Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Two Sides Of Schumer
CNSNews.com ^ | 10/01/03 | Paul M. Weyrich

Posted on 10/01/2003 2:32:24 AM PDT by kattracks

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is highly regarded within political circles for his ability to capture the mood of the moment and milk it to his advantage. However, whether Senator Schumer should command respect based upon consistency and willingness to put principles ahead of "politics of the moment" is another matter.

This can be seen clearly by the Senator's statements in the current flap over whether a White House official - Karl Rove is the one taking the rap in press allegations -- had permitted disclosure of a CIA agent's name.

Don't take my word for it. Let Senator Schumer's own words do the talking.

Already, Senator Schumer is demanding an independent prosecutor to investigate the matter because he does not trust Attorney General John Ashcroft to do so in an above-board manner.

"Dastardly" is the term that Senator Schumer has used to describe the leaking of the name. "There are many serious allegations that this is at the highest level of the White House," Schumer has argued.

When asked whether he is letting politics take precedence, the Senator replied: "It's the right thing to do."

This would be understandable if only the Senator had not been so vociferously opposed to cracking down on national security leaks. For instance, it was Senator Schumer who in a November 6, 2000 Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor story complimented President Clinton when he vetoed a measure to increase the penalties on those who had been found guilty of disseminating classified documents to unauthorized parties.

Not only did Senator Schumer proclaim in a news release "President Clinton did the right thing." He actually cited the veto as being consistent with the First Amendment. Then, he added: "Although the bill seemed well-intentioned in its attempt to deter leaks of classified information that could affect our national security, it did so without regard for the potential of rampant over-classification of government information and would have had a profound effect on the ability of an informed citizenry to keep our government honest."

On August 4, 1989, then-Representative Schumer expressed concern in a Los Angeles Times story about a new federal policy that would have permitted the prosecution of federal employees who leaked information to the press.

What was Schumer's concern? "Whistle-blowers could be prosecuted on political whim."

But that's not all.

Then, there are the Senator's statements in The New York Daily News on October 10, 2001. He spoke just after President Bush had expressed anger about leaks that he thought came from Congress at a time "when we have troops at risk."

President Bush was angered about these breaches, but Senator Schumer was not. Senator Schumer thought it was the President who had blown his lid unnecessarily. "I abhor the leaks from Congress, but I don't think it's just Congress that's leaking," Senator Schumer told The New York Daily News. "We're going to have to come to some [compromise on] the need to share information...with the Hill and the need to keep it secret."

Clearly, jeopardizing national security by making irresponsible leaks cannot be condoned whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats, the Executive Branch or the Congress or the press who does it.

I sincerely doubt, however, that this will be the last we hear from Senator Schumer on the matter.

Just remember this: What you hear from Senator Schumer now is not what you would have heard from him as recently as two years ago.

Is the Senator's memory failing? Or does he have selective memory?

(Paul M. Weyrich is chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.)


Copyright 2003, Free Congress Foundation

 



TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: karlrove; paulmweyrich; plamenameblamegame; robertwilson; schumer

1 posted on 10/01/2003 2:32:25 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks



 









2 posted on 10/01/2003 2:39:03 AM PDT by autoresponder (go ahead - add some expresso to the Yukon Jack!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piasa; Grampa Dave; seamole; mrustow; Sabertooth

This is the Plame Name Blame Game ping list.
Freepmail me to be added or dropped.
You may also find all posts to this ping list by searching on keyword PLAMENAMEBLAMEGAME.

Note this is a HIGH-VOLUME ping list!
Please ping me to any Plame/Wilson threads!
There is no way I can catch them all myself!!


3 posted on 10/01/2003 2:51:47 AM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I can't stand the guy...

He's the walking, talking definition of "smarmy!"

Mark
4 posted on 10/01/2003 3:03:44 AM PDT by MarkL (There's no place like 377.000.000.001 !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Schumer, thy name is Hypocrite.
5 posted on 10/01/2003 3:31:45 AM PDT by Peach (The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Two Sides Of Schumer

They're selling him short. Schumer has a least three sides.

6 posted on 10/01/2003 3:44:06 AM PDT by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autoresponder
He looks jealuos,"I hang around third world commie despots all the time,and they never ask me to dance,Frenchy has all the luck,and he puts out"
7 posted on 10/01/2003 5:32:53 AM PDT by Redcoat LI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Last week Schumer wanted to open the Nation's oil reserves to counteract the cutback in OPEC oil production and higher gas prices. W/O any draws on the reserves, the price of gas dropped 30 cents in our area in the last week. Wrong again, Chuckie.
8 posted on 10/01/2003 5:45:51 AM PDT by Loyal Buckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Schumer is an oily, publicity-seeking cad. The man has no principles and will practice hypocrisy as a standard operating procedure. He is the senatorial posterboy for situational ethics.
9 posted on 10/01/2003 5:49:22 AM PDT by .cnI redruM (redruM's Advice -- NEVER steal the ID of a registered sex offender!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Just remember this: What you hear from Senator Schumer now is not what you would have heard from him as recently as two years ago.

Says it all.

10 posted on 10/01/2003 6:00:02 AM PDT by b4its2late (It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This essay and Jonah Goldberg's "Democrats take a U-Turn" speak to a serious problem Democrats have with respect to their strategy of omnicriticism (all Bush actions, all directions, all the time). Stated another way, it's a strategy to throw a lot dirt, and see what sticks, i.e., what the press runs with, giving the story "legs". The problem is that it is a strategy not driven by principle or policy, other than to win at all costs -- the end justifies the means. The intrinsic flaw is that the unprincipled accuser is seen as one who lacks integrity and increasingly one who lacks basic honesty and decency to participate in the civil discourse required in a democracy to formulate sound policy.

Thus, Democrats attack Bush for underfunding Afghanistan and Iraq, criticize the absence of cost estimates on the eve of their release, and then whine that the $20 billion for rebuilding Iraq is too much and could be used in the US (as if, after trillions spent, $20 billion will make a difference where the program is fundamentally flawed). Notice also the sleight of hand in citing the full $87 billion, the bulk of which goes to support our troops, while Democrats pretend to be more patriotic than thou in backing our military. The Democrats' strategy for winning deserves a crushing rebuke in the next elections.

11 posted on 10/01/2003 6:06:32 AM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Please, some NY Freeper tell me that the NY GOP is not giving Schumer a free pass in his 2004 election. This guy should be marked as Public Enemy # 3 or 4, and not waltz back to the senate unchallenged.
12 posted on 10/01/2003 4:29:30 PM PDT by HitmanLV (I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson