MONDAY's LETTERS: 'E&P' Introduces New Feedback Feature

By: Greg Mitchell Letters, we get letters, we gets lots and lot of letters. Those old enough to remember the Perry Como TV show will recognize that refrain, but it certainly holds true here at E&P decades later. The problem is, the "letters" section at this Web site is pretty much buried up there in the site index (this will probably come as a surprise to most of you reading this).

For months, we posted some of our letters there but always had the sense that few readers found them. So a few weeks ago we pretty much discontinued doing that. But that's certainly not a solution.

When we launch our new blog in September, publishing a lot of feedback will no longer be any problem. Until then, or until we are able to set up a more prominent letters feature right here on the home page, we will carry a daily entry in this spot, called, variously, "MONDAY's LETTERS," "TUESDAY's LETTERS" and so.

We will add letters as they come in, at the top, so check back every few hours, if you wish, for the latest update. Or, blog-like, you can respond to a letter you find here.

Here's a start, most recent first, with many more to come.

***

Subject: Q&A with Scotty in 11 July article

Yeah. We need this times 10!! Thanks for publishing the weasel's words.

Best Regards,

Elizabeth Anne Green
Columbia, Maryland

***

Why Does Karl Rove Still Have His Security Clearance? If Rove were anyone else, it would have been taken away the second the WH security office learned about his role in the Plame matter, and he would have been out the door.

Has he even been questioned about it at work? If so -- he probably was -- wonder what he said? Was he under oath? There may be other crimes here. Lying to the Grand Jury is just one of them. Isn't it time our leaders and the corporate media started asking these questions, too?

You don't have to be indicted to lose your clearance. Anyone who presents a threat of unauthorized release of classified materials loses his clearance. There's plenty of cause to believe that in Rove's case. If I were in the WH security office, I would be demanding Rove's keys, right now.

In fact, if the security office doesn't make that demand, they should be investigated. Anybody in the FBI or SS reading this, please pick up the phone and call your colleagues at 1600 Penn. Remind them to look in the procedures manual.

If this issue gets raised by someone in a position of visibility, the White House will have to reveal what efforts have been taken, if any, to guard against further breaches of security.

Mark Levey
Washington, DC

***

To Doug Clifton, editor, Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Concerning recent reports that you are spiking two stories based on documents that have been leaked to you illegally, I have a simple solution: have your contacts submit the documents to me. I am a freelance journalist and I guarantee you I can find someone with the courage to publish this story. If not, I'll write the story and publish it online, free of charge. I feel the public's right to know in the case is great enough to donate my time, and I will gladly take on the legal risks implicit in writing this story. Since you are not running the story, there will be no financial risk for you. You can find links to samples of my work at www.dylanottokrider.com.

Dylan Otto Krider

***

Concerning the decision by the Cleveland Plain Dealer not to publish sensitive stories in the wake of the Miller-Cooper case:

So, is the obvious conclusion, then, that in the future, they will no longer even report that they are withholding a story? Rather, they will just be silent regarding any investigations and discoveries?

Michael Garrison
Chicago, Illinois

***

Where is the story regarding Time magazine?s story that shows only that Karl Rove spoke to Matthew Cooper before the Novak column? Furthermore, the notion that Plame was a covert agent is far from evident from any report I have seen. An analyst is not usually considered a covert agent. Of course, unless you subscribe to the theory that all CIA employees are covert agents.

In reality, the real story ignored by the press is whether Wilson?s trip to Niger resulted in accurate information. It is apparent that he missed the boat. Several intelligence agencies, including those of the UK and US concluded Saddam Hussein did seek yellow cake from Niger!

The mainstream media hyped Wilson's conclusions and did very little to show the other side. One wonders just to what extent the journalistic community will go in trying to destroy Rove. While he may have been the source who revealed Plame's identity, we certainly don't know that as of yet. The Special Counsel is still investigating.

Unlike the news gatherers of this country who seem only interested in undermining Karl Rove, Fitzgerald is actually trying to find out who did. Trial by journalism. Guilty until proven innocent. What a country! This, coming from a profession who demanded proof beyond any doubt before they would write stories about perjury.

H. Michael Sarkisian
Sacramento, CA.

***

The rationale behind the Cleveland Plain Dealer pulling a story because of the whistleblower confidentiality decision by the Supreme Court is ridiculous. The decision gave no shield rights to reporters (and presumably the whistleblowers themselves) if the matter concerns evidence of a crime.

Why would the Plain Dealer want to conceal evidence of a crime? Why would the whistleblower? Isn't the very purpose of the whistleblowing and subsequent publishing of the information to publicize the crime and bring it to the attention of the authorities? Certainly it is the duty of every citizen to come forward with evidence of criminal activity, especially in the case where it involves the government and the public weal. But if you don't know who has the information and access to the evidence, how do the proper authorities proceed?

Libel laws generally prevent publishing something that involves a private person in the private sector, but where does one go to protect yourself from criminal allegations leveled in a newspaper if it is shielded from producing the accuser? That's why our legal system relies on trial by jury rather than trial by editor.

Bill Henslee

Send letters to letters@editorandpublisher.com.