The President Can't "Leak"
The overheated coverage of the supposed Presidential "leak" of classified information is a joke.
As John Podhoretz points out, the authority to declassify information resides with the President. Hence, he can't "leak" anymore than someone can effectively steal from himself.
The gravamen of an accusation of leaking is that -- through an unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information -- national security has somehow been jeopardized. Through the disclosure of the contents of the National Intelligence Estimate, national security was in no way jeopardized; most of the information was already public anyway. Furthermore, the disclosure was, clearly, authorized.
There's no "there" there. Not that it will stop the MSM from trying to create another feeding frenzy.
Update: None of this means that someone can't disagree with the President's decision to release the information or make political judgments about the wisdom of his having done so, nor does it mean that his judgment in doing so was necessarily consistent with that of many conservatives (although it seems to me that the President's decision was entirely justifiable and in fact necessary, given that the litany of lies being propagated by Joe Wilson were being reported as gospel truth by much of the MSM).
What it does mean is that the President was perfectly within his rights to do what he did, and the ersatz horror on the part of the left -- which has glorified leaks and leakers from Daniel Ellsberg forward -- is, once again, completely hypocritical. The President is commander-in-chief, and as such, he is charged with national security. One can disagree about the way he is carrying out his responsibilities, but one can't argue that the resonsibilities and the judgments rest with him. Which is why I would never trust any Democrat who's likely to get there back in The White House as long as there is a war on terror.
As John Podhoretz points out, the authority to declassify information resides with the President. Hence, he can't "leak" anymore than someone can effectively steal from himself.
The gravamen of an accusation of leaking is that -- through an unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information -- national security has somehow been jeopardized. Through the disclosure of the contents of the National Intelligence Estimate, national security was in no way jeopardized; most of the information was already public anyway. Furthermore, the disclosure was, clearly, authorized.
There's no "there" there. Not that it will stop the MSM from trying to create another feeding frenzy.
Update: None of this means that someone can't disagree with the President's decision to release the information or make political judgments about the wisdom of his having done so, nor does it mean that his judgment in doing so was necessarily consistent with that of many conservatives (although it seems to me that the President's decision was entirely justifiable and in fact necessary, given that the litany of lies being propagated by Joe Wilson were being reported as gospel truth by much of the MSM).
What it does mean is that the President was perfectly within his rights to do what he did, and the ersatz horror on the part of the left -- which has glorified leaks and leakers from Daniel Ellsberg forward -- is, once again, completely hypocritical. The President is commander-in-chief, and as such, he is charged with national security. One can disagree about the way he is carrying out his responsibilities, but one can't argue that the resonsibilities and the judgments rest with him. Which is why I would never trust any Democrat who's likely to get there back in The White House as long as there is a war on terror.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:49 AM
14 Comments:
Carol -
True, by itself it's not a problem. But taken with all other actions -- being selectively secret here about things that shouldn't be, along with cherry picking what to declassify there --it's a disturbing pattern.
The pattern is controlling a flow of information, that shouldn't be political, for reasons that are purely political. Such conduct makes trust a very hard thing to give.
You mix up two different issues here:
his ability to leak, and the rightness or wrongness of his allowing the declassification of information in this specific example.
Let's take the first, first.
What would you like to call it when the president declassifies information, including if it's done in a stealthy manner, especially if the motives are suspect?
Let's say, hypothetically, that Valerie Plame had been on a foreign assignment, undercover, and that the president declassified her status, which, as he intended, resulted in her being killed, for the president to get revenge on her husband for his actions.
Let's say that the law allowed the president to do this.
You take issue with the summary of that story describing his alowing her identity to be revealed as his 'leaking' the information; and yet, it's pretty clear that, while legal, it was a problematic action.
So, you pick the word for his declassification in that instance.
I think leak fits, because it captures the nature of the release of information which should be kept confidential; classified is only one reason. If the local chair of the PTA confesses a sexual affair to a board member, and the board member tells a reporter to harm the chair in a political dispute, they could be said to be 'leaking' the info. I think the term has broader use than simply the 'illegal revelation of classified information'.
Now for the second issue. I don't think that giving a friendly reporter access to the information, secretly, while denying it to other reporters on the grounds that it's classified, is 'A-OK'.
You appear willing to give the president a pass for the politicization of classified information, as long as it wasn't obviously harmful to the national interest, because you like him and want him to get the political benefit of doing so.
I acually have *some* sympathy for that position, as I'm aware of presidents having a long history of sharing some secret info with reporters in order to influence the stories the way they want, and I like some of those presidents and am pretty forgiving of some of their 'leaking' in that manner.
However, factors that are different about this president doing so include everything from the fact that there's a far more onerous leak in the middle of this - Valerie Plame - and his repeated, strong lies that he condemned the leaking and had no idea who it was, etc., and to top it off, his unprecedented aggressiveness in going after leakers who are acting out of a sense of patriotism to expose his actions which violate the law and prove him (again) a liar, whether or not they violate the constitution as he outrageously interprets it.
Not to mention he directly lied to the American public saying his administration had done mothing to leak information or otherwise discredit Wilson. This is on top of the administration already saying neither Rove nor Libby had anything to do with discrediting Wilson.
Whether or not the president can or can't tecnically leak classifies info does not save him from his outright lies to the public about his administrations role in the ugly political mess.
Uh - it depends on intent. From what you and Podhoretz are saying, the president could provide the names of all active CIA agents to his soul-mate, Mr. Putin, and then the remanants of Putin's KGB thugs could assassinate US agents around the world - and you clowns would be saying: "well, it wasn't a leak - cause the president has the power to declassify".
Further, the presidential findings on de-classification have never really been tested legally.
Finally, the American people and ultimate their agent, Congress, will be the judge of whether or not Bush's leaking constituted a crime.
If the House moves to impeach, and the Senate finds that Bush's convenient declassifying and subsequent lying to the American people constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor" then the Chimp from Crawford will be out on his oversized ear.
His approval rate is now at 36% and falling - he's headed for Nixon country, and the worst of this hasn't even come out yet. There's much more to come.
Is there something inherently wrong with discrediting Wilson?
Hey - here's another judgment decision. One Bush made in January of 2001, according to Paul O'Neill, Secretary of the Treasury. At the first cabinet meeting, Bush had already decided he wanted to start a war with Iraq - but - how to do it?
Easily, as it turned out. First, ignore any briefing memos entitled "Osama bin Laden determined to attack America."
After attack by Islamic fundamentalists, blame Ba-ath secularists, then lie about WMD's, yellowcake uranium, mushroom clouds and aluminum tubes.
Voila!!!!! You have your war wtih Iraq.
Next decision: Pour ONE TRILLION DOLLAR$ down rathole in desert.
Congratulations, Mr. President. Now we'll see how those decison pay off at the ballot box in 2006.
There is nothing inherently wrong with trying to discredit Wilson. However, thre is somethjing worng about leaking clasified information to the press to do it. Even if the information wasn't technically classified anymore becasue the president said so, it is still unethical to hav elied directlyto the Public about the administration's rolein leaking the information. Frist it was Rove and Libby had nothing to do with ot. Then the President said he takes the leak seriously and wants to know if someone in his administration was leaking information. This was an outright deception on the public. To fall back on the argument that the information wasn't 'leaked' because it wasn't really 'classified' is nothing short of intellectual and ethical cowardice.
Touting the official line as received from Podheretz is just more whistling past the graveyard. There is no news here? The President is clearly nailed in authorizing the leaking of data to a reporter for political purposes. This isn't newsworthy? This doesn't cause you any discomfort? Exactly how egregious does the behaviour have to be out of this Republican president before you begin to wonder whether he has strayed over a line (more like leaped, and a while ago)?
He proverbially wagged his finger at the country and said he wanted to nail the leakers and that they would be held accountable - and he was doing it all along. That doesn't cause you ANY discomfort?
When every responsible historian finishes their verdict on this president, and they won't be kind, will you be part of that 10% who will remain convinced he was great?
At one point do you just admit you've made a huge mistake trusting and supporting this man when he has done such huge damage to the Presidency and this country?
Probably never.
At what point do you admit YOU were wrong? Historians will view all this in a totally different and probably more objective light. There's a lot of assumtions in what most of you posters are saying. I may be wrong, but the original problem dealt with the "outing" of an agent, which wasn't true. Wilson's descriptions were being taken as fact and Bush used certain docs to show him as a liar. The docs were declassified to do so and were not problematic to do so. There's such an insane undying hope that something can be used against Bush, that if he farts out loud, a hew and cry will arise and new calls for legal action against him will go up. Keep trying. Your lefty heroes are wasting time and money to try to find dirt on Bush. Try getting a plan instead.
dodger whines: "You ask me to accept as gospel the thought that any such briefing memos existed, second, that they were ignored, third, if not ignored, what's new"
If you go to: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621819966.html
you can see the text of the August 2001 memo.
Bush's response? He sat on his ass on vacation; same as with Katrina.
"How would outing his wife discredit him?"
They were trying to smear him by saying that his own wife had selected him for the mission, implying that the selection was inappropriate, nepotism, making it look like he'd tried to hide something.
As it turns out, he was selected for just the right reasons, he was the right guy for the mission, and his wife did not select him. After he was selected by CIA officials, the officials talked to his wife.
One of the lies from the right was that Wilson lied when he said Cheney had selected him for the mission; the fact is, however, Wilson did not say that, to the liars are the ones making the attack.
We have an element in this country who call themselves right-wingers who are out to foolishly throw away what our coutnry stands for in the name of fear and authoritarianism.
They'll say they're for freedom, but that's about as true as when they say they're for small government while electing the crooks who spend more than ever in debt.
These are timeless battles of freedom against the foolish succumbing to tyranny, and this is why they say the price is eternal vigilance.
The views of people like the host of this site must be overcome.
Interesting comparison. But let's think about it for a minute. Is all the classified information held by the government Bush's personal property? Obviously not. It's "property" that he and his administration hold in trust on behalf of the American people. That's why the laws specify procedures both for classifying and for declassifying information--which do not include quietly whispering selected portions of secret documents to individual friendly reporters in order to gain political advantage.
Just as a bank president disburses bank funds only according to specified procedures and with oversight and approval by others (like a loan committee), the U.S. president is supposed to declassify documents in public and in accordance with the rules--not in secret, piecemeal, and willy-nilly.
So in authorizing leaks to specific reporters in an attempt to discredit administration critics, Bush wasn't "stealing from himself." He was acting more like a banker who helps himself to a bundle of cash from the vaults to get out of a tough personal scrape.
Your president is a hypocrite. Vowing to fire anyone involved in leaking, whilst doing it himself proves his blatant hypocrisy, that some refuse to see.
There is nothing patriotic about blind loyalty in bad leadership.
"As John Podhoretz points out, the authority to declassify information resides with the President. Hence, he can't "leak" anymore than someone can effectively steal from himself."
The problem with that analogy is that Bush has not been stealing (the truth, and many many lives) from himself, but from the American people.
Bush's order to release information from the NIE prior to its being declassified, was certainly a leak, because it was done in a covert manner, with information that was SECRET, and for the purpose of misleading Bush's bosses.
Certainly national security is jeopardized any time a president lies to the people about the justifications for war. And Bush has been lying right from the start.
Bush knew at the time he pretended to be intent on firing any leakers that he was responsible for the leaks and the anti-Wilson smear campaign; and if Bush did not directly order the outting of Wilson's wife, he certainly had no problem with it, since it was done in the context of the Bush Regime attempting to publicly hurt Wilson and his family.
Again, Bush was making judgments about the people's property and the people's interest that were aimed not at protecting those things, but at using them to defend his own dishonest, discredited policies.
Bush should be impeached.
Cheney should be impeached.
Anybody in Bush's Regime who can't be impeached should resign.
(jk)
Post a Comment
<< Home