[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: House National Security committee guts SAFE, worse than no bill

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

[Jonah Seiger writes]:
> > There are important policy implications of this language.  And politically,
> > it is extremely significant that Reinsch would be critical at all,
> > considering that the Committee voted to substantially undercut the bill
> > (one of Reinsch's top priorities).  Perhaps you missed this nuance.

[Declan takes over]:
> The "important policy implication" of this language may just be Freeh
> serving as a convenient launching platform for trial balloons. Reinsch can
> swat them down as he sees fit if they get hit by too severe a barrage,
> then reintroduce them later after the clamor dies down. (Politically, BTW,
> it is much more interesting what Gore said today than Reinsch.) Like I
> said, bad cop and worse cop. Reinsch was critical of nuances -- ones that
> you perhaps missed -- not the general plan to wire in Big Brother.

Gore didn't say shit.  Sorry but there is no polite way to say this.  
Gore's remarks at the SPA speech were a great example of "state speak" 
which the State Dept. has perfected, saying much and in "code" through 
the use of phrasing and even tone.

Gore said the White House couldn't support Freeh's plan... what he meant 
was "yet" because, in fact, thereis no formal plan to "accept."

But the minute that the House or Senate pass such a proposal out of 
committee is the minute WhH policy changes.  And I'll be anyone one 
that... any takers?

Gore is playing word games, practing for the run for the money in 2000.