White House forbids former aide's critical op-ed

[Andy9o8 0]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/15/nyt-cia-oped/


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.”

[Amazon 7]

More of the same.. KING GEORGE does NOT like to hear opinions that do not coincide with his way of thinking.

[NCclimber 0]

There's already one thread about getting chubbie(s). You kids try not to make too much of a mess with one.

[willard 0]

Same thing every administration for the last 200 years has done. No more, no less.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Same thing every administration for the last 200 years has done. No more, no less.

More like considerably more.

[Gawain 0]

And this is based on what? Since when does the NYT give a shit about what the White House wants printed or not printed? Anyone remember the flurry of shit that the Post and NYT pulled the stops out to print in an effort to undermine the administration (right or wrong aside).

This guy is whining. More likely, the NYT simply doesn't want to print it. Perhaps it's a poorly written piece. Maybe...just maybe...the Times has already printed a whole bunch of crap about the ISG's recommendations about using some channel to engage with Iran.

Of course that's the White House's fault too right... ?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Andy9o8 0]

Or maybe...just maybe... it's just one more example of the White House's paranoid, anally-retentive, obsessive-compulsive desire to control any and all information it can, and to suppress, censor, intimidate and punish those that have the audacity to say that the emperor has no clothes.

On the other hand, I just had an incredible chocolate pecan pie. It was da bomb.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

On the other hand, I just had an incredible chocolate pecan pie. It was da bomb.

I like it when they put a ribbon of chocolate mousse along the crust...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Or maybe...just maybe... it's just one more example of...

Maybe...but I still contend that NYT is the obstacle here. Everyone, and I mean everyone admonished the Times to hold off on printing the big stories of the year (prisons, wiretaps, money tracking etc), and they thumbed their nose at it. Now, they're going to listen when it comes to one essay? It's an op-ed...not even "real" news (not that the Times is good at that either)...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Maybe...but I still contend that NYT is the obstacle here. Everyone, and I mean everyone admonished the Times to hold off on printing the big stories of the year (prisons, wiretaps, money tracking etc), and they thumbed their nose at it. Now, they're going to listen when it comes to one essay? It's an op-ed...not even "real" news (not that the Times is good at that either)...

I'm not saying you're wrong. However, it sounds to me as if he is not being allowed to sell his op/ed to NYT, perhaps due to something he signed when he separated from government service?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

More of the same.. KING GEORGE does NOT like to hear opinions that do not coincide with his way of thinking.

Wow...he's running the NSC in disguise, too?? And y'all keep saying he's an idiot....

Quote

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

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Oh PUHLEEEEESE.. you dont think ANYONE in King Georges Administration would allow anything derogatory to be heard from ANY of their underlings now do you????

They know their asses would be on the line.. King George is just that kind of man...with that much paranoia... of anyone who does not agree with him....... Its the same old you are either with us.. or you are against us.. and King George does NOT want to hear anyone contrary to his beliefs.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Oh PUHLEEEEESE.. you dont think ANYONE in King Georges Administration would allow anything derogatory to be heard from ANY of their underlings now do you????

They know their asses would be on the line.. King George is just that kind of man...with that much paranoia... of anyone who does not agree with him....... Its the same old you are either with us.. or you are against us.. and King George does NOT want to hear anyone contrary to his beliefs.

The sad thing is that you believe it's just this administration, evidently. You've obviously forgotten about the bogus IRS audits and all the other crap that got pulled during the last administration to destroy people that spoke out against the Clintons.

Speaking of people thinking they're royalty...

Quote

"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president." - H. Clinton

I don't recall hearing about GB1 or Reagan trying anything like that, so spare the me the "CDIF" BS, please...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Oh PUHLEEEEESE.. you dont think ANYONE in King Georges Administration would allow anything derogatory to be heard from ANY of their underlings now do you????

They know their asses would be on the line.. King George is just that kind of man...with that much paranoia... of anyone who does not agree with him....... Its the same old you are either with us.. or you are against us.. and King George does NOT want to hear anyone contrary to his beliefs.

If NSC has this kind of influence, then why didn't it work against the press releases of the money tracking, CIA prisons, and wire tapping? Those are far bigger pictures.

This guy (former aide) is simply butt-hurt that NYT won't take his op-ed, from what is a virtual sea of plenty of opinions about the ISG.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

so spare the me the "CDIF"

Actually, as I recall, NDIF.

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

If NSC has this kind of influence, then why didn't it work against the press releases of the money tracking, CIA prisons, and wire tapping? Those are far bigger pictures.

But was the author of those articles a former aide? That is the difference in this case, not the content, but the author.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I still contend that NYT is the obstacle here.

That's pure, unfounded speculation.

[kallend 1,646]

Quote

Quote

Oh PUHLEEEEESE.. you dont think ANYONE in King Georges Administration would allow anything derogatory to be heard from ANY of their underlings now do you????

They know their asses would be on the line.. King George is just that kind of man...with that much paranoia... of anyone who does not agree with him....... Its the same old you are either with us.. or you are against us.. and King George does NOT want to hear anyone contrary to his beliefs.

The sad thing is that you believe it's just this administration, evidently. You've obviously forgotten about the bogus IRS audits and all the other crap that got pulled during the last administration to destroy people that spoke out against the Clintons.

Speaking of people thinking they're royalty...

Quote

"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president." - H. Clinton

I don't recall hearing about GB1 or Reagan trying anything like that, so spare the me the "CDIF" BS, please...

And then there was Richard Nixon. Bogus IRS audits, "the plumbers", missing tapes, the whole 9 yards.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh PUHLEEEEESE.. you dont think ANYONE in King Georges Administration would allow anything derogatory to be heard from ANY of their underlings now do you????

They know their asses would be on the line.. King George is just that kind of man...with that much paranoia... of anyone who does not agree with him....... Its the same old you are either with us.. or you are against us.. and King George does NOT want to hear anyone contrary to his beliefs.

The sad thing is that you believe it's just this administration, evidently. You've obviously forgotten about the bogus IRS audits and all the other crap that got pulled during the last administration to destroy people that spoke out against the Clintons.

Speaking of people thinking they're royalty...

Quote

"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president." - H. Clinton

I don't recall hearing about GB1 or Reagan trying anything like that, so spare the me the "CDIF" BS, please...

And then there was Richard Nixon. Bogus IRS audits, "the plumbers", missing tapes, the whole 9 yards.

Sounds like they learned their lessons well, hmm? Bogus audits, stolen FBI files, missing/dead people...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

If NSC has this kind of influence, then why didn't it work against the press releases of the money tracking, CIA prisons, and wire tapping? Those are far bigger pictures.

But was the author of those articles a former aide? That is the difference in this case, not the content, but the author.

I disagree. The NYT salivates at that very prospect of "critical" op-eds. They've never hesitated in the past. Other administration officials have not had such problems being critical, some guys writing books, former Sect'y of State Colin Powell, etc.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

I still contend that NYT is the obstacle here.

That's pure, unfounded speculation.

So is the original article you cite. It's based purely on the aide's contention that he's being blocked by the administration. Talk about speculation...

edit to add: This guy is not being stopped by publishing his op-ed. If he really had a bomb-shell, he could easily publish it on a blog, web-site, or other media outlet. If it was "really" good, the main-stream will pick it up...hell, they'll jump the gun.

If he's unsuccessful with the NYT, try the LA Times, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Boston Globe...there's no shortage of media to carry an op-ed piece.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If he's unsuccessful with the NYT, try the LA Times, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Boston Globe...there's no shortage of media to carry an op-ed piece.

Very true. That's exactly why it seems more probable that it is the WH and not the NYT holding up the op-ed.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Very true. That's exactly why it seems more probable that it is the WH and not the NYT holding up the op-ed.

I don't see it that way. This guy is complaining specifically about the NYT. If I was shopping an op-ed, I wouldn't focus on one single outlet.

If he's really "the man" the modern day "deep throat" over policy at the White House, the press would've jumped on it. No, I think he was vetted by the NYT and they decided themselves to keep a distance.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

This guy is not being stopped by publishing his op-ed. If he really had a bomb-shell, he could easily publish it on a blog, web-site, or other media outlet. If it was "really" good, the main-stream will pick it up...hell, they'll jump the gun.

If he's unsuccessful with the NYT, try the LA Times, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Boston Globe...there's no shortage of media to carry an op-ed piece.

Or maybe he has not yet submitted the article to be published because he has not yet received the appropriate clearence? Nah, it couldn't be that he is trying to actually play by the rules. He is clearly an asshole and the character assissination needs to start based on assumption and the fact that he doesn't agree with me.

[NCclimber 0]

Here is what he wrote.

Quote

publicly critical of the Bush administration's mishandling of America's Iran policy -- in two op-eds published in the New York Times, another published in the Los Angeles Times, an article published earlier this year in The American Prospect, and a monograph just published by The Century Foundation, as well as in numerous public statements, television appearances, and press interviews. All of my publications on Iran -- and, indeed, on any other policy matter on which I have written since leaving government -- were cleared beforehand by the CIA's Publication Review Board to confirm that I would not be disclosing classified information.

Until last week, the Publication Review Board had never sought to remove or change a single word in any of my drafts, including in all of my publications about the Bush administration's handling of Iran policy. However, last week, the White House inserted itself into the prepublication review process for an op-ed on the administration's bungling of the Iran portfolio that I had prepared for the New York Times, blocking publication of the piece on the grounds that it would reveal classified information.

This claim is false and, I have come to believe, fabricated by White House officials to silence an established critic of the administration's foreign policy incompetence at a moment when the White House is working hard to fend off political pressure to take a different approach to Iran and the Middle East more generally.

The op-ed is based on the longer paper I just published with The Century Foundation -- which was cleared by the CIA without modifying a single word of the draft. Officials with the CIA's Publication Review Board have told me that, in their judgment, the draft op-ed does not contain classified material, but that they must bow to the preferences of the White House.

The White House is demanding, before it will consider clearing the op-ed for publication, that I excise entire paragraphs dealing with matters that I have written about (and received clearance from the CIA to do so) in several other pieces, that have been publicly acknowledged by Secretary Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and that have been extensively covered in the media.

IMO it looks like it's the White House, not the NYT, that is applying pressure.