A one-man declassification machine — Part II

In the last post, I talked about the practical problems of the White House argument that Bush can leak [tag]classified[/tag] information because, as [tag]president[/tag], he can declassify anything he wants. In this post, let’s look at the political problems associated with this defense.

Even if the practice is legal, and it very well may be, the revelation that [tag]Bush[/tag] personally and directly authorized Scooter [tag]Libby[/tag] to leak portions of the classified [tag]National Intelligence Estimate[/tag] to the New York Times is still a political fiasco of the highest order.

We are, after all, talking about a president who has vehemently condemned leaks, particularly of sensitive national security materials, for the better part of his presidency. As Joe Conason put it, “[Bush] claimed to consider the leaking of classified information to be a matter of the utmost seriousness. And he let his press secretary insist repeatedly that the White House had absolutely no idea how this terrible thing had happened.”

Slate’s John Dickerson, among others, highlighted the president’s obvious [tag]hypocrisy[/tag].

It’s one thing to declassify information; it’s another thing to present information to a reporter as though it were [tag]classified[/tag] to preserve the shadow authenticity that comes with a leak. Bush wanted to have the information out there but not have to account for it or explain it.

All presidents engage in this hypocrisy, but Bush has made it Texas-sized by putting on such a show about leaks during his time in office. He’s done everything short of forming a Department of Anti-Leaking. The most recent example has been the attack on the New York Times for printing leaks about the NSA wiretap operation, but President Bush has been at it for years. In October 2001, after reading a Washington Times story that described terrorist camps in Afghanistan that the CIA and Pentagon had targeted for destruction, Bush told aides, “an act of treason was committed in the newspaper this morning.”

When the NYT reports on a national-security leak Bush doesn’t like, it’s [tag]treason[/tag]; when the NYT reports on a national-security leak Bush does like, it’s an effective political strategy. Got it.

Here’s the Bush comment that should, and probably will, be shown over and over again in the coming weeks and months.

“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 [tag]appropriate action[/tag]. […]

“I want to tell you something — leaks of classified information are a bad thing…. I’ve spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.”

Well, now we know the president was apparently one of them, and the White House has probably been lying the whole time. Do you suppose Bush is ready to take the “appropriate action” against himself? And what do you suppose that might be?

Using a legitimate presidential power (declassification) for illegitimate purposes (smearing a political opponent) is the very definition of abuse of power. If Bush is ever impeached, this should be one of the charges in the articles of impeachment.

  • I’m sure he’s going to give himself a stern talking to once the investigation has run its course and he knows for certian that he was involved with the leak. We don’t want him jumping to conclusions now, do we?

  • Juxtaposing the above Bush quotes with the fact that he was himself the leaker-in-chief should cause real political damage. Showing Bush as such a baldfaced liar will erode what’s left of his credibility, and, given that this is all about national security, hurt him in a way that will cause the most damage to Republican electoral prospects.

  • Assuming that Libby told the truth, which I don’t…

    Then assuming that Cheney told the truth, which I don’t…

    That leaves Bush as the most pathetic liar, cruel and viscious in his language against good Americans just trying to report on his administration…

    or as the most forgetful President since Reagen started suffering from Altzheimer.

    I’m really stuck on this. First, I know that much of Bush’s brain has been destroyed by alcohol and other intoxicants, so I don’t have a hard time believing that he simply forgot that he was the one to authorize the release of the NIE. But, on the other hand, I’ve seen how viscious he gets with people who oppose him, or get in his way, or work for him, or simply exist in the same universe. The language of personal destruction, which he learned from Karl Rove, is as natural to him as cutting brush.

    But for now, let’s keep hitting Bush on selectively leaking Intelligence without proper consultation with the Intelligence Community for the purpose of cherry picking data to defend his war of choice against a brave American who stood up and informed the country of Bush’s manipulations.

  • Perhaps it’s time we get behind Sen. Pat Roberts’ bill that would make leaking classified information a felony.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021602186.html

    I think Sen. Roberts says it best when he notes: “Whether it’s a reporter or just any individual or somebody by the water cooler who’s upset or somebody who has just a very strong difference of opinion knowingly reveals classified information, that would be a felony.” A petulant Bush in a fit of picque seems to fit the bill.

    Of course it has a chilling effect on press freedoms. But since reporters don’t seem to be too interested in doing their jobs, I say go for it. Pass the bill and convene a grand jury.

  • I’ve asked myself this question so many times– what would Bush have to do for the GOP to impeach him? Get caught on tape doing something awful or off-the-wall– such as kicking a puppy? making love to a houseplant in the oval office?

    Right now his approval numbers are in the mid-30s, with the continuous onslaught of bad news I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re in the low-30s before long. Just how low can he go before the GOP feels the *must* get rid of him before he takes them all down with him?

  • That quote from 2003 should get wall to wall coverage. It should be like Clinton’s “I didn’t have sexual relations” video.

    Has anyone seen a video clip of Bush’s comments we could send around?

  • Bush just made himself the go-to guy for the Phase II WMD investigation. He cant use the intelligence community or the declassification process as an excuse. Hes made it perfectly clear where the buck stops.

    I wonder if the Democrats will press their newfound advantage. I have my doubts if they really want to go foward on that front.

  • If it were legal, why did he lie about it? Why did we spend millions of dollars investigating?

  • “If it were legal, why did he lie about it? Why did we spend millions of dollars investigating?” – merlallen

    Because he had an election to win, and he couldn’t win if his manipulations of intelligence were proved before the election.

  • Remember the missing-not missing-emails from February. Fitzgerald reported in early February that not all emails from the offices of the vice-president and president were archived. Latter he reported that the missing emails from the vice-president’s office were found, but not those from the president’s office. Doesn’t this make you wonder what’s in those missing emails?

  • Comments are closed.