EXCLUSIVE: White House Forbids Publication Of Op-Ed On Iran By Former Bush Official
EXCLUSIVE: White House Forbids Publication Of Op-Ed On Iran By Former Bush Official
Middle East analyst Flynt Leverett, who served under President Bush on the National Security Council and is now a fellow at the New America Foundation, revealed today that the White House has been blocking the publication of an op-ed he wrote for the New York Times. The column is critical of the administration’s refusal to engage Iran.
Leverett’s op-ed has already been cleared by the CIA, where he was a senior analyst. Leverett explained, “I’ve been doing this for three and a half years since leaving government, and I’ve never had to go to the White House to get clearance for something that I was publishing as long as the CIA said, ‘Yeah, you’re not putting classified information.’”
According to Leverett the op-ed was “all based on stuff that Secretary Powell, Secretary Rice, Deputy Secretary Armitage have talked about publicly. It’s been extensively reported in the media.” Leverett says the incident shows “just how low people like Elliot Abrams at the NSC [National Security Council] will stoop to try and limit the dissemination of arguments critical of the administration’s policy.”
Listen to Leverett’s remarks at a panel today at the Center for American Progress:
Transcript:
Thanks. I think I was able to put out some of my basic ideas on how we need to be engaging Iran diplomatically. They’re, you know, expounded on in greater length on paper. I wanted to say something briefly about the administration, and where it is.
I have been extremely pessimistic that this administration is inclined or capable of genuinely rethinking its approach to Iran in the way that we need it to at this point, and I’ve had an unfortunate experience this week that has only confirmed that for me. As I do with all of my publications, the Century Foundation paper, I showed to the CIA, for whom I used to work, to verify that I was not revealing classified information. They did so, as they have with 30 other things that I’ve published since leaving government. Didn’t ask to change a word.
I prepared an op-ed for the New York Times off of this paper, which is ready to go, ready for publication. The CIA says that as far as they’re concerned, there’s not any classified information in it. But the White House has intervened, claiming that there is classified information in the op-ed, even though it’s already been cleared. It’s all published. It’s all based on stuff that Secretary Powell, Secretary Rice, Deputy Secretary Armitage have talked about publicly. It’s been extensively reported in the media. But the White House is saying I can’t publish an op-ed in the New York Times that lays out the argument. I’ve been doing this for three and a half years since leaving government, and I’ve never had to go to the White House to get clearance for something that I was publishing as long as the CIA said, ‘Yeah, you’re not putting classified information.’
Why this week — after the Baker study group, when pressure is on them to rethink their position on Iran — why do they not want this op-ed, based on my experiences in government, my experience dealing with Iran, with Iranian officials, after I left government? Why do they not want this op-ed going in the New York Times this week? I think it says something, and I think it says something about just how low people like Elliot Abrams at the NSC [National Security Council] will stoop to try and limit the dissemination of arguments critical of the administration’s policy.
UPDATE: For more on Leverett’s perspective on Iran, read a paper he wrote for The Century Foundation earlier this month.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
101 Responses to “EXCLUSIVE: White House Forbids Publication Of Op-Ed On Iran By Former Bush Official”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
This administration has initiated more power grabs than any previously have.
December 15th, 2006 at 5:54 pmFirst amendment——quaint, like the Geneva Convention?
December 15th, 2006 at 5:56 pmIf that guy was an enemy combatant, I would go off on his hair, but since he isn’t I won’t.
December 15th, 2006 at 5:56 pmHow can this be. Hey Exley is this ithe freedom we’re fighting for?
December 15th, 2006 at 5:57 pmAll I can say is, live it up, Bush. I pray that once the Dems take control next month, this sh*t will stop.
December 15th, 2006 at 5:59 pmIt’s clear this administration is not considering “what comes around goes around” there’s a lot coming. What precident is set for the next Democrat who takes the office of the President? The Repubs will be whining and screaming when the new rules are applied to a Dem President. No vision I tell ya, no vision.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:02 pmI’m glad Leverett went public on this.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:06 pmHow is it that the neo-con criminal scumbag, Elliot Abrams, was allowed to take an appointment in the Bush administration? The next time somebody gets the goods on him, they better lock his sorry ass up and leave him there.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:07 pmDoes the admin have that authority? If the NYT printed it anyways and were hauled into court over it, after the CIA cleared it does the admin have that authority?
I think this guy should go read his piece on any news station he can on TV, read it everywhere!
Freedom to express unclassified information IS our right! Don’t forget it!
December 15th, 2006 at 6:14 pmRemember how they shut down the book Favorite Son? I have said from the beginning that these * (Vonnegut reference) will do anything to hold on to power. Anyone want to bet we have a big terror attack scare within the next six months?
December 15th, 2006 at 6:15 pmWoman: Mr. Franklin What do we have?
Franklin: A republic if you can keep it
– Benjamin Franklin, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention
Sound even more true today will all our liberties being erroded.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:17 pmWhat legal authority do they cite? The EOP and OVP have no independent authority to classify material that doesn’t originate with them that’s already been cleared by the Agency.
This is just bizarre and seems to be legally unfounded and civil harrassment. Sue them. And, publish anyway.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:24 pmBush gives bush a bad name. I used to use the term bush liberally, now it doesn’t seem right anymore. Ya’ll will have to shave now. (sorry that was terrible).
December 15th, 2006 at 6:39 pmAll I can say is:
I hope his wife’s not undercover.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:40 pmWhat I don’t understand is why the NY Times is letting us down like this, like how they kept the illegal wiretapping secret for over a year. They have a professional responsibility to immediately publish this piece.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:41 pmWe are like lobsters being bioiled slowly in a pot. The temperature goes us so gradually that we don’t notice. Our rights are being removed one by one and soon there will be none left, but like the lobsters for us it will be too late.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:42 pmAnother item added to the list - a list we must ALL do our best to ‘get out there’ as mainstream neocon owned media will not. Our rights are being yanked out from underneath us and most do not realize it. This dictator has to go.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:42 pmPeople are losing fear in the Bush Regime, and coming forward.
Unfortunately, Congress is not comprised of people.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:45 pmNext they’ll go after this guy’s wife. Isn’t that an old mafia tactic? Organized crime in the white house…absolutely unbelievable! What has this country been reduced to? Lies, deceit, coverups, blackmail, spying….this sounds like a third world country.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:48 pmBush is peeing in his pants with the new congress.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:49 pmMike, the NY Times pushed the Whitewater investigations years after it was known that the Clintons had done nothing wrong. The NYT spent a year trying to convince voters that Gore was a creep and Bush was a good guy you’d like to go to a barbecue with. The New York Times got right up Bush’s behind and helped him cheerlead the invasion of Iraq. They canned an article about a NASA imaging expert who said he could prove Bush cheated in his debates with Kerry. Anybody who expects the NYT to be some kind of standard bearer for liberalism should think about their record.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:50 pmLet the whistleblowers come out of the woodwork! This lame duck of ours has no power left so those who have either been blackmailed into silence or given hush money to keep the criminal activities secret will be coming forward for immunity. Otherwise, they will become complicit themselves - just because the boss says to break a law, when one obeys, they are just as guilty themselves…..it’s cryin’ time for this administration. They need to be investigated (all of them from the bottom to the top), indicted, and convicted…..and for some at the tippy top….impeached! Heads will begin to roll and tongues will begin to wag when the dems take charge in January.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:50 pmAnd we should be surprised by this????? What about this goatf*&king regime don’t we get?
As they say, we get the government we deserve, I just can’t figure out what I did that was so wrong to deserve these scumbags!
December 15th, 2006 at 6:56 pmSo once again idiot sonis acting like the petulant brat his poppy raised him to be.
Just publish the paper sir. Make the petulant brat take you to court. He seems to loose there a lot. poppy bush can’t get them all for jr.
December 15th, 2006 at 7:01 pmWhite House Forbids Publication Of Op-Ed On Iran By Former Bush Official…
Why do they not want this op-ed going in the New York Times this week? I think it says something, and I think it says something about just how low people like Elliot Abrams at the NSC [National Security Council] will stoop to try and limit the dissemin…
December 15th, 2006 at 7:11 pmHell, there not even standard bearer for journalism…
December 15th, 2006 at 7:15 pmJudith Miller, the number one pusher of the Iraq War, worked for the New York Times up until not too long ago.
‘Nuff said.
December 15th, 2006 at 7:34 pmLooks like the nice pretty filter did work. Or I was deleted.
December 15th, 2006 at 7:40 pmAny other way to get a copy his op-ed?
December 15th, 2006 at 7:43 pmthis sounds like a third world country.
Comment by veritas
Hey, hey. We are not that sophisticated. Our intelligence are a bunch of geeks building robots in the MIT.
December 15th, 2006 at 7:43 pmYes, I already knew all these things about the NYTimes, like how they were cheerleaders through Judith Miller for the Iraq invasion. What I’m asking is, how can they allow such blatant political censorship to take place in their own newspaper? They do set themselves pretty high standards, even if some of their reporters tend to be cheerleaders for establishment policies and rhetoric.
December 15th, 2006 at 7:43 pmOk, we don’t know if it’s the NYT being intimidated or Mr. Leverett himself. The proper way for the Bush Administration to pursue the matter would be to seek an injunction, similar to what was sought in the Pentagon Papers case. However, the likelihood of success with an injunction is next to nil. Therefore, it is logical to assume the Bush Administration is resorting to strong-arming.
And with the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the Bush Administration has a very strong arm. Would you care to risk being labeled an “unlawful enemy combatant” just for the sake of publishing an op-ed piece? Or risk simply disappearing into one of the black sites the Bush Administration maintains in foreign countries around the globe?
And remember, the Bush Administration was given the green light to continue its warrantless wire-tapping program during the appeals process, even though the district judge found it to be unconstitutional.
December 15th, 2006 at 7:47 pmFurther evidence that George W. Bush is mentally unbalanced. He simply cannot deal with empirical reality. Anyone who has the audacity to discuss the empirical facts, in his deluded mind, must be silenced. This man poses a grave threat to this republic, and must be toppled. Our country is teetering on the edge of a disaster. The US has an unprecedented amount of debt (much of it owed to banks in the totalitarian People’s Republic of China), is losing on the battlefield, has a military in tatters, and has waning credibility worldwide. This madman has endangered us all, and must be stopped.
December 15th, 2006 at 7:47 pmAnd remember, the Bush Administration was given the green light to continue its warrantless wire-tapping program during the appeals process, even though the district judge found it to be unconstitutional.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Oh yeah, crap.
December 15th, 2006 at 7:51 pmExecutions Halted in Florida and California. Interesting. Hopefully this is a start of better things to come. “Botched” execution, says the Florida medical examiner. Jeb stopped the executions.
You know I think George Sr. was crying so much over Jeb, Cuz Jeb may have more Human like quailities, and it wasn’t supposed to be the Chimp.
December 15th, 2006 at 7:57 pmwe should be surprised by this????? What about this goatf*&king regime don’t we get?
As they say, we get the government we deserve, I just can’t figure out what I did that was so wrong to deserve these scumbags!
Comment by upside00 — December 15, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
We didn’t get the government we deserve, not because we don’t deserve it, but because our winnner-take-all electoral system has become the exclusive playground of the major parties. We need serious changes in election law, like Instant Runoff Voting, proportional representation.
Wayne Turner
December 15th, 2006 at 8:00 pmTime to get the tar boiling and feather a few birds. Grab a pitchfork, as well. Time to tar and feather these worthless bastards and run them out of the country! Maybe to Iraq… Bush’s legacy is sh*t.
December 15th, 2006 at 8:01 pmWhy isn’t the time publishing nonetheless. If the CIA approved it, they are on good legal grounds. Why is the media still afraid a president with a 70% disapporoval, a hated vice-president, and hated Republicans?
Why is that prick Abrams — who arrogantly lied to Congress under oath during the Iran-Contra hearings –still wielding any power?
This is an egregious attempt at censorship. Bush is emulating is good friend Putin. How long will it take for the Bush brownshirts to start raiding newspaper offices and sending journalists to jail?
December 15th, 2006 at 8:12 pmWhat I don’t understand is why the NY Times is letting us down like this, like how they kept the illegal wiretapping secret for over a year. They have a professional responsibility to immediately publish this piece.
Comment by Mike — December 15, 2006 @ 6:41 pm
Actually, it probably works out better for the NYT’s and every freedom loving American to hold this story for a couple of weeks until it builds enough inertia to do maximal damage to the administration… consider it an act of providing enough rope to properly hang ones self.
December 15th, 2006 at 8:14 pmCan’t anyone ever think outside the realm of the administration for a second? Like think about nuclear nonproliferation as a serious goal, which is being undermined by the hypocratic US policy on India and Israel and Pakistan, among others. Really, “G.W.SuperChrist”. True freedom of information would result in us knowing what former government officials think of solutions to international crises. The NYTimes should be alert to what constitutes the definition of “international crisis” for the US.
December 15th, 2006 at 8:22 pmLooks like the nice pretty filter did work. Or I was deleted.
Comment by ForTruth — December 15, 2006 @ 7:40 pm
Welcome to the club. I was deleted several times last night responding to a troll.
December 15th, 2006 at 8:28 pmGovernment has no right to block public access to this type of information, especially when it contains no classified information. He should publish it anyway
December 15th, 2006 at 8:35 pmReally, “G.W.SuperChristâ€.
Comment by Mike — December 15, 2006 @ 8:22 pm
Not sure if you are agreeing with me or questioning my assertion - but rest assure this article will be published… and the longer it takes the more the anticipation will build… it going from being a drop in the bucket to being a big splash… this will almost certainly turn out to be a positive development in the end!
December 15th, 2006 at 8:44 pmRE: “We got the government we deserve”—that presupposes that we elected the bastard instead of having him rammed down our throats by crooked Secretaries of State (Catherine Harris in Florida in 2000 and J Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio in 2004) and the US Supreme Court (Bush vs Gore, 2000). Bush never won a clean national election…
December 15th, 2006 at 8:46 pmYou know, Im just reading Bradbury´s Fahrenheit 451. Scary similarities everywhere.
December 15th, 2006 at 8:51 pmUnbelievable - Have you seen the “Yes Men†yet… just wondering?
December 15th, 2006 at 8:51 pmA little history on Elliot Abrams: During the Iran-Contra Affair, Abrams was indicted for giving false testimony about his role in the illicit money-raising schemes by the special prosecutor handling the case, but he pleaded guilty to two lesser offenses, both felonies, of withholding information from Congress in order to avoid a trial and a possible jail term. Quoted in a 30 May 1994 article in Legal Times, Abrams spoke of his prosecutors as “filthy bastards”, the proceedings against him “Kafkaesque,” and members of the Senate Intelligence Committee “pious clowns” whose raison d’etre was to ask him “abysmally stupid” questions. President George H. W. Bush pardoned convicted felon Abrams along with a number of other Iran-Contra defendants shortly before leaving office in 1992. Yep. And now he is Baby Bush’s National Security Advisor.
December 15th, 2006 at 8:57 pmHave you seen the “Yes Men†yet… just wondering?
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — December 15, 2006 @ 8:51 pm
No… But considering “The Corporation” never made it to my local video store either, I doubt that it’s a rental option for me… Maybe I’ll do NetFlix for a month and get a hold of the important films.
December 15th, 2006 at 9:05 pmYou know, Im just reading Bradbury´s Fahrenheit 451. Scary similarities everywhere.
Comment by Juan C — December 15, 2006 @ 8:51 pm
I’ve only seen the movie… Imagine the book is much better.
I think the next telling work of prophetic ‘fiction’ after this will be Soylent Green…
December 15th, 2006 at 9:10 pmOn April 28, 2004, at a London banking conference to which they had accidentally been invited because of their satirical website, “Dow representative” “Erastus Hamm” unveiled “Acceptable Risk,” a Dow industry standard for determining how many deaths are acceptable when achieving large profits. The bankers enthusiastically applauded the lecture, which described several industrial crimes, including IBM’s sale of technology to the Nazis for use in identifying Jews, as “golden skeletons” - i.e. skeletons in the closet, but lucrative and therefore acceptable ones.
Several of the bankers in attendance then signed up for licenses for the “Acceptable Risk Calculator” and even posed with Acceptable Risk mascot “Gilda, the golden skeleton in the closet,” for photos.
The exercise was intended to illustrate the absurdity of depending on “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) to set limits to corporate behavior. If corporations were completely free to behave as the market demands - the logical extreme of CSR - then industrial catastrophes of huge magnitude, such as Bhopal, would not necessarily be disadvised.
http://www.theyesmen.org/ hijinks/ dow/ acceptablerisk.shtml
December 15th, 2006 at 9:12 pmPrior Restraint? No Way. I don’t understand why Leverett can’t publish his op-ed. That’s ridiculous. The CIA has cleared it. The Executive doesn’t have the right to prior restraint. If this is the NYTimes pandering to Bush out of fear, why not just pick a site and publish it on the net? It will get more attention than if it’s in the NYTimes, and will eventually get covered by the Times and Cable. I don’t get why Leaveritt doesn’t just publish it? Will he be arrested by DHS? Who’s going to arrest him? There are other venues for publication, certainly.
December 15th, 2006 at 9:17 pmThe Yes Men. Fantastic!
December 15th, 2006 at 9:22 pmA forthright congressman ought to get this entered into the Congressional Record a la The Pentagon Papers.
It’s not like this is even classified material, just stuff the bushies are trying to stifle….
December 15th, 2006 at 9:23 pmUnbelievable - As a recent Netflix subscriber - I highly recommend it… the movies are cheaper, the selections are vast, there are never any late fees, and the mailman brings the movies right to the house… I just can’t figure out why it took me so long to become a member?
I myself am getting ready to watch “Who Killed the Electric Car” … good luck with the video searches… may you have a leisurely and enjoyable weekend.
December 15th, 2006 at 9:26 pmBush
Bin Laden
Ahmadinejad, Saddam Hussein
Dobson, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity
They seem to have so much in common
December 15th, 2006 at 9:33 pmI still want to see the actual editorial. Silly me.
December 15th, 2006 at 9:33 pmJustice Hugo Black’s Concurring Opinion in New York Times v. U.S. (the Pentagon Papers case) (emphasis added):
“In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government.
The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”
December 15th, 2006 at 9:46 pmI believe the article was posted in the Wash Post.
http://www.newamerica.net/ pressroom/ 2006/ flynt_leverett_on_engaging_iran_in_the_washington_post
December 15th, 2006 at 10:01 pmmay you have a leisurely and enjoyable weekend.
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — December 15, 2006 @ 9:26 pm
Not until next week when finals are over… : )
But thanks - hope you have a nice one yourself. Let us know how Who Killed The Electric Car is…
December 15th, 2006 at 10:12 pmBush
Bin Laden
Ahmadinejad, Saddam Hussein
Dobson, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity
They seem to have so much in common
Comment by big dave from queens
Very perceptive of you :D
December 15th, 2006 at 10:25 pmThe next Bush Library will be called “Classified” with nothing inside but W’s.
December 15th, 2006 at 11:40 pmThe Bush administration is taking a page from the book of fascist regimes who restricted freedom of speech under the guise of national security, whn it was merely to prevent someone from exposing them. (In this case, from exposing them with previously exposed facts.)
December 15th, 2006 at 11:41 pmYou are depending on the NY Times for your news… That IS funny!
December 15th, 2006 at 11:59 pmThis phase of the Bush presidency 2006-2009 I’m calling Neo-con Pause in Reality-check Nation, yet this gentleman’s experiences in trying to expand the dialogue based on his governmental knowledge is disheartening. Perhaps Neo-con Highnoon in Reality Nation continues.
December 16th, 2006 at 12:53 amWhat, does it take for Americans to really get mad at this dictatorial government. American citizens are suppose to be running this Nation through the persons we elect to office, and telling them what our wishes are, Not them telling us that they are the Decider and will do as they damn well please, as they trash our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We should not ask, but, demand impeachment of Bush and Cheney, or cutting off funds to stop this war.
December 16th, 2006 at 12:57 amRemember what brought down Russia (they try to give all the credit to Reagan), was their fighting and over spending in the War against Bin Laden, which in we Backed Bin Laden at that time. And wasn’t that the republican’s famous president Ronald Regan, the same as gave support fto Suddam, with supplies used for Chemical warfare against Iran. Why do people wonder why Iran doesn’t thing very much of United States.
Just how bad does the war with Iraq have to get before Americans demand a change.
From here on… it’s not the welfare of our soldiers, not “truthiness” nor the country’s best interests….it’s creating a legacy for an out going President.
December 16th, 2006 at 3:32 amThey have a big task ahead.
Just to reiterate: Elliot Abrams is a convicted felon, convicted of subverting the rule of law during the Iran Contra Scandal. But I don’t blame Mr. Abrams for his well-documented moral deficiencies nearly as much as I blame the unconvicted felon who hired him — into a position where his natural destructive tendencies can once again be inflicted upon the Constitution and those who want to uphold it. Sorry for this humorless response, but really, whatever happened to “restoring honor” to the White House?
December 16th, 2006 at 3:57 amWhy not just disseminate the piece through the Internet? That would not be too hard…
Chris Voidis
A History Of The Future Middle East
December 16th, 2006 at 5:25 amBush has provided free speech zones for us. There must be one at a location convenient to Mr. Leverett. Surely he could just avail himself of one of those.
No problem.
December 16th, 2006 at 7:53 am[…] A series of question marks pop up — the road to mapping out this world-spanning web of alleged terror-management is taking shape. As active duty soldiers themselves begin taking a stand against the Long War , the U.S. government still contends it’s in a position to muzzle any and all dissent in the name of national security (whatever that is). […]
December 16th, 2006 at 9:02 amAll Congress has to do is subpoena the book and enter it in the record.
It’s public then.
He can’t make money, which is what Bushie is making sure any non-loyalist occurs.
Time is up for BushieBoy. His next two years will be answering subpoenas and indictments. Scooter is happening next month, and if BushieBoy wants more money, he is going to have to cowtow and kiss some major butt.
December 16th, 2006 at 9:23 amHas anyone stopped to ask why we should engage Iran, in the first place? Whatever the reason, it’d better not be over their so-called nukes.
December 16th, 2006 at 10:11 amThe MORE IMPORTANT issue behind this story is “why?”
This administration WANTS to go to war with Iran - just as badly as it wanted to go to war with Iraq, as Seymour Hirsch, etc. has been trying to warn us. They simply need the right excuse - fabricated again if need be.
It is simply Phase II of the PNAC agenda, which is also helps the Oiligarchy and AIPAC - the two entities which currently control “our” government.
They don’t want to talk to Iran - because it is easier to justify killing demonized strangers.
December 16th, 2006 at 10:26 amWhen are people like Flynt Leverett going to understand that the entertainment industry owned (save for defense contractor GE who owns NBC), tax-break collecting MSM is the infernal bastion of the great Corportocracy that gets to decide all by itself what is and is not newsworthy and wants the couch potatoes entertaintained first; informed dead last (if at all)?!?
I’m rapidly becoming sick and tired of feeling sorry for people like Flynt Leverett when there’s a huge ammount of people within the Blogosphere who would be happy to indulge and honor his First Amendment rights by publishing his rejected Op-Ed since the allegedly free MSM is apparently too pre-occupied with shaving their legs and rolling on the leaderhozen at the Decider’s behest
Mr. Leverett needs only to leave a comment on my blog and I will publish his Op-Ed and forward it to any other blogger and indepedent media organization for wide, liberal, dissemination — even if I myself may not agree with it.
December 17th, 2006 at 7:04 amThis is “prior restraint” and has already been judged as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (Pentagon Papers). In truth, there may be nothing earth-shaking in his Op-Ed, but it reveals an Executive Branch which once again demonstrates it’s “unitary executive power” theory.
December 17th, 2006 at 8:46 amtruth is verbotten, sieg heil !
December 17th, 2006 at 9:17 am[…] According to Leverett the op-ed was “all based on stuff that Secretary Powell, Secretary Rice, Deputy Secretary Armitage have talked about publicly. It’s been extensively reported in the media.†Leverett says the incident shows “just how low people like Elliot Abrams at the NSC will stoop to try and limit the dissemination of arguments critical of the administration’s policy.†read more… […]
December 17th, 2006 at 2:44 pmI think you’re confusing “public record” with “public domain.”
December 17th, 2006 at 3:35 pmThe only thing Elliot Abrams cares about is Israel and his brethren.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:07 amDid you see where Bush threatens any TV station or Network with criminal action if they air episodes of “Mission Impossible” because he believes it will undermine his image… :)
December 18th, 2006 at 2:56 amJust go to the LA Times with it they’ll publish it
December 18th, 2006 at 8:09 amamerican went to war with the president it had, not the president it wanted.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:10 amLook you guys. Havent you learned yet that if the jews in charge dont want anything printed even if they own the paper then it want be and we know now that Iran talks are forbidden by the neocon aka neohebs and Israel under any circumstances.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:23 amAnd if you dont it then too bad since AIPAC runs this nations foreign policy and if you complain too much the televitz will be flooded with Holo-hoax documentaries and dead jews in Germany after WW2 and also Speilsberg will make another couple big billion dollar movies about it in Hollywood.
So take your medicene and shapup. This is the Jewnited States/Snakes or whatever you want to call it and they are calling the shots with their idiot duped Bush moron cokehead drunk draft dodger silver spooner who wastes trillions for them.
So shut your piehole and pay them taxes cuz Bush and his boyz need all they can steal.
Jew S A!
December 18th, 2006 at 8:37 amJew S A!
Jew S A!
The neo-cons want to treat the first amendment like global warming. “What First Amendment?”
December 18th, 2006 at 9:56 amTwo years ago I read an obscure story about how a giant pile of documents that had once been public domain began disappearing from the D.C. library where historians went to study them. These were all documents that were long ago classified, but were later were declassified. For example, one document was a CIA estimate dating from early in the Korean war concerning Chinese troop levels or effectiveness that materially underestimated their effect. It showed how seriously limited the skills of the CIA were in its early days.
Turns out these documents were being reclassified. Why? There is absolutely no “national security” reason for it. Rather, the reason is because it is convenient for Bush to do so. To set a precedent.
The obvious question at the time was “Why should we be concerned?” And the answer is that Bush is determined to write his own version of history - one that denies any inconvenient facts. Unfortunately for him, just about every fact contradicts his strange orthodoxy. His only hope is to nullify all known fact. It is a big effort, but he has been remarkably effective, at least in spots.
This Op-Ed piece may be the most visible part of Bush trying to write a convenient, if fictional, history. But it is barely the tip of the iceberg. John Dean, in Worse than Watergate, argues that the path of democracy is dimly lit by the torch of information. And when the executive systematically and purposefully deceives and makes unavailable crucial information for making decisions, it extinguishes that torch. It is only a matter of time before democracy stumbles and falls. And who knows how far that fall might take her?
December 18th, 2006 at 12:18 pm[…] This is a good story to keep in mind when one reads the great flap about Flynt Leverette’s quashed Op-Ed piece. Leverette was an undersecretary in Bush’s administration who was in charge of Iran policy. And his piece is assumed to be a blistering indictment of the administration’s inept handling of Iran. The implications of snuffing out this important piece cannot be overstated. This is but the tiniest tip of a Titanic information - busting iceberg. […]
December 18th, 2006 at 12:40 pm[…] Flynt Leverett, a Middle East analyst who served under President Bush on the National Security Council, revealed on Friday that the White House has been blocking the publication of an op-ed he wrote for the New York Times. The column is critical of the administration’s refusal to engage Iran. Leverett accused the White House of trying to “silence an established critic of the administration’s foreign policy incompetence.” (Steve Clemons, Christy Hardin Smith, and Juan Cole have more.) […]
December 18th, 2006 at 4:30 pm“According to Leverett the op-ed was “all based on stuff that Secretary Powell, Secretary Rice, Deputy Secretary Armitage have talked about publicly.”
I know! It’s about WMD in Iraq! Nope, in Iran! both!
Who cares? Lies, lies, lies, not a single true story came from both white house and the media since 2002…
December 19th, 2006 at 8:35 am[…] The Washington Post examines the apparent White House censorship of former Bush National Security Council Middle East Director Flynt Leverett, a story ThinkProgress first reported on Friday. […]
December 19th, 2006 at 9:37 amNow that Rumsfield’s minnie military strategy has proven to be both mickey mouse and full of bugs we have to ask oursevles was he daffy or just plain goofy… And, will he take responsibility or will Donald duck?
BTW, BTW, BTW…that’s all folks…. :)
December 19th, 2006 at 11:38 amThe NYT has sure declined since the days of the Pentagon Papers.
The “Gray Lady” is now Bush’s toady.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:24 pm[…] By MediaChannel. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ eandp/ news/ article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003524632 http://tinyurl.com/y48m3u http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/15/nyt-cia-oped/ […]
December 22nd, 2006 at 12:05 pm“We didn’t get the government we deserve, not because we don’t deserve it, but because our winnner-take-all electoral system has become the exclusive playground of the major parties. ”
Nonsense. We didn’t get the government we deserve, not because we don’t deserve it, and not because of the ‘electoral vote’ system, but because the United States does not have OPEN, VERIFIABLE ELECTION BALLOTS.
This government lets the ‘computerized’ voting stand. As someone else said out here earlier, “nuff said”…
December 26th, 2006 at 9:07 pmWho cares what this government bureaucrat has to say. He’s just another mincining pansy. War with Iran has been on the block for a quarter century its about time we paid these filth back for Lockerbie Flight 103. Where the government of Iran slaughtered 80 US school children. I hope homeland security is monitoring everyone who posts here. You are all a bunch of cowards scum and traitors. Once we get George “lickspittle” Bush out of office John “Hanoi Hilton” McCain will show the brown man what real war is like.
December 29th, 2006 at 1:44 amDetonate fusion weapons over Quom and the revolutionary gaurd. A 500 megaton detonation over the tomb of Satan’s puppet Khomeni will teach the muslim a lesson: The murdering of shool children and office workers in the civilized world is over. A few million dead Iranians should settle that score.
Gay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 10:25 pmben kingsley filmography
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..
March 20th, 2008 at 4:45 amIncest Room
came across our site doing some research coming from this other domain but as I can see it has nothing to do with “incest”, guess its a mistake
March 27th, 2008 at 9:31 amGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 27th, 2008 at 12:55 pmGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 4:30 pmGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 10:29 am