UPDATED: Declassifying classified data– and White House leaks
The sudden press flap over Scooter Libby’s alleged “revelation” that President Bush declassified intelligence information related to Iraq is silly but all too predictable. The entire flap relies on mixing terms and “misunderstanding by innuendo” — a technique of demagoguery, not journalism. The flap is yet more evidence that the national press is more interested in playing “gotcha” with the Bush Administration than reporting the news.
Presidents and vice-presidents can declassify information based on their own good (or bad) judgment. That is a privilege and responsibility of the office. Their authority is near-absolute.Disseminating unclassified information isn’t a crime — no matter the technique used. The information can be disseminated at a press conference, in a press release, in a speech, or — yes– via leak. (UPDATE: Background links I should have included in the original post– though the president’s power in the sphere is common knowledge. The president is at the top of the Classification Authority hierarchy– he holds the ultimate clasification/declassification power. The vice-president is granted authority from the president. See this link to the relevant executive order regarding the vie-president. And I just found this article by Byron York which details the estension of presidential powers to the vice-president. York’s article emphasizes the formal codification of the vice-president’s classification powers, which is a change from past administrations.)
Reporters thrive on “leaks” because a leak usually means “scoop.” A leak can also mean “spin” but that’s an understood aspect of Washington’s political carnival. However, leaking properly declassified material isn’t a crime. Leaking classified material is illegal– and so is publishing classified material in a press release.
So what’s the story here? That someone who worked in the White House selectively passed properly declassified material to the press? That’s not a scandal; that’s Beltway business as usual. I’d love to hear that reported– it’s not news per se, but it would be refreshingly open and honest media analysis.
However, the breathless excitement with which MSNBC (during the 3 PM CDT hour) broke this story certainly suggested scandal. An hour later the mood had calmed a bit; even so a rather smug Chris Matthews asked his attorney guest why Scooter Libby would “finger the President?” Dick Sauber (Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper’s lawyer) responded that Libby was probably trying to cover for himself. Sauber stressed that he did not know why but was making an educated guess. That’s reasonable speculation on Sauber’s part. (Sauber also said that this newly released information appears to undermine Libby’s claim that he was “too busy” to remember exactly what he said and to whom he said it during the “Plame affair.”) But the bottom line is the president can declassify information. “Finger” is a push word, stoked with criminal innuendo —but Bush was not engaged in a criminal act. Questioning Bush’s judgment is perfectly appropriate, but accusation of crime or lies is unwarranted. (As it is, the information in question came from the National Intelligence Estimate. The NIE information didn’t have anything to do with the Plame case.)
Remember, Libby was not indicted for illegally identifying Plame as a covert agent; he was indicted for perjury, a procedural crime. This pseudo-revelation may or may not relate to his alleged perjury. (According to a report I just heard on Fox it doesn’t; ie, the NIE declassification story does not relate to the perjury charges.)
That noted, based on Sauber’s comments and what we’ve learned about Libby, I suspect — and suspect is the operative word– that Libby will start sending legal and media signals that he intends to fight the indictment by pursuing a “full spectrum” strategy. No matter the potential damage to innocents and institutions, he will fight the charges in the court room (using all legal methods and machinations), in the back room (using personal influence), and in the newsroom (following a calculated media and political strategy).
Libby’s an experienced Beltway operative. If he can squeeze the NY Times, President Bush, the CIA, the prosecution, or anyone else he’ll do so. His goal is a dismissal of charges or a mistrial. His model will be Bill Clinton’s strategy to fight impeachment (though obviously on a much smaller scale and for less-significant political and historical stakes).
UPDATE: CNN is exploring another angle: that the White House is “hypocritical” because it has come down hard on leaks. But a word is missing in this accusation: “unauthorized.” The White House has indeed come down hard on anyone leaking classified information. The White House has also been tough on executive branch employees who pass information via unauthorized leaks. The president wants to control the dissemination of information and has made that clear. The information released today said that what Libby leaked as declassified and authorized — but try getting that clear on atv squawk show where the game is gotcha. The hypocrisy allegation, unlike the criminal innuendo, is certainly within rational bounds.
UPDATE 2: Hat-tip Captain’s Qaurters. Here’s the NY Sun article that started the press flap. The article strikes me as factual and straight-forward. I’m watching MSNBC again and the network is interviewing a man who says Bush has a political vulnerability on this issue but no legal vulnerability. Okay, I’ve written that. So the flap is the story? I think that’s the case –again, we’ve demagoguery, not journalism.
UPDATE 3: A quick refresher course in the Plame affair. Why be interested in Ambassador Wilson’s wife? According to the White House, she recommended that her husband be selected to make the trip to Niger. If that’s the case Plame wasn’t merely a wife– she was professionally involved.
John Podhoretz addresses the classification non-story in today’s NY Post. The essay also quotes several of the relevant executive orders governing classification authority. Podhoretz disparages the media’s short memory, but then that’s part of the game of demagoguery– recycle past accusations without providing context. I’ve received a couple of emails from readers who complain that they knew nothing about presidential classification authority. Perhaps that is the upside in this press flap– it’s an educational opportunity and a good one. Understanding the classification authority and process is essential to understanding this issue and developing an informed opinion.
UPDATE 4: Kudos to the commenter who argued this story was “old news” . Reuters reports on the White House reaction.
Maybe I should expand my question. It may well be true that the President has the power to classify and declassify certain information. But it seems preposterous that such an action can be done with no process…no memos…findings..documentaion etc etc of why and when the decision is made. If you have other information which states that declassification (or classification) can be inferred simply from the President’s actions after the fact, please let us know. ED NOTE: Excellent– your revamped comment is wwritten without insult, innuendo, or bad attitude. I hope you will continue in this civil vein. Actually, from now on out you need to identify yourself by name. I encourage regular commenters to do this– on the internet anonymity tends to breed contemptuous behavior. See the links I added as an update to the body of the original post. The president has final authority in the classification business (and if you can classify to a certain level the general rule is you can also declassify that level). The classification buck starts and stops with the president. As I mentioned in the post, there are checks on the president’s authority — political critique and press discussion, which we’re engaging in. Elections are also a check (and I should have mentioned that). What would be truly preposterous is bogging down the executive with even more CYA-type paperwork. Presidents have always been able to extend classification authority. in 2003 the Bush Administration codified the vice-president’s authority– and that codification is a change from past administrations, though I’m sure that in the past vice-preisdents and close presidential advisers have had de facto authority. In my opinion, too much material is classified. But that’s another issue which we can address in a future post.
Comment by Raw Data — 4/6/2006 @ 6:07 pm
MSM is no more then tabloid journalism. Fancy Chris Matthew’s getting John Kerry’s perspective on anything.
Comment by kathie — 4/6/2006 @ 6:10 pm
Um. Isn’t this the same “news” of a few months ago? That Cheney declassified the NIE? and that Bush had updated a Clinton executive order in order to allow the office of the vice president to be able to declassify documents? Is this news just because the same “story” is now repeated by Libby? Gotha journalism indeed. ED NOTE: You make a good point. There is an “old news” aspect.
Comment by John Lynch — 4/6/2006 @ 6:31 pm
President Kennedy once ordered an administration official to leak highly classified material to the Soviet Union!! Not really, but about as accurate as the AP headlines. During the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy’s ambassador to the UN displayed classified photos of Cuban missile sites taken via U2 fly-overs at a UN Security Council meeting. Kennedy (correctly) weighed the cost of releasing highly classified photos against the opportunity of demonstrating that the Soviets were lying about the missile installations. The US executive branch has always had the ability to declassify material. ED NOTE: Thanks for the comment. The president has the authority. Executive order and law define the rest of the executive branch’s degrees of authority to classify/declassify. Again, the basic rule of thumb is if an agency has the authority to classify to a certain level, it has the authority to declassify to the same level.
Comment by AJackson — 4/6/2006 @ 6:44 pm
Still Crying Over The Lost Fitzmas The New York Sun reported today that I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby has testified that he released information from a National Intelligence Estimate in 2003 to a reporter prior to its publication. Predictably, the media and the blogosphere has overreacted,…
Trackback by Captain's Quarters — 4/6/2006 @ 7:35 pm
Question: if a Presidential leak automatically declassifies information, does that mean that it’s really declassified, as in, Joe Schmoe can see it? For example, in the Missile Crisis scenario, did Kennedy’s actions declassify the material? Could a reporter who heard about that leak then have asked for the now-declassified documents? I suppose you could say the President re-classifies the material after showing it to person X - but how would you prove it? It seems to me that, under this auto-declassification theory, a leak to one person becomes a leak to everyone.
Comment by CTD — 4/6/2006 @ 9:21 pm
From my point of view, the issue really is not, Was the NIE classified or not? Instead: - If you are trying to counter Wilson’s statements, what does his WIFE have to do with it? - Doesn’t this just seem like mean-spirited revenge, rather than anything to do with running the country? - Forget the legalisms for a minute: What possible good can it be to expose an undercover agent, who has worked for a company that still engages in providing cover for other undercover agents? Isn’t this kind of dumb, and even treasonous? - Finally, if it’s nothing to be ashamed of, why didn’t Bush and Cheney tell this to us three years ago? Because it would seem to be too nasty? They would have a point there.
Comment by Neal — 4/6/2006 @ 9:58 pm
ED NOTE: You want to continue to post, identify yourself. Think of it as a rule encouraging thoughtfulness and civility.
Comment by Raw Data — 4/6/2006 @ 10:02 pm
The Orwellian Worldview of Bush-haters–where Releasing Facts Means Having Something to Hide A few weeks ago, Patrick (Gryph) responded to Bruce’s surprise at Log Cabin’s decision to feature Andrew Sullivan at its “convention” later this month, by providing a list of conservative and libertarian policy proposals that A…
Trackback by Gay Patriot — 4/7/2006 @ 2:23 am
Shortly before the 1980 election, President Carter disclosed the existence of the B-2 stealth bomber program. I don’t recall any news organizations calling that a “leakâ€, or questioning his authority to do it. Some individuals did, however, question Carter’s motives. Why did a highly classified aircraft that did not reached IOC (Initial Operational Capability) until 1997 need to be disclosed in 1980? (If Carter’s reasons were something other than political, then perhaps it’s time for someone to “leak†those reasons to us.)
Comment by Jerome Parrot — 4/7/2006 @ 2:24 am
[…] nbsp; has a lot of detail why this is not what the media wants you to think it is. UPDATE: Austin Bay has a really nice writeup on this. This entry was posted […]
Pingback by Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » Yet Another Misleading Headline — 4/7/2006 @ 5:18 am
That noted, based on Sauber’s comments and what we’ve learned about Libby, I suspect — and suspect is the operative word– that Libby will start sending legal and media signals that he intends to fight the indictment by pursuing a “full spectrum†strategy. No matter the potential damage to innocents and institutions, he will fight the charges in the court room (using all legal methods and machinations), in the back room (using personal influence), and in the newsroom (following a calculated media and political strategy). You infer that based on this story? I don’t understand. It was Fitzgerald, not Libby, who disclosed Libby’s testimony. Unless you have reason to believe that Libby revealed the authorization of his own accord rather than in response to a relevant question, how does this follow? ED NOTE: Read the transition sentence: I based that on Sauber’s commentary on tv and other press speculation. I probably should have said “Here are a few other thoughts on how Libby’s perjury case may progress.” Those thoughts weren’t predicated on the press flap over presidential classification authority.
Comment by DF — 4/7/2006 @ 5:27 am
I was stationed at the Presidio in 1973, as a legal clerk for the Air Defense Artillary Headquarters. The missile batteries were forty and fifty miles distant. The Carter Fuel crisis had hit, and speed limits dropped to 55MPH. A couple of our drivers, casually making about 80MPH on the highway had a California Hiway Patrol car pull up next to them, lights flashing. They declassified an empty folder with a Top Secret cover on it, holding it up so the patrolman could see it. He gave them a little ‘OK wave’ and sent them down the road. Maybe I should call NPR with this scoop?
Comment by Kerry — 4/7/2006 @ 5:56 am
[…] ent and destroy confidence in the government remains elusive. Not that the smear campaign (which proceeds apace) hasn’t been highly successful in accomplishing the latter, but that’s another […]
Pingback by A Goy and his Blog » Blog Archive » Rhetorical Question — 4/7/2006 @ 6:36 am
The secret NIE declassification does bear on the perjury case. Libby’s defense is that he forgot mentioning Plame to Miller and Cooper. But he apparently also testified that the president took the extraordinary step of declassifying parts of the NIE (and telling no one besides Cheney and Libby — not even NSA Rice or her deputy Stephen Hadley) for the express purpose of giving Miller ammunition for an NYT story rebutting Wilson. In that context Libby’s claim of memory failure is preposterous. It also bolsters the prosecution’s theory of Libby’s motive, i.e. that the White House was going to extreme lengths to discredit Wilson, but only gave him legal cover for the NIE release and not for outing Plame, so he had to lie about that aspect of his conversations with Miller and Cooper and hope that Fitzgerald would not compel them to testify. This is a front-page story because it’s the first confirmation that the president was personally involved in fighting the Wilson story in the press, and willing to declassify national security documents to do so. The hypocrisy angle is important; when the president has spoken out against politically-inspired leaks he hasn’t said that they’re wrong because they are technically illegal; he has said that they are wrong because they hurt national security. Now he’s revealed as someone who’s willing to (legally) use classified national security documents for his own political purposes, undercutting any moral authority he might have on the subject.
Comment by Walter — 4/7/2006 @ 7:22 am
The suggestion that “when the President does it, it’s okay” is Nixonian at best. If the President declassified top secret information for the express purpose of having that information transmitted to a friendly media source, it represents profound politicization of intelligence gathering and analysis, as well as considerable hypocrisy– the President can arrange leaks to suit his own purposes, but Heaven forbid a conscientious federal employee pass along information about our country, our laws and our Constitution being subverted by illegal wiretaps, using media proxies to prop up unpopular domestic issues and misleading the country into a war overseas.
Comment by Drew — 4/7/2006 @ 7:34 am
Can Presidents Leak Classified Information? With yesterday’s revelations that President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney authorized Lewis “Scooter” Libby to release certain classified information to the New York Times to help buttress their case for the Iraq War, critics are c…
Trackback by Outside The Beltway | OTB — 4/7/2006 @ 7:50 am
Whether authorizing the leak was legal or illegal is not the point. When the Plame leak first became a big story Bush clearly stated he knew nothing about it and would vigourously pursue an investigation, vowing that any leaker in the White House would be immediately fired. I don’t understand how anyone, no matter what your politics, can call that anything other than a flat out lie. Isn’t this the president and the party that were going to bring back moral values to the Beltway? I think he should resign. He’s lost his credibility with the average Jake and can no longer effectively lead.
Comment by Libby Spencer — 4/7/2006 @ 9:00 am
Generally speaking I disagree that the press is using innuedo to get Mr Bush. Every commentary I have heard is saying that this is not a legal issue but a political issue. Every media channel I have read says absolutely Cheney and Bush have the right to declassify and disclose, they are reporting that it is a political problem for them in that they have denied knowledge, gone after leakers etc, but are being shown to be willing to leak in support of their own policies. They are reporting it based on this perceived hypocracy. Leaks are legal or illegal depending on whose ox is being gored, always the case in politics ED NOTE: Let’s consider this story. As discussion hass evolved over the last 18 hours I’d say you’re right — the conclusion is this is a political issue, not a legal issue. But roll the viedotapes of 3 PM CDT April 6– that wasn’t the context. My original post said (paraphrasing) that questioning the President’s judgment was fair game (it always is) but questions of his authority to declassify were based on either ignorance of demagougery. Likewise the issue of leaks. Bush has battled unauthorized leaks — every president does. If that’s hypocrisy then the entire Beltway game is hypocritical (and guess what– it may well be, since the Beltway press and the politicos both thrive on leaks, authorized and unauthorized). In my opinion it only takes one sentence to give this story adequate context — ie, differentiatingthe unathorized release of information from an authorized release, and differentiating the release of classified information from unclassified information. However, that compound sentence takes a lot of drama and gotcha out of the story. Thanks for the comment– it’s a thoughtful one.
Comment by Chet Brewer — 4/7/2006 @ 9:05 am
FLOGGING DEAD HORSES A reoccurring theme that I’ve written about on this site has been the war by national security apparatchiks in the CIA, the State Department, and even in the Department of Defense against the Bush Administration’s foreign policy. Powerline…
Trackback by Right Wing Nut House — 4/7/2006 @ 9:06 am
[…] neously continues shameful smearing of the President of the United States in Plamegate. As Austin Bay points out accurately, the news media can be inprecise when it suits its purposes. The sudden press […]
Pingback by Reverse spin » Relentless demogoguery — 4/7/2006 @ 9:14 am
I’m not a Democrat or Republican, I’m just a very pissed off American! I’m looking forward to the collapse of the US Government, to seeing politicos of both parties tarred, feathered, and swinging from lamp poles. Lying to start wars of conquest is the worst crime any government can commit, not to mention looting the treasury, overthrowing the U.S. Constitution. Welcome to the non violent revolution! Bring down the Government, they don’t, they don’t speak for us! Fluff up the feather pillows, keep the tar on the stove!
Comment by crusader bunnypants — 4/7/2006 @ 9:25 am
Well, Bush just put in motion an investigation into the leaking of a CIA agent’s identity and spent millions of our tax dollars to investigate what he knew the answer to when he ordered the investigation. If I’m a shopkeeper I can appropriate my own wares and it isn’t shoplifting. If I call in the police and pretend I don’t know who took my stuff, that’s different. At least, to law-abiding citizens, it is. I wonder which of you would run to such a shopkeepers defense? I’m glad to know that you all will be applauding the next democratic president that declassifies government secrets in war time with no purpose other than covering his own backside about his own bad judgment in sending soldiers to die in a fruitless search for WMD.
Comment by Dick Cheney — 4/7/2006 @ 9:42 am
Excuse me, but could just one of you Conservative bloggers tell us WHAT Bush has to do for you guys to write a negative report? Perhaps if Bush personally entered a maternity ward in a DC hospital and speared some newborns to death would that do it? Or could you guys find a positive spin on that also? Face it. You guys are supporting one of the most corrupt and incompetant administrations in modern US history. The world knows it. Over two thirds of all Americans know it. When will you guys finally get it?
Comment by Mark — 4/7/2006 @ 9:49 am
>>by his releasing it was no longer considered classified Not true. 1.) Libby leaked a classified national security document (NIE) to Judith Miller 9/2002. 2.) Congress didn’t see the document until 10/2002. 3.) The document was declassified in 6/2003. Follow the chronology. The document was still classifed AFTER it was leaked. It wasn’t declassified until the following year. Libby claims Cheney said Bush gave him the OK to leak that document (the NIE). If true, Bush leaked classified national security information to the press before Congress even saw it. If Bush “declassified” it by leaking it, then he had to re-classify it again, then re-declassify it in 2003. Think about it. Just follow the chronology. Libby claims Bush ok’d the leak of the NIE. The leak of the NIE to Miller took place in September 2002. The document wasn’t presented to Congress until October 2002. The document was declassified in the summer of 2003. It was classified when it was leaked.
Comment by crusader bunnypants — 4/7/2006 @ 10:26 am
[…] ’s a requirement of the job in a democracy. Others: A really good assessment from Austin Bay Outside the Beltway The Corner posted by: The Editors @ 7:40 am April 7, 2006 […]
Pingback by The Unalienable Right » Debunking Lyin’ Joe Wilson is still not a crime — 4/7/2006 @ 10:27 am
Lovely nuance on the “authorised” versus “unauthorised” leak perspective. So, it is okay for Bush to leak — but he is indignant when someone else leaks. Yes, that is hypocrisy and while I suppose everyone does it — only this president seems to do it with national security information. ED NOTE: Indeed, the president has the executive power. He makes the decisions regarding classification and authorized release of information because he is president. It’s why it’s fair to question a president’s judgment in these matters– which historians will do for decades regarding many of the decisions Bush has made since taking office. But as for legality, if the president decides to declassify a particular piece of information he has the authority. Here’s the flip side of that privilege: The president must also bear the responsibility for the decision. He is the commander in chief and yes, he can release or leak national security information– or put it on the side of the Goodyear blimp. He can also fight to keep national security information hidden (like the NSA phone monitoring program the NY Times exposed in December 2005). Giving out information usually risks exposing sources– I say usually because I can think of instances when the risk is minimal though good intel analysts tell me they can “walk back” information to sources with a high degree of certainty. Truly sensitive information about a weapons program may come from an inside source, for example, a spy inside Saddam’s regime. Declassifying the intel risks identifying the spy and losing the spy, (and losing the spy in this case would likely mean death for the spy). Disclosing certain information may put an entire operation at risk or greatly reduce its effectiveness (which the administration argues the NY TImes did with the NSA operation). The president bears the responsibility of making these complex decisions and then living with the consequences. The editors of the NY Times were not elected to make the national security decision they made vis a vis the NSA phone monitoring program — but they appear to believe that the program is illegal, is a violation of constitutional protections, etc., so for “the greater good” they published the story. It took guts on the part of the Times editors to publish that story that but they may end up in court facing some stiff charges. That’s a potential consequence of their decision. With power comes responsibility.
Comment by Jim — 4/7/2006 @ 11:55 am
[…] lable to him, is that legal? If someone authorizes info to be distributed, is that a leak? Austin Bay sets the record straight on these questions: The sudden press flap over Scooter Libby’s alleged â […]
Pingback by OKIE on the LAM - In LA » When a Leak — Isn’t a Leak — 4/7/2006 @ 2:06 pm
Amazing… It is “obvious to the casual observer” that this president authorized a leak of formerly (until HE leaked it) classified information in an attempt to discredit a man who filed a report and “OPED” that contained CORRECT information. The leak, which included ERRANT information about WMD, was timed to rebut that disclosure. Why are you defending the president when he leaked classified to defend an INCORRECT assertion? No matter your politics, I want my president to be the smartest SOB in the room. Time an again this man has demonstrated he is NOT that man.
Comment by Reign of Reason — 4/7/2006 @ 2:55 pm
Leaker in Chief or Media as “Simon Says†The question is not why this president released information to support his reasons for going to war, which necessarily resulted in Americans dying. Rather, the question is: why would the Media assert that this is an example of this president “leaking†classified information, when clearly this is not the case and the Media knows it. Why are news headlines buttressed with phrases “leaker in chiefâ€, “Bush leakedâ€, etc, when mere cursory review of the facts reveals that the president has the authority to “declassify†certain information and this is an instance where he has done so. How is it “hypocriticalâ€, as suggested by the “talking heads†and other “nabobs…â€, for the president to allow for the dissemination of certain information to the general public? When the basis for the president’s reasons to commit our forces to war is widely challenged, as has been the case in national publications that have paraphrased each other’s innuendo, why shouldn’t the president allow for the distribution of what information he can safely impart to provide some clarity? Indeed, it is incumbent upon the president to clarify his objectives, when they have been so challenged by a person of ostensibly “impeccable standingâ€, who, for partisan gain, politicized his accusations regarding this president’s “call†for war. After such criticism (which spread like a malignant wound) wouldn’t “inquiring minds†want to know, indeed, have the right to know, the basis for the facts the president used in such critical decision-making? Why does the Media purposely mislead the public with headline misnomers? To what positive end will we come to from “gotcha†journalism? What is the nexus in the media’s implication that since the president declassified certain war-clarifying information, which Scooter Libbey imparted to a journalist, the president also authorized the release of a CIA agent’s identity? There is no evidence to that affect. Since there is no one entity within the media to call his peers attention to these lapses, it is hard to see how this puerile and cliquish and gleeful vindictiveness by news commentary to stop? However, shouldn’t the “Simon-says†behavior of the national press be called what it is - misleading, dangerous and irresponsible? ED NOTE: You ask several pertinent questions. My original post said it appeared certain people in the national press want to play gotcha. In your opinion, why do the “talking heads” and “nabobs” (your description) frame this particular story as they have? What’s the motive? This is a question Jay Rosen and I tried to address last year, but the response our discussion elicited as either shrugs or shouts (shouts of commenters yelling past one another). For what it’s worth, Charles Krauthamer, Juan Williams, and the Boston Globe’s Washington bureau chief (I forget the woman’s name) had an excellent and rather low key discussion of this “non-story” during the panel segment of Fox’s Special Report this afternoon. The Boston Globe reporter characterized much of the reporting and discussion of this story over the last 24 hours as “breathless” (a word I used yesterday in my original post–written around 6 PM CDT April 6). Though I’ve noticed a shift in some discussion from the legal to political (and said so in a reply to an earlier commenter) the misrepresentation and uninformed allegations continue. Juan Williams and Jim Angle (who was hosting the program) both seemed to use “leak” to mean an unauthorized disclosure of information (at least that’s my memory of what they said during the discussion– it may have been Williams who defined leak in this manner). “Leaking” in my view is a technique — usually involving one on one disclosure from a source to a reporter. That’s why I differentiate between authorized and unauthorized. Based on the Williams-Angle definition a president could never leak — if he says it or tells an aide to say something, it’s an authorized disclosure. This Williams-Angle definition actually adds some clarity— a leak is an unauthorized disclosure, a briefing (whether given to one reporter or ten thousand) is an authorized disclosure. As I said in a reply to an earlier comment, determining what is authorized and what is not is a privilege and responsibility of the office of the president. Why don’t you add another comment why you think a such a significant segment of the press framed the discussion so poorly and inadequately? Williams (of NPR) and Angle (of Fox) framed the issue accurately and provided excellent context. Why did they do so? Why did Chris Matthews characterize this story as one in which Libby “fingered” President Bush?
Comment by Patrik — 4/7/2006 @ 3:21 pm
The improbity of the left The left has been in a frenzy all week in response to the news that the White House defended itself from the dishonest attack by Joe Wilson. Here’s Nancy Pelosi’s bleat: “President Bush’s selective declassification of highly sensitive intelligence …
Trackback by Don't Go Into The Light — 4/8/2006 @ 5:21 am
Push push in the Bush James Taranto muses on the latest turn in the Plame affair. From WSJ's Best of the Web: If you'd told us earlier this week that the Valerie Plame kerfuffle was about to turn even sillier, we wouldn't have believed you. But it has. This s…
Trackback by protein wisdom — 4/8/2006 @ 10:51 am
The Plame leak has less to do with whether Bush had the legal right to authorize it. It has more to do with Bush once again demonstrating that he is a coward and a liar. Since when does a real man attack another man’s wife? Bush stood in front of the world and lied. He said he didn’t know where the leak came from, and that he would investigate it.
Comment by Kim Iannone — 4/8/2006 @ 12:41 pm
[…] Austin Bay Blog » UPDATED: Declassifying classified data– and White House leaksWonderland Online: Ver4.0 Training Island | Gamesonice.comCommon Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » Would Ronald Reagan Be a Conservative?Club Penguin Info l Glitches l Cheats l Tips » Cheats And Glitches Berkeley Video: Extensive Coverage Plus PhotosScrollin’ On Dubs » Playa del CarmenUse baby as a prop in your Halloween costumeKilling Batteries » This is what’s pissing me off today (June 2nd, 2008)parsippanyumc.com/blog » Blog Archives » Why the Good People Killed Jesus […]
Pingback by The Ultimate Guide To Parrots - Step By Step. | 7Wins.eu — 6/7/2009 @ 9:52 am