Help Wanted!

Scott Shane of the NY Times picks up their coverage of the "President Authorized Leaks!!!" story:

WASHINGTON, April 7 — That President Bush authorized an aide to disclose classified intelligence on Iraqi weapons, as asserted in court papers, comes as no shock to official Washington. The leaking of secrets has long been a favored tool of policy debate, political combat and diplomatic one-upmanship.

"We've had leaking of this kind since the administration of George Washington," said Rick Shenkman, a presidential historian at George Mason University.

I scarcely have time to read this, let alone comment, but... Rick Shenkman has a blog and is a prof at George Mason in the History Department.

Which is close!  We are really hoping to enlist the George Mason law school guys, who stood alone and tall on the FAIR/Solomon Act dispute, to opine on the various filings arguing that the appointment of Special Counsel Fitzgerald was unconstitutionally broad.  Our current thoughts are here.

MORE:  On the "President Authorized Leaks!!!" coverage - for heaven's sake.  Critics (other than partisan opportunists, such as the Times) who are belaboring Bush for hypocrisy ought to pause and reflect on *why* the President does not like leaks.

In my casual observation, leaks in Washington are intended to promote or attack agendas or individuals.  The President, be he Nixon, Clinton, or, in this case, Bush, would prefer to see his Administration function as a unified team and resolve their personal and policy disputes through proper channels rather than through the press.  The President wants everyone on the same page, and he wants that page to be his - leaks that do not promote THE PRESIDENT'S AGENDA are what a President doesn't like.

In that context, when the President authorizes a leak, it is intended to promote his agenda, and is not problematic.  Such a leak does *not* signify a divided Administration, and is simply a time-honored news management technique.

Duh.

I now resign my (hopefully temporary) Chairmanship at The Department of the Obvious.

Now, if the President didn't like leaks if, for example, he thought it was wrong for the public to have information, then Bush could be accused of hypocrisy.  But most criticisms of leaks (and most praise of the early Bush White House for being leak-free) focused on the issues of message management, team unity, and discipline, rather than the public's right to be kept confused.

Or, in specific instances such as the CIA prisons or the NSA eavesdropping, there has been a plausible national security issue at hand to balance the benefits of disclosure.  That is far less clear in the case of Iraq and pre-war intel, much of which had been or was about to be declassified.

STILL MORE:  Having read the article, let me praise it as the most brilliantly bifurcated Bush-basher I have see today.

The first eleven paragraphs are a polemic that, with minor changes, could be posted directly at the Daily Kos.  Let's reprise the hyperventilation here:

For months, Mr. Bush and his top aides have campaigned against leaks of classified information as a danger to the nation and as criminal acts. A Washington Post report on secret overseas jails run by the C.I.A. and a New York Times report on domestic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency have led to criminal investigations, and scores of intelligence officers have been ordered to take polygraph tests.

In that context, the report that the president was himself approving a leak may do serious political damage, said Mr. Shenkman, who has a blog on presidential politics. "It does give the public such a powerful example of hypocrisy that I think it might linger for a while," he said.

Scott McClellan, the president's spokesman, disputed the charge of a double standard on leaks. "There is a difference between declassifying information in the national interest and the unauthorized disclosure" of national security information, Mr. McClellan said Friday. Of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, part of which Mr. Libby shared with Judith Miller, then a Times reporter, Mr. McClellan said, "There was nothing in there that would compromise national security."

Mr. McClellan's tone contrasted sharply with that of administration officials after the N.S.A. story broke in December. Mr. Bush told a news conference at the time: "My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."

Others picked up the theme, including Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director. On Feb. 2, Mr. Goss told a Senate committee, "It is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information."

Republicans in Congress, led by Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, have also pressed the issue. By coincidence, the committee's report on the annual intelligence authorization bill was made public on Friday. It features a vehement attack, describing leakers as "a small few who have taken it upon themselves to, for political or other motives, recklessly and illegally disclose America's necessary secrets and national security information."

The second half actually attempts to make sense and provide context.  For example, it is only in the thirteenth paragraph that we learn this:

Ms. Miller wrote no newspaper article about the leaked weapons information, and 10 days later the administration formally declassified a summary of the intelligence document in question.

So Libby gave to one reporter a sneak preview of info that had been partly de-classified when a public version of the NIE had been released in October 2002, and more of which was released on July 18, 2003.  Hold the front page.

Here is yet more context:

The Bush administration, like its predecessors, has also used formal, public declassification of secret intelligence for policy purposes. The prewar presentation to the United Nations by Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, used N.S.A. intercepts of Iraqi military officers and satellite photos of Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons sites to make the case. In 1983, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, President Ronald Reagan's United Nations ambassador, used dramatic N.S.A. recordings to denounce the Soviet Union for shooting down a South Korean civilian airliner.

What about U2 photos shown by Adlai Stevenson at the UN during the Cuban missile crisis?  Oh, never mind.

As to the seemingly important point that the President has declassification powers, well, Mr. Shane did not find room for that tidbit.  We turn to the WaPo; their lead:

Experts: Tactic Would Be Legal but Unusual

Legal experts say that President Bush had the unquestionable authority to approve the disclosure of secret CIA information to reporters, but they add that the leak was highly unusual and amounted to using sensitive intelligence data for political gain.

MORE:  Good point from Cecil Turner who notes that the conventional route of public discussion in the rebuttal to Joe Wilson was not being heard.

Tenet's press statement was a classic "Announce bad news on Friday" and the lead was that the CIA took the fall for the 16 Words; Wilson was not even an afterthought in the WaPo coverage on Saturday (by Walter Pincus).

And here is an interesting sidebar - it was not just Libby that was leaking on July 8.  Both Andrea Mitchell and Reuters got some interesting push-back on the Wilson trip from what seem to be high CIA officials.  Here is Ms. Mitchell (using the word "operative" on July 8; same word and content as Novak ran on July 14.  Go figure).  She is discussing the Wilson trip and the prospective fall-guy for the 16 Words:

MITCHELL: Well, people at the CIA say that it's not going to be George Tenet; and, in fact, that high-level people at the CIA did not really know that it was false, never even looked at Joe Wilson's verbal report or notes from that report, didn't even know that it was he who had made this report, because he was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA at a very low level, not, in fact, tasked by the vice president.

Comments

[jerry]

The Dems would say why not hold a press conference to discuss the declasified info, why go to Judy Miller?

I guess one reason would be that this Administration abhors letting the public or press question it's actions (for example, the President only talked to loyal Repblicans at his town hall meetings until recently).

[ajacksonian]

Being Chairman of the Department of the Obvious is a full-time job. Once you start, you can't stop. That is what you get for answering the obvious.... just like I do not like being 'The Shell Answer Man' to any and all topics, it comes with the territory. I have tried to point out that I do not have white hair, necessary for that post, but then I am not Chairman of the Department of the Obvious, just a lowly student of the Oblique...

[kim]

It'll be amusing to watch, if they ever regain power, the Democrats struggle to maintain civil worldwide order.
=========================================

[Cecil Turner]

This silliness requires willful ignorance of what a "leak" is: an unauthorized disclosure. And of course the President, as classifying and declassifying authority for all US information, wants to protect his authority and stamp out all unauthorized disclosures. There's nothing particularly righteous about it; it's just his rice bowl. But the claims of hypocrisy because he wants to be in charge of information disclosures is an oxymoronic howler. (And in many cases the proponents appear certifiable.)

The Dems would say why not hold a press conference to discuss the declasified info, why go to Judy Miller?

Which of course they did. They were obviously trying to hype it as well . . . but of course nobody noticed.

[Paul Zrimsek]

The Dems would say why not hold a press conference to discuss the declasified info, why go to Judy Miller?

I daresay they would, and will. But it's rather like asking, why don't strippers come out on stage already peeled down? It would save time, after all.

[kim]

Which pinpoints, CT, the problem the left had with Judy Miller. You might even view her as a whistleblower, exposing the false stories of the rest of the crew at the NYT. Let's go after Fitz for punishing a 'whistleblower'.

Wouldn't it be ironic if papers detailing the truth of some of Judy's pre-war writing come out of translation, as they probably will,, and the NYT would have to re-correct to admit that some of that was correct.

All the News that's Fit to Print, Whenever.
=========================

[Dwilkers]

This silliness, and I include Sullivan's idiotic posts and all the rest of the horsie asses out there being stupid about it, my hometown paper among them today, may be the absolute dumbest, most willfully ignorant, deceptive and ridiculous attack on Bush yet.

I swear I don't know what to think about these people. Just when I think I've seen it all I get ambushed with something so stupid it is simply beyond my previously bottomed out expectations.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'The Dems would say why not hold a press conference to discuss the declasified info, why go to Judy Miller?'

I agree the President himself should have simply called a press conference and exposed Wilson as the liar he is by relating the Iraqi 'trade' delegation bit, rather than hoping Judy would carry the ball for them.

That said, she was the logical choice of reporter. She's a WMD expert with a book already published on the topic. I think that's why she was in Iraq in the Spring of 2003, to write stories about the WMD they expected to find.

[kim]

Joe's guilt driven paranoia, that his wife was being attacked unfairly(if), has amplified into a meme that won't die, mainly because journalism continues hopeless resuscitative efforts. The alternative, that she deserved to be attacked because she was involved, as the dogwhistle blower while Joe had the more audible one, is sinister. So which is it? Did he think she was being attacked because she and he had 'whistleblown', or was it guilt over what he knew in his heart was a lie. Did't know in his heart it was a lie, you say? Then he is very stupid.
=====================================

[Barney Frank]

Seems to be a troll free zone today. Wonder what happened.

Perhaps the various local hemp merchants are having a not-to-be-missed early bird sale on this fine Saturday morning.

[kim]

I just had another thought. Maybe he doesn't remember what he reported after his mission. That really fits.

Perseveratin' Joe.
============

[topsecretk9]

Wouldn't it be ironic if papers detailing the truth of some of Judy's pre-war writing come out of translation, as they probably will,, and the NYT would have to re-correct to admit that some of that was correct.

Kim, get out of my head! That day is coming.

[kim]

I know.

Calame, calame mucho.
Why don't you just tell us what the hell is going on?
Pinch is,
Mad as a hatter.
Truth as a batter can bring you the game winning hit.
==================

[Lesley]

Patrick Sullivan: "I agree the President himself should have simply called a press conference and exposed Wilson as the liar he is by relating the Iraqi 'trade' delegation bit, rather than hoping Judy would carry the ball for them."

Patrick, here's an alternative thought: perhaps the Administration thought that the President directly coming out against Wilson would give Wilson "too much stature" (and the harsh implications of the power of the Presidential bully pulpit to attack one critic among the thousands) and hoped the press would remedy the issue, so to speak. It would be a difficult, time-consuming, and seemingly petty process for any President to personally address every critic of his administration. That hasn't been the "Bush style" - recall the recent hoopla over Bush's use of the word "some people."

Just a thought.

[Florence Schmieg]

These constant pseudo scandals the press rigs up against Bush will become less and less effective. Hurt his credibility? What have they been doing all along? Those who believe Bush is a liar already believe it. I can't see this stuff making that much more of a difference. It's like the boy who cried wolf too often. Eventually people shrug their soldiers and say, "so what else is new". People care about their own lives and their families. Only the rabid Bush-haters like Chris Matthews and company eat this stuff up.

[Patton]

'The Dems would say why not hold a press conference to discuss the declasified info, why go to Judy Miller?'

Because it was the NYT that published Wilsons OP-ED.

If the Times would have corrected the OP-ED and simpy stated:

THE JOSEPH WILSON OP-ED WRONGLY CHARACTERIZED WHAT THE GOVERNMENT KNEW AT THE TIME OF THE STATE OF THE UNION AND WRONGLY CHARACTERIZED THE NATURE AND CONTENT OF THE FORMER AMBASSADORS REPORT AND WHO IT WAS REPORTED TO AT THE TIME IT WAS SUBMITTED.

[Foo Bar]

A quibble:

So Libby gave to one reporter a sneak preview of info that had been partly de-classified when a public version of the NIE had been released in October 2002, and more of which was released on July 18, 2003. Hold the front page.

I don't think the fact that the October '02 declassified NIE had been published contributes much to your argument that the current "Bush Leaked" story is a yawner.

Libby says he was authorized to tell Miller "a key judgment of the N.I.E. held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

No such judgment was contained in the October '02 declassifed version. It only discusses uranium in the context of Iraq's enrichment capabilities.

The fact that the classified version of the NIE had claimed that Iraq had been trying to get uranium from Africa was genuinely fresh info in the July 18 '03 declassification, and this info was the specifically Wilson-rebutting info.

[Cecil Turner]

I agree the President himself should have simply called a press conference and exposed Wilson as the liar he is by relating the Iraqi 'trade' delegation bit, rather than hoping Judy would carry the ball for them.

Sorry, but this doesn't wash. The Administration corrected the record, repeatedly, through several conduits:

• Jul 7 (Fleischer): But the fact of the matter is in his statements about the Vice President -- the Vice President's office did not request the mission to Niger.
• Jul 11 (Rice): But going back to the President's speech, which is really the issue here, the President of the United States went up to give the State of the Union on the basis of information that was in his National Intelligence Estimate and that everybody thought to be true.
• Jul 11 (Tenet): The NIE states: “A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure “uranium” (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. [much more, including some of the caveats Waas&co. pretend weren't released]
• Jul 12 (Fleischer): This is in Wilson's report back to the CIA. Wilson's own report, the very man who was on television saying Niger denies it, who never said anything about forged documents, reports himself that officials in Niger said that Iraq was seeking to contact officials in Niger about sales.
• And then, on Jul 18, the NIE and press conference with all the caveats Waas&co. pretend weren't released.

They did a full-court press on this, with data that all turned out to be correct, and the media still bought Wilson's bogus story. Calling another press conference wasn't the ticket, and trying to get the Times to run some balance on their Kristof/Wilson disinformation was perfectly appropriate.

[kim]

jerry, have you ever heard of 'press bias'? No I'm not talking about Faux News.
===================================

[clarice]

Cecil, Excellent job!

[clarice]

Cecil, I don't know if it'll be printed but I blogged this crediting you for your fine work and JOM posters for the generally high level of discussion here.

[Cecil Turner]

Thanks Clarice.

The fact that the classified version of the NIE had claimed that Iraq had been trying to get uranium from Africa was genuinely fresh info in the July 18 '03 declassification, and this info was the specifically Wilson-rebutting info.

Well, almost. It was covered in Tenet's statement on July 11. And much of that was essentially the same as the British Dossier from September, and the document story was of course months old, so little of the subject matter was really "fresh."

[Foo Bar]

Well, almost.

OK, let me rephrase that slightly. At the time of the July 8 '03 Libby-Miller meeting, the fact that the U.S. government's official intelligence document claimed Iraq had been seeking uranium in Africa was fresh information, as far as I can tell.

A minor point, in any event.

[TM]

Good point from Foo Bar:

Libby says he was authorized to tell Miller "a key judgment of the N.I.E. held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

No such judgment was contained in the October '02 declassifed version. It only discusses uranium in the context of Iraq's enrichment capabilities.

Interesting. I am in a small and unpublicized camp that thinks that Libby's testimony was wrong or incomplete on this uranium point.

Even the declassified NIE was not real strong on the uranium procurement story. However, from Miller's account it is pretty clear that Libby also presented the (classified) info about Wilson's trip that Tenet discussed on July 11.

For all we know, Libby was referring to, and got permission to discuss, both items. (Bonus - just what did Karl Rove mean when he told Matt Cooper on July 11 that stuff was going to be declassified soon?)

Let's keep in mind - it is tough parsing the excerpted testimony of a guy indicted for perjury who is going with a faulty memory defense.

[vnjagvet]

It is amazing how the "repeat it often enough and maybe someone will believe it" approach now seems to be endemic to the Old Kahuna Press.

Now they are conflating the Plame/Wilson caper with the NSA leak situation. Soon, it will be abundantly clear these are much different situations.

With the internet, our host,TM, and folks regularly commenting here like Cecil, TS, Clarice, Rick, Sue, JMHanes, et al, it ain't working.

[TM]

With the internet, our host,TM, and folks regularly commenting here like Cecil, TS, Clarice, Rick, Sue, JMHanes, et al, it ain't working.

Without Jeff, Foo Bar, Jim E, the Tejano Charboy, Polly, and others to beat on us (or let us sharpen our swords), who knows where we would be?

And don't even tell me who I left out. Well, unless I mortified myself...

[Rick Ballard]

Vnjagvet,

If the case becomes United States v Sulzberger, Keller, Risen, Lichtblau and The New York Times, then a close reading of the penalty for those found guilty as described in TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 37 § 798 will explain a great deal about what will be published in the Times over the next year or so.

I think the US Printing Office will do a fine job in running the Times while its management learns to love Kansas.

Cojones. Alberto, cojones muy grande.

[noah]

Not familiar with the law in this area but doesn't the President's authority to release classified information relate to his inherent authority? Are we going to find ourselves hearing new cries about Presidential lawbreaking?

[kim]

Not only is he spying on your secrets, but he is revealing them, too.
========================================

[coolpapa]

Rick -

"If the case becomes United States v Sulzberger, Keller, Risen, Lichtblau and The New York Times..."

Don't get too far out on that front yet. L'affair Plame is only Gettysburg. Rice has moved on Atlanta, but hasn't made it to Savannah yet. US v Pinch et al will be Appomattox.

[coolpapa]

TM -

"Let's keep in mind - it is tough parsing the excerpted testimony of a guy indicted for perjury who is going with a faulty memory defense."

Just happened to find this comment from "liontooth" at AJStrata's -

“In light of today’s shocking revelation, President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information,” Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.)

Hey Harry, the guy making the disclosure is charged with PERJURY!

Apparently, it's not too tough for a Senator.

[james thurber]

Grant surrendering to Lee at Appomattox:

"We dam near licked you. If I'd been feeling better we would of licked you."

[kim]

What? Are you drunk? You're seeing the scene backwards.
=================================

[compguy135]

Bush is the coach, not one of the players.

The reason Bush and other CEO types don’t like leakers is that leakers pursue their own agenda, not the agreed upon team agenda. It’s the same problem as the coach calling a play, and then having all the players on the team decide what they really want to do. Complaining about Bush authorizing the release of information is like complaining about the coach calling the plays.

[Matt]

Actually, it may not be a good point from Foo Bar. What was released was a *portion* of the October 2002 NIE, not the whole thing.

The "key judgement" that Iraq was vigorously trying to procure uranium may well have been in the still-classified portion.

[JJ]

I was wondering if I could apply for the vacant Chairmanship at The Department of the Obvious.

Feels like a perfect fit, from here.

And speaking of the need for clarification, didn't this Plame story really get turned on its head when Bob Woodward's confession turned the (near) simplicity of the story/meme upside down for those of us interested in the only the merely obvious?

Just asking. If this is obvious, it will go onto the new Chair of the Obvious. If not, y'all can have it back to continue sorting.

From the Department of Muddy Waters comes this from today's WSJ paper edition:

"The special prosecutor trying the case against former...[blah, blah]...will try to show that the leaking of a CIA agent's name grew out of a highly organized administration effort that commanded high-level attention, a court filing this week shows."

Given the balance of additional information that is out there, this lead is way too over-simplified to qualify for us in Obvious Land, I judge. As my first act, I would throw this one in the round file.

...to quote Mr. T: "I love it when a plan comes together."

PS: Poor Joey Devine got absolutely trashed by the SF Giants. That was obvious.

[kim]

Did you note that the highly organized administration effort commanded the high level attention of Bush and Tenet, who asked each other, " What the....? Who the.....? Why the....?" about Joe Wilson.
===========================

[woof]

Not only is he spying on your secrets, but he is revealing them, too.

I read this site just to catch the aroma of simple minds. You are today's "winner", Congratulations!

[kim]

Not only are you peeing on my pearls, you are reviling them, too.
======================================

[kim]

You did, by the way, catch that the meme is designed for simple minds. Strike a chord?
==================================