To be fair, Libby is not the most credible of sources, and the Los Angeles Times reports that such a leak is probably legal:
Experts in national security law say a decision by President Bush to authorize the leak of classified information to a reporter probably would not be illegal.The LAT reminds us that Bush repeatedly has deplored leaks and has maintained an appearance of distance throughout the CIA leak investigation, telling reporters in 2003: "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."
But if Bush did so — as a former top White House aide has testified he did — there could be significant damage to the credibility of a president who has repeatedly and publicly expressed his abhorrence of leaks.
The court filings suggest that Bush and Cheney were intimately involved in the decision to selectively leak classified information to reporters, without the knowledge of even then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice.
Make of this what you will. If you listen, you can hear Al Franken typing the a new chapter for his next book right now.
First, I don’t care what the media says; Bush didn’t authorize the leaking of “classified” information, but authorized the information to be DECLASSIFIED and given to a reporter. Saying that “classified” information was given out is patently incorrect. By authorizing information to be given to a non-cleared person, the POTUS effectively declassified that portion. I have some experience in this area, that’s one way it works. This terminology is being used rather sloppily by the media to the point of inaccuracy.
ReplyDeleteRichardson, it sounds like what you're describing is a mere technicality: taking classified material and declassifying it so that it can be leaked. When the decision is first made to leak the material (i.e., before the actual leak), is it classified material?
Second, many, especially the media, are taking Bush’s comment about the actual leak of classified information (i.e., about Plame to Novak), and pairing it up to the reported Libby leak, which is not related. No contextual basis.
You're setting up a strawman. Okay, I have no doubt that some people will confuse Bush authorizing leaks—if true—and the revelation of the identity of the CIA operative (the Valerie Plame case), but the article specifically states:
The court filing makes no allegation that Bush — who has vowed to fire anyone in his administration who was involved in revealing the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame — encouraged or authorized the disclosure of her identity.
I think that's pretty clear, though one would have to read through much of the article (which I did, because I was trying to make sure of that).
And I made clear the apparent reasons, as I understood them, for the leak Scooter is accusing Bush of doing: President Bush peronally authorized the leaking of classified information to deflect Iraq war critics at a time when declining public support for the invasion threatened his reelection campaign.
So he was releasing it not to get back at Wilson for his criticism, but to defend the war, a different time and a different issue.
That there is a connection mentioned in the article is because Bush himself made one:
I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.
I guess he can fall back on the "if I declassify it, then it's no longer classified" technicality, which would make his statement true. It wouldn't make it less unethical or more prudent, however, just not technically a lie. But the fact remains that Bush by public statement led the American people to believe he was not involved in any leaks and he would deal harshly with anyone who was.
I have no doubt that you are right and that Al Franken will misrepresent this completely and feed it to an ignorant audience that just does not care.
Of the two things on which you are suggesting I'm not right about here (i.e., that it wasn't classified material that he authorized leaking, and that he wasn't involved with the Valerie Plame case), the first one is a mere technicality that doesn't really negate the point being made, and the second one is an inaccurate description of both my writings and the L.A. Times article.
Hey, have you actually read through an Al Franken book? He does a pretty good job of backing up his claims, which he has on-line for you to peruse and refute if you so desire.
As for me, I very clearly stated that I think the source of the accusation needs to be considered: Libby is not the most credible of sources...
That's right, this guy may very well have said something like this in order to put heat on others in order to strike a deal or some other tactic. In other words, the entire accusation of Bush authorizing leaks may be a load of crap.
Did you not notice that sentence? Did you not also notice that I also cited and linked to an article suggesting that Bush's actions, even if they violated the spirit of what he said publicly, were probably not illegal.