Leaky Bush: The Breakdown
Some of our friends on the right are (predictably) arguing the revelation regarding Libby's testimony that Bush authorized his leaks is insignificant. They argue that it wasn't technically illegal. While they are probably right on that issue, there are numerous other reasons why this matters beyond mere legality.
First, the story if true (and to date it is not being denied by Bush or Cheney) further destroys the fraudulent image of Bush as a Washington outsider who detests the dirty side of Washington --- mainly leaks.
Second, it shines further light on how Bush and his entire administration abuse security classifications for political purposes as opposed to reasons of national security. In effect, the Bush defenders are arguing that they are O.K. with Bush (and Cheney) declasifying information on the fly, in an ad-hoc manner that ignores the declassification procedures and without informing others, specifically the American public, when information is declassified. As this instance shows, their ad hoc, declassification process has more to do with politics than anything else. Yet, we live in a democracy that is supposed to value transparency over gamesmanship. We know that this administration is the worst abuser of classifying information to keep politically harmful information from the public. Now it appears that the president himself declassifies so that anonymous sources can then spin the media and ultimately manipulate the public for purely political purposes. Americans do not view governments that engage in this stuff as moral, think the USSR and Pravda. Nor should Bush's actions in this regard be viewed as moral.
Third, the issue raises a myriad of questions about the President's innvolvement in manipulating the case for war generally and, more specifically, as to what role he may have played in the leaking of Plame's identity. Ignoring the prewar stuff for now, one question that needs asking is was Plame's identity one of the items Bush "declassified" in this ad hoc manner so that Libby and Rove were authorized to leak it. If so, it points out a stark problem with this ad hoc procedure being employed. Isn't it obvious that it is extremely dangerous to be revealing the identity of CIA NCOs without first telling the CIA and that agent?
Just because the President has legal authority to do something does not mean that he should. Further, doing something, at best, immoral and, at worst, a heinous act putting the lives of other people in danger is worthy of criticism at least.
UPDATE AT 04/07/06 at 11:47 am: Kevin Drum has a concise post up as to what's wrong with Bush's leak and he adds a second post quoting Andrew Sullivan's also concise takedown of this tactic.
First, the story if true (and to date it is not being denied by Bush or Cheney) further destroys the fraudulent image of Bush as a Washington outsider who detests the dirty side of Washington --- mainly leaks.
Second, it shines further light on how Bush and his entire administration abuse security classifications for political purposes as opposed to reasons of national security. In effect, the Bush defenders are arguing that they are O.K. with Bush (and Cheney) declasifying information on the fly, in an ad-hoc manner that ignores the declassification procedures and without informing others, specifically the American public, when information is declassified. As this instance shows, their ad hoc, declassification process has more to do with politics than anything else. Yet, we live in a democracy that is supposed to value transparency over gamesmanship. We know that this administration is the worst abuser of classifying information to keep politically harmful information from the public. Now it appears that the president himself declassifies so that anonymous sources can then spin the media and ultimately manipulate the public for purely political purposes. Americans do not view governments that engage in this stuff as moral, think the USSR and Pravda. Nor should Bush's actions in this regard be viewed as moral.
Third, the issue raises a myriad of questions about the President's innvolvement in manipulating the case for war generally and, more specifically, as to what role he may have played in the leaking of Plame's identity. Ignoring the prewar stuff for now, one question that needs asking is was Plame's identity one of the items Bush "declassified" in this ad hoc manner so that Libby and Rove were authorized to leak it. If so, it points out a stark problem with this ad hoc procedure being employed. Isn't it obvious that it is extremely dangerous to be revealing the identity of CIA NCOs without first telling the CIA and that agent?
Just because the President has legal authority to do something does not mean that he should. Further, doing something, at best, immoral and, at worst, a heinous act putting the lives of other people in danger is worthy of criticism at least.
UPDATE AT 04/07/06 at 11:47 am: Kevin Drum has a concise post up as to what's wrong with Bush's leak and he adds a second post quoting Andrew Sullivan's also concise takedown of this tactic.
posted by Macswain at
10:55 AM
2 Comments:
Unfortunately Drum's post sloppily (and deliberately) conflates the Plame leak with the leak of intelligence info, and is thus useless. His Nixon analogy isn't terribly compelling either.
Sully's got a much more accurate take on the situation, though the last line of the first paragraph kindly posted by semanticleo tries to create an impossible sort of hypocrisy (the President, by definition, cannot be party to an "unauthorized disclosure of classified information."
He also mischaracterizes the attack on the war as a "Beltway spat," which is a cute but wrong-by-several-orders-of-magnitude description of the huge nationwide swell of criticism sparked by Wilson's letter. He was also revealing the data that the administration used to decide to go to war - with that objective in mind, why would he reveal the data that he didn't use? Particularly when that would further fuel criticism of an intelligence case that was a "slam-dunk."
By
Anonymous, at 1:13 PM
If Bush's leak was "in the public interest" as McClellan is now claiming, why didn't Bush just release the full NIE and argue it openly instead of cherry picking portions favorable to himself and releasing those pieces anonymously through the "liberal" New York Times?
Is he just inbred against having a full and open debate or, and what I believe to be the truth, was he trying to mislead?
By
Macswain, at 1:53 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home