At Pentagon's Request, Post Delayed Story on General's Afghanistan Report

At Pentagon's Request, Post Delayed Story on General's Afghanistan Report

www.washingtonpost.com

To Bob Woodward, it was the modern-day equivalent of the Pentagon Papers. But to Obama administration officials, the classified assessment of the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, if disclosed by The Washington Post, represented a potential threat to the safety of U.S. troops.

The result was that The Post agreed to a one-day delay in publicizing the report by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, and that the paper's top editor engaged in a...

(visit the link for the full news article)

Woodward said in an interview Tuesday that four White House and administration officials strongly objected to the publication of the full report, telling him, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli and a Post lawyer in a conference call on Saturday that "if we publish it as is, it could endanger the lives of troops."

After the Pentagon meeting Sunday with Brauchli, Woodward and Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran, administration officials "did a wholesale declassification of 98 percent" of the document, Woodward said, while The Post agreed to withhold certain operational details. That, Woodward said, "made it easier" for the newspaper to proceed with publication without risking criticism for disclosing classified information.

So, if I am reading this correctly, as long as the President/his administration approves of WHAT information is to be released....then the First Amendment may continue to exist.

Yes, that is probably a rather harsh statement to make considering the safety of our great nation would be in jeopardy if the FULL TRUTH were actually told.

This is just another shining example in my opinion of the total control of the media by the White House.

Once again, anything and everything can be done so long as it's in the name of "national security".

So....more importantly, who wants to take a guess at what's included in the 2% that remains classified?

www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Uh...I'm beginning to think you have an agenda.

Nah, just kidding.

So, if I am reading this correctly, as long as the President/his administration approves of WHAT information is to be released....then the First Amendment may continue to exist.

Yes, that is probably a rather harsh statement to make considering the safety of our great nation would be in jeopardy if the FULL TRUTH were actually told.

This is just another shining example in my opinion of the total control of the media by the White House.

Once again, anything and everything can be done so long as it's in the name of "national security".

There have been a couple instances this year of the press being told what they cannot print, in the interests of (cough) 'national security' or to 'protect' troops from 'backlash' of angry militants over the publication of torture photos.

I'm pretty sure that I believe in freedom of the press...makes me think of Watergate...or Monica Lewinsky...did neither of those have any implication for national security? Is a snake without a head easier to kill?

Yeah, it all sucks. We get to hear what they 'approve' for us to hear. But we DO have Fox.... We should be thankful for that, right? At least all of the voices aren't the same all of the time when they're all telling us the same pasteurized crap.

Originally posted by lpowell0627

Woodward said in an interview Tuesday that four White House and administration officials strongly objected to the publication of the full report, telling him, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli and a Post lawyer in a conference call on Saturday that "if we publish it as is, it could endanger the lives of troops."

After the Pentagon meeting Sunday with Brauchli, Woodward and Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran, administration officials "did a wholesale declassification of 98 percent" of the document, Woodward said, while The Post agreed to withhold certain operational details. That, Woodward said, "made it easier" for the newspaper to proceed with publication without risking criticism for disclosing classified information.

So, if I am reading this correctly, as long as the President/his administration approves of WHAT information is to be released....then the First Amendment may continue to exist.

Yes, that is probably a rather harsh statement to make considering the safety of our great nation would be in jeopardy if the FULL TRUTH were actually told.

This is just another shining example in my opinion of the total control of the media by the White House.

I disagree with you there.

I understand how, left unchecked, this could easily spiral out of control.

But I will make 2 points.

1) The press is already no longer free, the media is already under the thumb of the government. There is no "good" or "trustworthy" mainstream news. I find very little online that is much better or much more verifiable, on a case by case basis of course. But my point is, they ALREADY control what information we get, this is NOTHING new.

2) In this specific case, I think if they put that out, the enemy would surge against us, and many of our guys would lose their lives. Giving a 1 day delay to allow withdrawl and save lives is not bad, I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Whether we agree with the causes of war or the reasoning, we are AT WAR, and we must remember that. Each day they are fighting in our name over there. Please support the troops, regardless whether you support the administration.

Originally posted by KSPigpen
At least all of the voices aren't the same all of the time when they're all telling us the same pasteurized crap.

I'm sorry but, we can no longer be friends after this statement. Fox News is the worst thing that has ever happened to America. So that's why I FOE'D you.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by BaronVonGodzilla]

reply to post by BaronVonGodzilla


Left unchecked? You mean like screaming "bomb!" in the middle of a crowded station or airport?

Apparently I have the wrong understanding of the First Amendment.

I also think it suspicious that this happened with the Post, and then a couple of days later they announced Obama was contemplating bailing out newspapers. After he said he absolutely would NOT bail out newspapers (back in Feb / March).

I'm looking for the exact dates on the Afganistan article and announcement for newspaper bailout to see if they line up....

more proof that american news is nothing but pentagon propaganda