Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama's Newfound Support for Reporter Shield Law Meant to Distract From War on Information (108 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Reporter shield laws are not inventions of the (12+ / 0-)

    anti-Obama Left. The President as a Senator in 2007 and 2008 cosponsored a reporter shield law that would have protected the AP. The law was killed by Republicans.

    So, no, President Obama didn't just develop a conscience in terms of reporter shield laws because of diaries on the internet.

    It should also be reported that the President isn't running for office so he isn't exactly currying favor here with any particular group. Also, I doubt the public cares much about the AP, even though the issue is an important one.

    Lastly, I just would like to point out that your cynicism regarding anything Obama is well documented.  Just over a year ago, in May of 2012 you wrote a diary ridiculing reports of the Yemen underwear bomb plot. You cited your cohort Greenwald as also ridiculing the news of such a plot, as basically a lie. This was your headline at the time:

    Calling BS on "Underwear Bomb Plot": Blatant Fear-Mongering As Conflict Escalates in Yemen

    Just a minute after reports of the CIA thwarting an upgraded underwear bomb, my iPhone was all aTwitter with disses and jokes:

    Has everyone called BS on this underpants plot yet? (Andrew Exum)

    If claims about this plot are true, it's the first plot in ages not to be concocted, funded, directed & driven by the FBI, so that's good. (Glenn Greenwald)

    Why the skepticism?  Try ten years of hyped-up fear-mongering about terrorist "threats" that turned out not to be true, or greatly exaggerated, including the last "underwear bomb" attempt--foiled not by the government, but by alert passengers.

    (Shaking my head...You and Mr. Greenwald are certainly hilarious) But now here you are ridiculing the administration for wanting to protect reporters after the justice department investigated AP reporters as it related to you and Greenwald's ridiculed nonexistent attack.

    Are you accepting that the news of the administration’s thwarting of said attack to being not made up now? Or was the ridicule just part of the run of the mill an anti-Obama mindset?

    On a side note, Greenwald was on television not long ago agreeing with Republicans that somehow the President did something wrong in the Benghazi incident.

    So, yours and Greenwald cynicism of everything Obama is kina well documented.

    People ask the President to keep them safe as well as protect their liberties. This is an important responsibility, but it can frequently be a difficult and contradictory task. Still, I think the President is doing the best he can. An oddly enough, the majority of people in this nation agrees with him.

    What is interesting is the frequent attacking of Obama  for "not doing" and when he "does" criticize him for "doing" because he was criticized for "not doing".  Amazing....

    Does the President seek to protect the rights of reporters? I believe he does. And why do I believe this? Well he has done it before, and it was certainly not due to the prodding or criticism of the anti-Obama Left.

    •  you missed the diary on the front page (25+ / 0-)

      "There's a catch, however. That previous bill, called the Free Flow of Information Act and introduced by Schumer and Arlen Specter, was originally opposed by the Obama administration over "national security" concerns. A compromise was carved out that would allow current and future administrations to declare that a given leak was an issue of "national security"—and would require judges to accept a prosecutor's say-so that the information being investigated met the criteria for such an exemption. That was a broad enough loophole that it helped kill support for the entire bill. It's apparently that compromise bill that's going to be reintroduced"

      Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

      by greenbastard on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:52:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nothing in the law as it stands forced the (16+ / 0-)

      DOJ to do this.

      This is the President saying "please stop me", as if he were powerless to control his own Justice Department.

      I don't care what he says he supports - what matters is what he does.

      This is what he did.

      "The thing about smart motherfuckers is that they sound like crazy motherfuckers to dumb motherfuckers." Robert Kirkman

      by JesseCW on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:39:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You were defending WH position on chained CPI, (13+ / 0-)

      Ned...just a month ago...since you've already "gone there," dredging up someone's "history." Frankly, anyone that plays games, such as you are now in these comments, is shameful. And, I would posit, that anyone that defends the White House position on chained CPI has very little understanding of what it means to be a Democrat. Period. Jesselyn Radack is, without question, more of a Democrat than you'll ever be. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. So, in one sense, you are right. It's all about context. But, when it comes to Democratic Party context, you really appear quite clueless.

      Who's the "Democrat" here?

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:45:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The commenter has been solidly behind the... (6+ / 0-)

        ...White House's position on Chained CPI, pretty much all along.

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:50:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not Democrats, But Obama Super Fans. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BroadwayBaby1, Don midwest

        The Democratic Party is screwed in 2016 when Obama's superfans drop off and don't come out to vote since he's not running for POTUS anymore.

        "The problem with posting quotes off the Internet is you never know if they're genuine."--Gen. George Washington at the Battle of Gettysburg, February 30, 1908

        by Aspe4 on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:33:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ahh, now you have become the decider on who is (0+ / 0-)

        a “good Democrat”....

        Let me just say that if we had to depended on vilifying criticism of this President day-in-and-day-out as a measure of being a “good Democrat” he would not have been re-elected, and you would now be confronting governance based on the psychosis of Tea Party Republicans.

        Now, it seems you are laboring under the belief that your declaring to your anti-Obama faction that I supported the President on chained CPI would have filled me with shame....

        Perhaps you viewed me as analogous to Charley Crist who once hugged the President and was immediately ostracized by Republicans....  I have no such fear.

        Other Presidents, including Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, proposed changes to Social Security. OBAMA WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE.

        But interestingly enough, when they proposed those changes no one ran around calling them “evil”, “thieves”, or “crack addicts", as some here have characterized this President over the past few weeks.

        Now, in terms of the diarist, if you believe that it is shameful for me to cite past diaries of this diarist, on a material point, where she and Mr. hilarity himself, Glenn Greenwald, ridiculed the President or his administration for being dishonest or lying in terms of reports that they thwarted a terrorist attack in Yemen,  and now she has constructed a diary based on the issue of the same terrorist attack in Yemen that she and Greenwald claimed to not have happened in the first place, then your idea of what is shameful is somewhat backward.

    •  but but but DROOOONNNNNZZZZZZ! (3+ / 3-)


      OBAMA BAAAAD!!!!

      oh, and i forgot - whistleBLOWer!!!!

      really, this diary isn't all that "amazing", considering the source.

      what i DO find amazing, though, is that this constant bashing of a democratic president continues on a democratic blog supporting democratic candidates - but, then, it does sell books that are self-published to a group who wants something to bash - even if it IS in direct opposition to their own best interests.  folks who blather on about how ebul obama is wouldn't stand a chance in a country where even one tenth of their extraordinary (translate: absurd) claims were actually true.

      raddack is new new "jane hamster", imho

      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:53:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  LOL! (14+ / 0-)

        A self-promoter accusing someone of trying to sell books...hahahahaha.  How is the jewelry business going, btw?  I couldn't help but notice the link you have in your tag line.  I also couldn't help but notice that your post is in direct contradiction to the 'Is it kind? Is it true? Is it necessary?' questions in the same tag line.  Or are those guidelines for other people who post, with you exempted?

        The diarist has been a consistent and credible voice regarding whistleblowers and this administration's obsessive and outrageous prosecutions of them.  Please send Senators Leahy and Reid and Rachel Maddow notes asking them why 'Democrats' like themselves are so down on a Democratic President regarding this issue.

        •  sweetie, perhaps you've not noticed, but my "shop" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          I love OCD

          has had the same five items since december of last year... nothing new - nothing added - nothing "promoted".


          sorry - forgot, you're a raddack fan, so i guess you're not much into reality based comments.

          credible?  raddack?

          you're kidding me, right?  from a woman who turned sealed court documents from a case she was not part of over to a news reporter for self aggrandization?  credible?

          from someone who resigned before being brought up on ethics violations?  credible?

          you really need to read the definition of "credible" before you start aiming wild-eyed accusations about self-promotion toward me and then take a look at the person who has self-published a book proclaiming her own gradiose behavior (even if it WAS in violation of her code of ethics as a lawyer.

          my sig line - is it true, is it kind, is it necessary - absolutely does apply here:

          is it true? - what raddack says?  no.  it's not.

          is it kind? - this, applied to someone with a biased political agenda does not apply.  there is no "requirement" to be "kind" to someone who deliberately distorts a situation for her own self-promotion.  i, personally, have no "dog" in this fight - i challenge the veracity of the diarist and her stated "views".

          is it necessary? - to combat those who mislead, misrepresent, mislead? absolutely - for to remain silent endorses the mistruths, misrepresentations, misleading statements.  raddack does NOT represent "whistleblowers" - she represents herself in an attempt to justifiy her own highly questionable decision and her own attempt to cover that bad/unethical action with the term "whistleblower".

          raddack didn't "blow" anything with the information she turned over to a reporter - the information was already a part of the court case and deemed by the judge as material to remain under seal - something of which she had no knowledge since she was NOT part of the prosecution in that case.  she DECIDED she knew more than the participants in that case and chose to release information while ignorant of the true facts of the case.  she undermined the judicial process.  she violated her oath as a member of the court (lawyer).  then, when she was exposed as having behaved unethically (turned the material over to a reporter instead of the judge in the case - who already had ruled on the exact same information while the case was before him), she showed her inexperience, her ineptness and her lack of ethics to the dept of justice and all within and without the legal profession.

          raddack has absolutely NO credibility because of her own actions - and her continual attempts to garner support on this site and elsewhere to somehow ameliorate her own poor judgement do not justify her behavior.

          she can write books until the cows come home - she can self-publish and promote herself as much as she likes but that won't change the FACTS of her behavior.

          any further questions?

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:34:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  ah, the hr' abusers are at it again. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        I love OCD, Quicklund, NedSparks

        i didn't realize that criticizing raddack was an automatic qualifier for an hr from SOME folks around here!  LOL!

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:35:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you haven't sold that pearl necklace... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jarrayy, shaharazade, brasilaaron

 would be a good time for you to put it on and clutch it.


        •  No really, enjoy it! Given for the name calling (5+ / 0-)

          and taking a crap in someones diary.  

          Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

          by divineorder on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:59:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Isn't it strange though? For as much as they (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          accuse supporters of the President as "worshippers of the President" you should see how they treat every word from some of these anti-Obama folk.

          To some of them, every word that is handed down by Glenn Greenwald is analogous to being manna from heaven. A man who has never held public office who, has far as I know, beyond attacking the President on a daily basis, has never done anything of public note to benefit the base of the Democratic Party's constituents.

          Yet, he appears to derive great pleasure to position himself as the nemesis of Barack Obama. And many here enthusiastically celebrate him in that role.

          But it was made abundantly clear to me, a few months ago, when some of the anti-Obama critics here were celebrating Rand Paul for his disingenuous charade of a filibuster that no one is beyond being an ally, as long as they oppose, what a few have termed the "evil" Barack Obama....

          I mean Rand Paul??? ....Phew!!

      •  When Democrats... (5+ / 0-)

        act against the interest of the country and the party why should we not bash them?

        "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

        by cardboardurinal on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:40:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  my HR is for what Kos warned about 'being a dick' (7+ / 0-)

        in someone's diary and that's all your comment amounts to,showing up solely for personal attacks on the writer and with nothing germane to what she wrote.

        without the ants the rainforest dies

        by aliasalias on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:59:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Great comment edrie, uprated. (0+ / 0-)
      •  Mocking drone victims now edrie? (6+ / 0-)

        News Flash:
        People interested in politics normally criticize based on the issues, that's what they do. It's what keeps democracy alive.

        To thine ownself be true

        by Agathena on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:18:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Discussing issues... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Agathena, MrJayTee, Ginger1, BroadwayBaby1

          ...gets in the way of smearing the messenger.

          edrie has quite a laundry list of accusations regarding Ms. Radack time spent in government, which, conveniently allows her to ignore any points, valid or otherwise, that Ms. Radack makes in her diaries.

          I remember when Kieth Olbermann had a show on MSNBC.  I was very fond of a contributor he frequently had on to discuss the illegality of the Bush Administration.  He was a criminal who served time back in the 70's.  His name is John Dean...a convicted felon and counsel to the disgraced former president, Richard Nixon.  I suppose when John Dean gets on tv and opines about the questionable legal end-runs of the former administration, he should be ignored based on his complicity in Watergate...based, of course, on edrie's ad hominem illogic.

          •  I've often heard whistleblower John Dean (4+ / 0-)

            (ex advisor to Nixon) on tv. He knows what he is talking about.

            To thine ownself be true

            by Agathena on Thu May 16, 2013 at 05:39:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  you deserve more information as to why i criticize (0+ / 0-)

            raddack so harshly.

            she misrepresented the facts in her action - she has never admitted to anyone that the information that she turned over to the press was already in the hands of the court.

            instead, she has doubled, tripled down to try to whitewash her behavior and actions by claiming to be a "whistleblower".

            i respect actual "whistleblowers" - my fellow classmate testified before congress regarding an issue in this d.o.j. - he went to congress - not the press.  he is a lawyer - he has ethics.

            raddack, imho, is unethical - her actions, her excuse (and using whistleblower IS an excuse for what she did) and for that reason, i hold her in great disdain.

            her "foundaton" (or what ever it is) is also "self-serving" - a way to gloss over her lack of judgement - and, for that, i have no respect for anything she says - and i don't trust her one bit.

            i'll listen to other sources who i consider to be credible and then form opinions.  she has no credibility for me whatsoever.

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:25:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are mistaken... (0+ / 0-)

              ...about Radack -- about what she did, and why she did it.  Only the most loyal Bush lackey would agree with your assessment.

              The judge in the case brought against her by the Bush administration Justice Department concluded that her email disclosures to Michael Isikoff did not violate any court order.

              Again, a case where the government broke the law and violated a citizen's constitutional rights and not one person is held accountable, but the person who informed the public about the governments criminal activity is hounded and punished...hardly a matter of national security, to boot.  

              •  sadly, you are the one who is mistaken. (0+ / 0-)

                perhaps you've not read what her own colleagues had to say about her behavior?  brown alumni magazine - from fellow members of the bar?

                you really should read the criticisms.  scathing is too mild a word for their assessments of her behavior and of her lack of ethics.

                sorry, but ethics MATTER - she should get some.

                EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                by edrie on Thu May 16, 2013 at 11:40:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I read the Brown Alumni Mag. piece... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...and the Letters to the Editor regarding the article -- and I found the few criticisms therein FAR from scathing.  As a matter of fact, the most 'scathing' criticism of her comes from a man, Charles H. Hunter - Yale Class of 58, who refers to then-assistant attorney general of the criminal division of the DOJ, Michael Chertoff (now judge), as:

                  a man of unquestioned integrity with a long and very distinguished career of public service.
                  emphasis added.  Needless to say, I DO, quite openly question Mr. Chertoff's integrity, despite Mr. Hunter's rather high-minded opinion of him.

                  Chertoff, btw, didn't consider Lindh's interrogation as a violation of his Constitutional Rights -- a demonstration of his 'unquestioned integrity', no doubt.

                  Moreover, the greatest criticism I read was that rather than turning over the e-mails she thought were missing from the sealed case file to a supervisor, she went to Michael Isikoff at Newsweek instead.  But, according to the Government Accountability Project, a law firm that defends whistleblowers and was advising Radack, "courts have been more likely to protect whistleblowers who leak to the media than those who disclose perceived wrongdoing to colleagues, superiors, or other insiders."

                  If you would care to link to additional criticisms of Ms. Radack, please feel free, because what you have encouraged me to look at thus far is pretty weak tea and doesn't come CLOSE to the scathing threshold.

                  Considering what the FBI and the Ashcroft Justice Dept. did in the John Walker Lindh case -- and what Radack revealed about how he was interrogated, I've yet to see any substantive criticism of Radack's actions that don't smack of political partisan retribution and a blatant attempt to smear someone who warned against questioning him outside the presence of his action that Michael Chertoff, paragon of unquestioned integrity, didn't even consider to be a violation of Lindh's Constitutional Rights.  

    •  Awesome comment (17+ / 0-)

      as in awe-inspiring. A collection of all the prObama rhetorical tactics:

      It includes blatant dishonesty (saying Prez supported law as sen w/o he opposed it as Prez)

      - It not only employs a smear but pretends it's fact ("your cynicism regarding anything Obama is well documented.")

      - It not only brings in the Greenwald bogey man but lies about his position ("Greenwald was on television not long ago agreeing with Republicans that somehow the President did something wrong in the Benghazi incident.")

      -- It articulates a right-wing position w/o realizing, arguing there's a choice between safety and freedom ("People ask the President to keep them safe as well as protect their liberties. This is an important responsibility, but it can frequently be a difficult and contradictory task.")

      -- And last but not least, it uses an empty authoritarian cliche, as if it were an argument.  ("the President is doing the best he can.")

      Well done!

    •  I'll give you style points (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10, 4kedtongue

      You didn't mention Playboy Magazine at all.

      Bad things aren't bad! And anyway, there's mitigation!

      by Nada Lemming on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:34:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (131)
  • Community (61)
  • 2016 (46)
  • Elections (38)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (35)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (28)
  • Barack Obama (28)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Culture (24)
  • Economy (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Spam (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site