Leak House

If your brain seizes up when you try to go around this leaking mess that started in the Oval Office, here are two must-reads complete with funny video of U.S. President George W. Bush playing dumb - snark! -- on the potential leakers in his midst.

First up, the American Progress Action Fund's ''Talking Points,'' which act as a primer with lots of fun links. It's a good place to start if you want to impress all your friends around the lefty dinner table tomorrow night, or smack down redneck Uncle Al at Sunday supper.

Then check out William Rivers Pitt's The Leaker-in-Chief where you'll find the video of Bush vowing to hunt down the leakers in his midst.

So there it is. We have Bush authorizing the disclosure of classified information, and we have that disclosure taking place for no other reason than to discredit an administration critic. Bush is often fond of defending his wildly inappropriate and often illegal activities by claiming that he has every right to do whatever he wants because America is "at war."

    Never mind that no war has actually been declared. If we take his premise that we are in fact at war, than the disclosure of classified information for political gain must be defined simply and directly.

    It is treason.

Yesterday, I watched Fox News gloss over this story several times. Sure it's a tough story to tell -- but does the channel believe its viewers are that stupid? Judging from Brit Hume's words, yes.

(O)n the April 6 edition of Fox News' DaySide, Fox News Washington bureau managing editor Brit Hume said: "[B]oth he [Vice President Dick Cheney] and the president have the legal authority under an executive order signed by the president to make public classified information. So that takes the unauthorized out of it."

Gong! Wrong!

Not that other media got it right -- although it seems like newspapers covered it more accurately than did TV. Meanwhile, White House flackey Scott McClellan had this predictably fun exchange with the press corps:

Q He was asked about leaking classified information, but the President said, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks." Not just classified information. He says "particularly leaks."

MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. And I think that's why it's important to draw a distinction here. Declassifying information and providing it to the public, when it is in the public interest, is one thing. But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious. And there is a distinction.

Now, there are Democrats out there that fail to recognize that distinction, or refuse to recognize that distinction. They are simply engaging in crass politics. Let's make clear what the distinction is.

<SNIP>

Q Can I just go back to this original statement that the President said about, "I constantly express my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information" -- leaving the impression he doesn't like any leaks. Can you give us an idea how the President feels about leaking information, since if this information --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we have to draw distinctions here, and what specifically you're referring to. I mean, if people are going out there talking about a potential policy decision-making process that is still in development and that the President hasn't come to a decision on, then that's not helpful information, and of course we'd look down on something like that.

Q But otherwise, if it's helpful to you and it's declassified, leaks are okay?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, if it's in the public interest.

Q Leaks are okay?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I didn't say that.

You know, that guy can do such interesting acrobatics with his tongue, I am beginning to envy the woman in his life. I mean, this guy is HOTTTTT!

Comments

[CapitalCat]

Check out Michael Wolff's column on McClellan in the current issue of Vanity Fair. It has just the right combination of snark and wisdom.

[Robert McClelland]

Here's one from the department of art parallels life.

I'm a big fan of the series 24. Not because it's good mind you--though to be fair, the first season was superb--but because it's become a wonderful parody for the Bush government.

For those of you who watch the show, think about it. In the past few seasons of the show, the US has suffered the meltdown of a nuclear power plant, had a nuclear bomb detonated in the desert outside of LA, had a train filled with civilians derailed by terrorists, saw Air Force One shot down killing the president, saw the assassination of a former president, has seen numerous moles working in both CTU and the White House, has insulted numerous allies, etc. etc. See what I mean. It's been one disaster after another just like the Bush administration.

Anyway, on the last episode, which aired on Monday, it ended with the shocking--jump the shark--twist that revealed the President is the mastermind behind this season's plague of evil doers.

How do they know? I think from now on we should just ask the writers of 24 what is going to happen next in real life America.

[Jay Currie]

Gee, Sooter says that he was authorized to release selected portions - none of which Fitz suggests have anything to do with Plame or which are actually classified at this instant - a couple of days before the official declassification. And he says he got permission from Dead Eye Dick who got it straight from the President.

The difficulty the press has with this story is that there is no story here.

The American - and apparently the Canadian - Left are so eager to have some sort of Bush involvement that they have taken a non-story and tried to puff it into some sort of high crime or misdemeanor. (Conveniently ignoring the fact that no less an organ of the Left than the NYT was only too happy to print genuinely calssified material on the NSA's intercepts.)

Here is the worst case: Scooter jumped the gun and put out what would have been public information a few days before it became public information. He is obviously the first and only American government official in the history of the Repulbic to have committed such a grave sin.

Let's hope Fitz, er, charges him with well, a crime rather than a bogus proceedural offence.

Which, given that Fitz has had the grand jury testimony for months you would think he would have done by now. Unless, of course, there is no crime here....Hmmmmm.

[Paul]

NEVER watch FOX news.. it is the most politically biased TV channel on the air.

pl

[Stephen Reevess]

Well Robert McClelland, nice to see you in true from , one disaster after another, like the Bush Administration, well the MSM neglected to report the nuclear bombs going, off, meltdowns etc. They reported (for a while) Katrina, and we all know Bush caused Global Warming all on his own.
Now we have Harper in charge here in Canada, expect major storms this summer,caused Harper's indifference to Kyoto.

[Dr.Dawg]

That last remark of yours, to put it mildly, is a keeper.

[Pilgrim]

Watching W. saying "If there's a leaker I want to know and we'll take the appropriate action," put me in mind of O.J. Simpson saying he was going to hire a detective to look for the real killer of his wife. I didn't believe either one of them.

[Jean Crustacean]

DOG NUZZLES MAN

MOTORIST ENTERS INTERSECTION WITH GREEN LIGHT IN HIS FAVOR

It's not a "story" at all... if the term is to be defined correctly, it's not even a "leak". Bush was fully within his rights to authorize his agents and employees to disclose such parts of the NIE as he saw fit to disclose, subject to certain constraints which did not apply here. That's hardly a "leak."

This non-story arises from grand jury testimony elicited months ago, which was briefly rehashed in gummint opposition to some discovery demand by Libby's lawyers. That grand jury, it should be noted, has handed up not a single indictment of any person or entity for having outed Valerie Plame; all that has issued from it is a perjury indictment of Scooter Libby, as yet untried.

If and when some information is made public to the effect that Bush or Cheney or some person acting at their behest outed Plame maliciously, that will be newsworthy. But of course, nothing of the sort has happened down the pike, nor is it expected to.

[Ti-Guy]

Well, I see the apologists are busy mixing in opinion, speculation and unsubstantiated fact in a byzantine effort, not to inform, but to bore the rest of us into a state of indifference and numbness.

I wish they'd give it rest, already....With no WMD's, a civil war in Iraq, and Republicans being indicted right and left, their detailed observations about "reality" as they see it (and for which they have a burning desire to lecture the rest of us about) just aren't worth the time following anymore.

[Jean Crustacean]

"Apologists"?

Will someone please show me how and why the disclosure of some part of a National Intelligence Estimate by or at the behest of the US president is -- or even arguably might be -- illegal?

[Adam in Whitby]

Speaking as one who isn't rabidly anti-Bush (and so, by our national standards, a Raving Fascist)I say this may not bring the Prez down, but it's one more minus to add to the list. And it's a big one.

All smart partisans will need to do is show two clips: Bush swearing to fire the leaker, and McClelland explaining how Bush's leak was in the national interest. Forget all the talk about "leak" versus "released information" -- the one group that matters here are the ones who vote Repub because they're straight shooters who protect America. Leakers of classified info don't quite fit that bill.

Bush's admin has made such a series of missteps as to be rendered almost entirely lame by now. They'd better hope history is kind to them, because the next few years won't be.

[Ti-Guy]

"Apologist" means someone who argues the justification of something.

[Jean Crustacean]

Speaking as one who is, erm... an American, and one who voted for Gore and Clinton, (and, yes, as one who, incredibly enough, knows what "apologist" means) I will respectfully submit to you that nothing in this will redound in any way to the detriment of George W. Bush. The Miers nomination and the Dubai ports deal were infinitely more significant, and thus more likely to hit Bush where it hurts... and yet even these have been largely forgotten even as we speak.

Seriously, does anyone now REMEMBER, much less speak of the very peculiar manner in which Linda Tripp's Pentagon personnel file and Paula Jones' tax returns found their way into the hands of (wait for it)... Noo Yawk journalists? You wanna talk about genuine leaks, leave us focus on those... but now they are at best historical footnotes, if even that.

[sooey]

but seriously - nobody's asked mcclellan to define "is" yet? gawd. dumbassed yankee reporters. always missing the money shot.

[Antonia]

Leak, smeak. The point is, whether the documents were classified or not, they were misleading -- and that meant the administration knowingly released (in the guise of a leak) information they knew to be wrong to bolster their bullsh-t case for war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916_2.html
''But according to Libby's grand jury testimony, described for the first time in legal papers filed this week, Cheney 'specifically directed' Libby in late June or early July 2003 to pass information to reporters from two classified CIA documents: an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and a March 2002 summary of Wilson's visit to Niger.

"One striking feature of that decision -- unremarked until now, in part because Fitzgerald did not mention it -- is that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before.

"United Nations inspectors had exposed the main evidence for the uranium charge as crude forgeries in March 2003, but the Bush administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair maintained they had additional, secret evidence they could not disclose. In June, a British parliamentary inquiry concluded otherwise, delivering a scathing critique of Blair's role in promoting the story. With no ally left, the White House debated whether to abandon the uranium claim and became embroiled in bitter finger-pointing about whom to fault for the error. A legal brief filed for Libby last month said that 'certain officials at the CIA, the White House, and the State Department each sought to avoid or assign blame for intelligence failures relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.'

"It was at that moment that Libby, allegedly at Cheney's direction, sought out at least three reporters to bolster the discredited uranium allegation. Libby made careful selections of language from the 2002 estimate, quoting a passage that said Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure uranium' in Africa.''

ALSO ...

"Fitzgerald reported for the first time this week that 'multiple officials in the White House'-- not only Libby and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who have previously been identified -- discussed Plame's CIA employment with reporters before and after publication of her name on July 14, 2003, in a column by Robert D. Novak. Fitzgerald said the grand jury has collected so much testimony and so many documents that 'it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson.'"

Read this entire report and the lies just keep on coming.

Gilles, I have come to the conclusion that arguing this stuff is merely intellectual aerobics for you. I can't believe you are so thick and/or amoral that you actually believe these scumbags have a defence.

[Antonia]

Imagine: Gilles and Sooey, together again.

(Private joke, you all!)

[Moni]

I've been out of contact for the last 4 days so I was wondering if you on-line people could help me out...

Has there been any suggestion or indication that Bush de-classified documents just because he wanted to discredit someone who disagreed with him?

Or is there anything the other way - that this was planned for declassification and had nothing to do with his desire to use it to discredit etc. etc.?

If it definitely isn't the second possibility, does this scare anyone else?

[Dana]

Leaving aside for the moment that as far as I can tell no one named Gilles has posted here, it is far from clear that Bush supporters must only be performing what you call "intellectual aerobics".

There clearly are people of intelligence and sober judgement who have a deep and abiding faith in Bush.

Which speaks more poorly for faith than it does for Bush.

[Jiminy C]

That's what happens when you are in the defence biz - Antonia!
It's instinctual to defend anything.....but wait a minute...when was the last time that Gilles defended a Democratic position...remind me wilya?
[BTW - I'll be interested to watch your mode of moderation - especially if certain posters start with the Yankee derogatories again!]

[Stephen Reevess]

For a bit of light relief on the subject, let's look back at a scene from the British Comedy "Yes Minister" concerning leaks,link below via Andrew Sullivan.

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/04/a_classic.html

[Jean Crustacean]

A "defence" to *what*, exactly?

Two grand juries, one empanelled for 18 months, another for four or five, and what do we have?

Number of people indicted for outing Valerie Plame: 0

The WaPo is being cutesy in saying as it does that "United Nations inspectors had exposed the main evidence for the uranium charge as crude forgeries in March 2003." In legal-beagle terms this is called a negative pregnant, the operative term there being the weasel-word "main." The Butler Report made it quite clear that there was "further and separate intelligence that in 1999 the Iraqi regime had also made inquiries about the purchase of uranium ore in the Democratic Republic of Congo".

At the time of the disclosure of the relevant portions of the NIE, there was thus no "proof" that the information about Saddam poking around Niger for yellowcake was wrong. It had NOT been disproven, and to my knowledge it never has; the forgeries were only a part of the evidence in the first place. That people at State and the CIA were skeptical of it doesn't close the question, either; Foggy Bottom has a long and sad history of being wrong about the Middle East, and we've seen how well the post-Church-Committee defanged CIA has functioned in that part of thr world.

Bottom line: 2 years of grand jury testimony, and no one's come forth with a true bill against any human being for having outed Valerie Plame. My best guess, based on the chronology of Plame's CIA assignments, is that at the time her identity was disclosed, she could not have been deemed "covert" as the relevant statute defines the term. I suspect the grand jury keeps running into that particular brick wall, thus explaining the months of labor and resultant nearly nonexistent output.

What the Plame disclosure was, then, was simple political hardball -- not nice, perhaps, but legal. They play that in Washington -- Dems and Republicans both -- and always have. Again, Linda Tripp's Pentagon personnel file and Paula Jones' tax returns didn't just mail themselves to New York reporters.

[Ti-Guy]

"Seriously, does anyone now REMEMBER, much less speak of the very peculiar manner in which Linda Tripp's Pentagon personnel file and Paula Jones' tax returns found their way into the hands of (wait for it)... Noo Yawk journalists?"

Of course I don't remember. That whole, endless circus began with a blow-job and, despite all the unethical behaviour surrounding its exposition, never got more significant than that, especially for a non-American like me.

The issue at hand here is the justification for an invasion that has cost thousands of lives with potentially disastrous ramifications for all of us, not just Americans.

[Jiminy C]

Oh Crusty one (no not Blatch!) - whither goest with thy protests?
The best shot you have is that because Plame "could not have been deemed "covert" as the relevant statute defines the term" - the charge that someone published the fact that she was a "CIA operative" is rendered moot?
Kinda like "ignorance of the law is no defence" - counsellor! Should be given the same disdainful dismissal by his Honour as well, I trust!

[sooey]

moni, moni, moni - get hep to the semantics of the emorphuvolvitating debate: did bush inc "conspire" to discredit a dissenter...

[Tom Gray]

When I read these discussions I always think of angels dancing on pins. There is just so much effort going on to support positions that are in the end so utterly inconsequential.

Nothing that is said or done about this issue will affect the world in any way either for good or ill and as a result no one who is not a participant, cares one jot ot tittle about it.

I could also mention the case of Jarndyce nd Jarndyce in the Court of Chancery. It too went on forever and settled nothing. Not even the deaths of the principals could end it.