"It is the lie that will get you." Richard Nixon

Now that White House Aides were involved in leaking information concerning the Ambassador Wilson matter, why did the Bush 43 White House cause Scott McClellan to lie to the White House Press Corp? Mc Clellan's credibility may be seriously damaged in terms of being a White House Spokesperson.

Now that the e-mail message of Matt Cooper reveals that Karl Rove specifically leaked information to him, the question again must be, "Why did the Bush 43 White House, cause Scott McClellan to lie to the White House Press Corp?

Now that a leak by Karl Rove has bee documented, Why did President Bush 43 say today that anyone convicted of a criminal act will be removed from my administration regarding this leaking of information. Before this statement, President Bush 43 said that any leaker would be fired from his administration.

Now that Matt Cooper revealed on Meet The Press Sunday July 17, 2005, that additional sources are involved in this leak, Why did the Bush 43 White House, cause Scott McClellan to lie to the White House Press Corps?

If lying and leaking are not criminal, are they unethical? If the Bush 43 White House is the "crusading" symbol of the religious conservative right, Is being unethical a fireable offense for Karl Rove?

If morality is the indeed the highest form of reasoning according to Plato, then these guys aren't that smart or that moral.

">Link

Freedom of the Press ?????

The 1st Amendment took a slight step down that slippery slope of freedom of the press yesterday. With the "chill in the air", Time Magazine decided to turn over the notes of one of its reporters Matt Cooper to the Federal Prosecuter. The prosecuter is investigating the leak of information that named a CIA agent....who will remain nameless here! Time said, "That in matters of National Security we are just like any other citizen." Tell Daniel Ellsberg that one.

Not since 1971 has the US Supreme Court been down this road of journalistic freedom. In the New York Times v. The United States, The Court decided that "prior restraint" had no place in a free society. It appears that in this "Post 9/11" World that a federal prosecutor may determine infront of a grand jury that "confidential sources" have no place in a free society.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "If I have to choose between no government and no press, I would assuredly choose the former not the latter." Similar to the assault on the Senate Filibuster, removing a freedom of the press safeguard for national security takes our nation down the road with one more step of putting us under the increasing control of the government. Being controlled by the government is fascism.

While the dominating words in the churches of the land will debate the removal of parishioners for voting for John Kerry, praying in school, gay men and women marrying, pro life, and war........let us not forget that bundled with the freedom of the press is also the free exercise of religion.......

If we want democracy, a republic, freedom and liberty, we as a nation of citizens must accept and protect the parameters of our democracy's rules and functional guidelines. If we assault them and remove them, then civil liberties will be lost. And so shall we.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/politics/01leak.html?pagewanted=print