agree. The White House, in my view, should have made a simple statement voicing their displeasure with the intrusion, but instead chose to capitalize on it by endorsing it. However, that being said, to attribute this quote as some defense mechanism away from anyone in particular is absurd and a head-scratcher. It belongs at Mr. Bush's doorstep as it would not have been made public through this venue had he not authorized it. The fact that the person wasn't named in irrelevant. All the fuss by those who disagree with you is puzzling. However, when everything is viewed by those on the left towards this White House as suspect, then one's take on items such as these are expected. To those arguing against you here, I say your conspiratorial minds have run amok.
Thanks, C.
Perhaps you should make some effort to read people's posts before you weigh in. Everything you've said has been shot down already.
This is not the first time you have admonished another poster, again incorrectly, for chiming in with a differing opinion than yours by claiming we are not up to speed. I have been reading your posts and they appear to be indicative of incoherence. Withering away is often the best option, when you've been soundly defeated.
Thanks, C.
Then wither on.
I'll be more specific, then.
Despite the desperate attempts at others here who are trying to elevate this story into some coverup of a source, for whatever reason that escapes me, you are absolutely correct in your assessment of this particular omission by CNN.
It is covering up a source. That doesn't make it part of a nefarious plot or anything.
It belongs at Mr. Bush's doorstep as it would not have been made public through this venue had he not authorized it.
Why is that? Bush is the White House telephone operator? Nobody has their own private lines that reporters can call in on?
The fact that the person wasn't named in irrelevant. All the fuss by those who disagree with you is puzzling.
Jounalistic ethics and practices are not "irrelevant". And if you were up to speed, the disagreement would not be puzzling at all. It's been explained and justified multiple times, unlike Tommy's opinion.
However, when everything is viewed by those on the left towards this White House as suspect, then one's take on items such as these are expected. To those arguing against you here, I say your conspiratorial minds have run amok.
Where's the "conspiracy"? It's against standard practice, simple as that. Anonymity is not the norm, it's the exception. If you would like to take up the very simple task that Tommy ran away from, you can explain why this official should be granted anonymity. Otherwise, you have no argument, just as Tommy has none.
Ran away? I don't know whether to laugh at your desperation or pity it.
My debating prowess urges me to engage you, however my good sense tells me to let you wither here alone and pathetic. I have seen your tactics on other threads, specifically on your Mother's health condition, and I choose not to be a part of discussing anything with someone who would stoop to such a reprehensible level. If Tommy wishes to waste his time, that is his business. You are not worth the ink on my monitor, my friend.
Thanks, C.
So in other words, you have no argument. Thanks for coming.
:^)
Funny, that was also a conversation with Tommy, where he made a comment about my upbringing because he wouldn't answer a simple question. Apparently my pointing out the specifics of my Mother's condition to show Tommy that his personal comments are inappropriate is "reprehensible". I would love to hear the explanation for that, especially from someone with your "prowess".
I've noticed that several times when Tommy is backed into a corner, someone who doesn't post much otherwise (if ever) shows up to back him up. They also have a habit of coming up with the same sort of strawmen and use the same writing style. Funny, that. Anyone at MMfA who is able to track IP addresses might want to take a look into it, because I wouldn't be surprised if you and Tommy are the same. He's admitted to being a plagiarist, so I don't see why he wouldn't use a sockpuppet.
Can't Engage Logic In Argument
Ran away? I don't know whether to laugh at your desperation or pity it.
Well, to start with, it would be nice if you could explain rationally why you think Brabantio's points were desperate. The fact that you don't do so speaks volumes.
My debating prowess
Your what?
urges me to engage you, however my good sense
Your what?
tells me to let you wither here alone and pathetic.
And instead you do neither; you responded, but didn't address any of his points. Furthermore, if you bothered to read on, you can see that he his hardly alone.
I have seen your tactics on other threads, specifically on your Mother's health condition, and I choose not to be a part of discussing anything with someone who would stoop to such a reprehensible level.
My goodness, what uninformed drivel. Brabantio has one of the finest minds here, up there with Tex and Ellington (and neither you nor Tommy could lay a glove on them in argument on the best day of your lives; Tommy's tried it and failed repeatedly, and you haven't demonstrated that you're even up to Tommy's level).
If Tommy wishes to waste his time, that is his business. You are not worth the ink on my monitor, my friend.
It is a waste of time, since Tommy's not up to the task. We who have been around a while know that he is rational about 25% of the time, totally unhinged about 5% of the time, and just argumentative and irrelevant the rest. "Tommy" and "waste time" go very well together, indeed. And frankly, if you can do no better than be a cheerleader for him, you will never hope to rise above even his level.
That was high praise, thank you!
Reading comprehension problems.
"Despite the desperate attempts at others here who are trying to elevate this story into some coverup of a source" --Celia
Who said that? Who really cares who the source is. The media should not have granted anonymity for no apparent reason. That is the issue. Try to keep up.
Excuse me, but you said:
"The subject of anonymity goes to the gravity of the situation. This hardly rises to any level of some coverup or anything more than an already well-known WH policy being repeated against a political opponent."
If you aren't saying that it is okay to use anonymous sourcing when the issue is trivial enough and "[t]he subject of anonymity goes to the gravity of the situation", then how could I conclude other than it is okay to use anonymity when the story is trivial, but when it is more grave, it shouldn't be granted so much? Until you elaborate to the contrary, my conclusion is entirely reasonable and I stand by it.
If you don't believe that, then describe your position. I am not preventing that as far as I am aware.
Anonymity does depend on each situation, that is exactly what I said - each situation should be judged on it's own.........you are the one who concluded what you think I "meant". However, you are free to conclude whatever you'd like. I stated my opinion on this issue from post #1.
When another issue of anonymity comes up, I will comment on the specifics of that situation. Until then, conclude away.
Your original argument that it is no big deal to grant anonymity to self-serving administration figures as long as the story is trivial is ridiculous enough I suppose without having to conclude further.
You apparently do not understand that anonymity should be doled out sparingly. It should be a rare privelege to protect whistleblowers from reprisal. Giving it out as liberally as this tends to demean it's usefulness in exposing when the government (or other accountable groups) lies to us or does things we might not approve of. It is really pretty simple.
"Anonymity does depend on each situation, that is exactly what I said - each situation should be judged on it's own" --Tommy
The rules for who gets anonymity do not change however. We have one rule from you...something about the gravity of the situation. If it is trivial enough of a story, then anonymity is okay.
Is that the only rule you have? It doesn't resemble any journalistic code I have ever seen. Do your rules change with the situation? That sounds like what a scoundrel or a hypocrite would do.
It seems to me that you want to be free to self-servingly and shamelessly change the rules of granting anonymity as you go along.
I wonder how popular Howard is among the electorate Down Under. The Aussies I met traveling through SE Asia didn't seem to be very supportive of the Iraq War.
Howard appears to be more popular in Australia than Bush is here, but is polling behind his Labor party rival. http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pm-brushes-off-rudd-poll/2007/02/12/1171128856300.html
I'm not sure that's relevant given Australia's parliamentary form of government. However, there may be something else implied in the language of the article that this non-Australian doesn't understand...i.e., an example of being separated by a common language.
I wonder how popular Howard is among the electorate Down Under.
Every bit as popular as Tony Blair is in England, or George W. Bush is in America.
Apparently Howard has about as much scruples as Bush.
So they share just the one?
Are scruples divisible?
I think it is possible that Bush and the Aussie P.M. each have a demiscruple. Which is still better than Rove, who has no more than a femtoscruple.
"Are scruples divisible?"
Yea, I belive so... scruples are like marbles. When it comes to Bush and Howard I believe that probabaly explains that rattling sound that comes from their heads when they talk.
By Senior Bush Administration Official, they probably mean Georgie's dad. That can't be right..Hey, if you were any type of Bush Official, including the Pastry Chef, would you want to go on record for anything.
P.S. Pres. Bush should not joke about having hair. Note: After the SOTU address, he is shown walking from behind and a hairpiece is evident. Anyone have the tape...Source: ME-a low ranking non-administration official.
Before the Cons get upset, youze guys talk about Super Nan's look and Mrs. Clinton's hair, etc. This Prez evens lies about hair.
Someone in the Obama camp or the Democratic Party should've pointed out, since it is clearly stated on Obama's website, that his plan to pull out the "combat" troops from Iraq by March of 2008 is consistent with the Baker/Hamilton report - does Australia's bonehead of a PM realize that to criticize Obama means he's pooping on B/H as well?
That's okay, he and Tony Blair will be out of power by the end of this year.
Also, GREAT comeback by Obama - but even he must know that Howard's unpopularity in Australia will keep him from any chance of increasing Australia's tiny troop number of 1,400 in Iraq.
Nonetheless, the point is driven home thusly: Howard is just another tough-talking coward spouting false rhetoric on Iraq, this time from down under.