Josh Marshall: Finally, USA Today says that FBI agents involved in the case didn't think the whole thing was particularly serious.
He's not quoting. He's, ahem, "paraphrasing."
Is it true that the FBI agents in the case didn't think that a former National Security Advisor deliberately, and repeatedly, stealing codeword-classified documents from their high-security display site was "particularly serious"?
Let's check the actual quote from USAToday:
Meanwhile, the FBI did not consider the incident to be a major threat to national security, a government official said.
Are these two formulations equivalent? Is the fact that a crime is not a "major threat to national security" the same as saying it's "not particularly serious"?
No one actually suspects Berger of selling secrets to the Chinese. This is a violation of national security laws, but it's not necessarily actually a crime with actual national-security consequences. I've heard no one yet suggest the documents Berger stole were actually received by some foreign power. (Well, I just mentioned that possibility, though I concede it's not likely.)
The supposed "Bush AWOL" story is and was obviously not a "major threat to national security;" Marshall claims Bush's entire service was meaningless and did not contribute to our defense, and therefore his absence from duty couldn't have hurt our defenses.
Therefore, I suppose Mr. Marshall would agree that Bush's alleged "AWOL" status was "not particularly serious."
The two phrases mean the same thing. The exact same thing.
Right?
Posted by Ace at July 22, 2004 05:22 AM | TrackBack