Obama = George Bush the Third?
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 10:23 am
Uncontrolled spending, bail outs, similar Iraq withdraw plans, failure to close GITMO, empty promises, etc. I'm starting to see why the conservative press is making all the comparisons of Obama to Bush (i.e. "Obama's Weapons of mass destruction," "Obama's Katrina," etc), though those crusty conservatives were some of the biggest Bush apologist at the same time.
First, don't leak national secrets... it's illegal and if the gubernment has enough evidence and finds out you have, I hope they skull fuck you. At the same time, the gubernment shouldn't be conducting illegal activities that they need to "cover up." So shame on you too, I hope you get your comeuppance.
Second, Shield Laws. There's no federal protection of sources, and the federal government can obtain confidential sources if it's pertinent to the case, as long as they've exhausted every other possible avenue. What's more confusing, is that Obama has said he would sign a Shield Law that is currently in front of the Senate (as mentioned in the article).
Is this just the press making a "woe is me" statement or are their rights as journalist being infringed upon? I thought about this when it was happening under Bush too and the only thing I can think of is that there is no federal protection granted, but does the First Ammendment cover that?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04656.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;After reporter's subpoena, critics call Obama's leak-plugging efforts Bush-like
James Risen, who shared a Pulitzer Prize for disclosing President George W. Bush's domestic surveillance program, has refused to testify about the confidential sources he used for his 2006 book "State of War: The Secret History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration."
"The message they are sending to everyone is, 'You leak to the media, we will get you,' " said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. In the wake of the Bush administration's aggressive stance toward the press, she said, "as far as I can tell there is absolutely no difference, and the Obama administration seems to be paying more attention to it. This is going to get nasty."
Kurt Wimmer, a Washington lawyer who helped win White House approval for a proposed federal shield law, called the move against Risen "disappointing" after "we had positive discussions with the Obama administration" on the need to give journalists a legal foundation for protecting their sources in most cases.
First, don't leak national secrets... it's illegal and if the gubernment has enough evidence and finds out you have, I hope they skull fuck you. At the same time, the gubernment shouldn't be conducting illegal activities that they need to "cover up." So shame on you too, I hope you get your comeuppance.
Second, Shield Laws. There's no federal protection of sources, and the federal government can obtain confidential sources if it's pertinent to the case, as long as they've exhausted every other possible avenue. What's more confusing, is that Obama has said he would sign a Shield Law that is currently in front of the Senate (as mentioned in the article).
Is this just the press making a "woe is me" statement or are their rights as journalist being infringed upon? I thought about this when it was happening under Bush too and the only thing I can think of is that there is no federal protection granted, but does the First Ammendment cover that?
Just read this in the same article.... yet they want journalist to release their sources? Guess it's only a one way door.
