A White House defense develops — but it’s hardly compelling

April 7, 2006

OK, so the [tag]president[/tag] authorized a top aide to [tag]leak[/tag] [tag]classified[/tag] information to a New York Times reporter. It’s getting pretty serious play in the media. Dems are on the offensive, and Bloomberg reports today that “even some Republicans said they were concerned about the effect of the new disclosures.”

The next step is crafting a compelling defense for the president’s conduct. How’s that coming along? Not very well.

A senior administration official, speaking on background because White House policy prohibits comment on an active investigation, said Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done. The official said [tag]Bush[/tag] [tag]authorized[/tag] the release of the classified information to assure the public of his rationale for war as it was coming under increasing scrutiny.

This is no small admission. As Kevin put it, “Bush did know about the leak, and he did authorize it. What’s more, his excuse is a simple one: he wanted to defend himself against attacks on his war policy, so it was OK. That’s exactly what happened, but it’s remarkable that he’s willing to admit it.”

Indeed, it is. What’s more, at this morning’s White House press gaggle, Scott McClellan tried to spin a difference between good leaks and bad leaks, saying “there’s a distinction between declassifying information that is in the public interest and the unauthorized disclosure of classified information that could compromise our nation’s security.” When asked specifically whether he was essentially offering a “no-harm-done” defense, McClellan didn’t answer.

Let’s take a moment to consider the landscape. Bush authorized leaking part of the [tag]NIE[/tag], to help push a bogus claim about Iraq’s aluminum tubes. The president did so, not because of “the public interest,” but because he thought it would be to his political advantage. He then proceeded to denounce leaks of any kind and pretend he had no idea who in his White House could possibly be involved with such an insidious practice.

And the best defense the White House can come up with is to admit that all of this happened, but a) Bush is literally incapable of leaking classified information because he’s the president; and b) the leaks are justifiable because Bush had a war to sell.

Chris Matthews told Matt Lauer this morning that on a scale of 1 to 10, this story is “heading towards 10.” It seems like a fair analysis.

Very interesting watching Matthews with David Gregory last night. While often he is a complete suckup blowhard, last night was quite different. He really took a major swipe at Bush on this, although at one point he rambled almost incomprehensively for so long that I began to wonder about his intent. Gregory was smart and after that steam blowoff he completely disregarded the entire statement and commented on something else, less his agreement made him look like he went along with all of that when he didnt really catch it. I was half asleep at the time but it threw me for a loop. The reason I was worried about Gregory agreeing was because it sounded as if Matthews might have been obscuring something and that when parsed, his statement wouldnt be such a condemnation after all. In the end, the whole exchange left me wondering why he has suddenly decided to be a real journalist. It certainly looked like he had the skills to be one, if he wanted to be, but it also seems pretty clear that he has been selling out to people like Delay recently. Perhaps now that he knows that little pre-interview exposure with Delay was aired that he has to salvage his image and has decided to play real hardball, as opposed to wiffle ball. Did anyone else think he was serious? I cant completely trust him.

  • God, I hope it’s heading toward 11. But here’s why I think they’re willing to admit it. Congress just excused Bush’s blatantly criminal behavior with regard to wiretapping by refusing to do anything about it except investigate what is already known to be a criminal act. Only three senators were willing to even censure Bush for his criminal behavior. Congress has essentially given him a free pass. Will the courts too? Most likely. So Bush knows he can get away with literally murder at this point. Hense, the “yeah, I told him to leak her name, but it’s cool, I’m all-powerful and I know what I’m doing. Trust me,” defense that literally thumbs its nose at the entire history of our republic and the rule of law and threatens to turn us literally into a dictatorship. I think we’ll have to wait and see if he allows free elections in 2008 to confirm that, but I don’t think it’s implausible any longer.

  • Im entirely with Rian on this. They are definitely going to admit to it and just say it is within presidential powers, which now of course to be unlimited. Someone should really take the logical extension of this argument and show where it leads. Is there any law which the president could not get around either by assuming expanded powers they believe are inherent, or by the use of a signing statement. Where does this defense run into a roadblock?

  • Someone help me out here – was Valerie Plame identified in the NIE?

    Just how did her name come up in this “leak”? I thought it was passed along to Matt Cooper via Rove as an off-hand remark?

    I know that happened at one point, when was her identity first disclosed & to whom?

    Also – if she wasn’t undercover (as the wingers like to claim) why was her identity included in classified documents? Are they now saying she wasn’t undercover because bush decided to “declassify” her position?

    Sorry to be so dense on this, I’m just having a hard time figuring out how this gets back to Plame (if she’s not named in the NIE).

  • For me, the bottom line is that someone in this administration had the name of an active CIA officer made public. Valarie Plame gathered intelligence on WMDs, in Iraq, and from what I understand Iran.
    Question: Did compromising Plame’s covert status have any impact on our ability to contain the proliferation of WMDs?

  • GMF,
    my post came on the heels of yours. From what I gather, the leaking of Plame’s name is the reason for the investigation in the first place. Can someone verify this for me?

  • Mr. President, in what way did leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent to the press help to secure our nation against threats both foreign and domestic?

  • GMF, 2Manchu, let’s start with a literal answer: no, these new revelations do not point the finger at bush for authorizing the release of Plame’s name.

    Instead, what they suggest, particularly in conjunction with Murray Waas’ recent reporting, is this: the administration knew that bush had been peddling bogus Iraqi nuclear weapons threat claims. When Joe Wilson went public about the weakness of one aspect of those claims, they felt a need to respond, because they saw that as a vulnerability. That set in motion the chain of events that included the idea of Libby showing information from the NIE to Judy Miller and also set in motion the outing of Plame herself (since the administration defense was twofold: a.) Wilson is wrong; b.) Wilson was just sent off on a joyride by his wife).

  • This should be about more than a single CIA operative now. The President of the United States took patently-false information—not just “incorrect intelligence,” but a built-up collection of fabrications, imaginative creations, and outright lies—to take this country into a war against another sovereign state. This was not an act of national defense; rather, it looks like an overt act of aggressive war—which could be construed as a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, to which the United States is a signatory. When is someone in the media going to stand up and throw the words “war criminal” as this irresponsible excuse for a head-of-state?

  • As Kevin put it, “…his excuse is a simple one: he wanted to defend himself against attacks on his war policy, so it was OK. That’s exactly what happened, but it’s remarkable that he’s willing to admit it.”

    Remarkable?

    Kevin Drum shows he has absolutely no understanding of Bush’s pysche.

    None whatsover.

    Let me clue everyone (including Drum) in:

    If Bush thought he could get away with it… he’d tell us all to shut the fuck up and obey him or leave the country.

    Those are the sorts of thougths that swim in the Royal Adolescent’s brain.

    Bush really doesn’t care that he may have broken rules of ethics or legal statutes. He did it because he is President and Presidents can do whatever they want to do… see?

    That is Bush’s mental state… the only remarkable thing about this whole thing is that he didn’t just tell us all about his power grab months ago.

  • The concept of “war criminal” may be a tough sell, especially with someone like Charles Taylor awaiting trial in a detention center in Sierra Leone for genocide and related offences (mass rape, mass amputation, etc.).

    Bush is still an “irresponsible excuse for a head of state,” to be sure, but he’s not exactly in Taylor’s league.

  • Good analysis. I just checked in on Broder’s Live Online on the WaPo and the dean is saying this is a big deal also:

    David S. Broder: As you can tell from the current White House briefing by Scott McClellan, the administration is having a hard time squaring the disclosure of the president’s role in leaking informationm adverse to Ambassadfor Wilson with Mr. Bush’s prior statements decrying the leaks of any intelligence information. The contradictions are glaring–and so is the damage to his credibility.

    It’s now clear that the press is getting hostile. When Tweety and Broder are scoffing, that means the whole tenor of the coverage everywhere is going to be “trust issues” and “embattled administration.” Rove couldn’t hold the GOP congress together on Miers. Delay is gone. Now immigration is a complete cluster – they managed to piss off their wingnut base and enrage Latinos everywhere.

    Chimpy is headed for the 20s. He’ll be lucky to hold on at this point.

  • Michael,
    If Bush never has to stand in the docket, it won’t be because his bodycount doesn’t equal the minimum 500k mark. It will be because other countries are bound to the US by economic bonds that would be too painful to cut. Hell, that’s why we managed to get Outer Mongolia to send a token force–we threatened to cut off their foreign aid.

  • Ah, another puzzle for those of us who like to reinvent the English language as we go along…

    National security

    -plus-

    “I am the federal government!”

    -equals-

    Scottie telling the truth!

  • So, Mr. Stickings, what is the difference between George Bush and Charles Taylor? Bush has killed 2,500+ Americans and 15,000+ (way plus, most likely) Iraqis with his illegal war of agression. Taylor killed 50,000 or thereabouts. Taylor’s war threatened the stability of two not-so-consequential nations (I don’t wish to sound uncaring, but that’s true), while Bush’s war threatens the stability of the planet.

    So, which one is the worse one? Or does drinking your Republican Kool-Aid make you impervious to the facts as it does the other mouth-breathing droolers?

  • Mr. President, in what way did leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent to the press help to secure our nation against threats both foreign and domestic?
    Comment by Gorobei

    That is the right question and that is the one they can’t answer. Valerie Plane was working on WMD in Iran. Our country lost millions of dollars with the outing of not only her, but also the outing of her front company. It is also unclear how many lives were lost or put in danger because of this leak. No matter how I look at it, it comes up treason.

  • Hey, now, Tom. You make a few good points but you undermined them a bit with your unnecessary attitude. Michael Stickings is not a republican and he happens to be a smart, thoughtful moderate guy.

    Seriously, Bush is awful, dangerous, wreckless, etc. But Taylor? Until we find out that Bush ordered the violent hacking off of arms and legs of his enemies the two men are in different leagues.

  • From the Thompson-Gale Legal Encyclopedia:

    “Crimes against peace (war crimes thus constituting either this, or crimes against humanity, or conventional crimes during a state of war) include the planning, commencement, and waging of aggressive war. War that is self-defensive in nature is not agressive war.”

    This current exercise in Iraq no longer constitues any act of self defense on the part of the United States. There were no “weapons of mass destruction.” There was no effort to aquire radiological materialsand Iraq had no means with which to produce weapons-grade fissile material. The aluminum tube theory was debunked some months prior to launching the invasion. Hans Blick identified that Iraq was not a pending military threat. Literally every shred of evidence promoted by Washington to support the justifiable cause of war has been shown to be patently falsified. Iraq was less of a threat to the United States in 2003 than Poland was to Germany in the summer of 1939—and the evidence portrays that Mr. Bush knew it.

    I don’t think this is a tough sell at all; it merely requires “a sales-person” to get the job done. One familiar face to push the issue—and keep pushing—hard. Imagine the reaction (or rebellion) against the administration, if one of the talking heads at Fox, for example, took up the cause (O’Reilly…here’s your friggin’ change to be a good guy…). Or MSNBC. Or one of the “traditional” networks. Heck, if Walter Cronkite did it, the doofus in the White House wouldn’t last through the spring of 2006—let alone until January of 2009….

  • Can the Democrats stop dismissing impeachment as a “unrealistic” option for this jackass now? He lied the country into war. He threatened national security by outing a covert CIA agent with a cheap political smear. Then he lied about his administration sabotaging Plame’s career. It all makes a blowjob seem so trivial. And if that’s not enough there’s always the illegal surveilance and the subversion of the justice system. Kick his sorry ass out of office

  • As for whether or not this is a big story, it clearly is. It goes straight to the heart of Bush’s credibility and honesty, something that is already hurting a lot these days.

    To me it all comes down to this– Bush has been very outspoken about how much he hates leaks and leakers for 2 years. Then we find out that he might have ordered that Libby should selectively leak classified documents to selective members of the press for political purposes. If they wanted to counter Joe Wilson’s claims they should have done it out int he open. Which begs the question why– why did they do it all so secretly? What were they hiding? Did they know the intel info they were peddling was bogus?

    This isn’t about whether or not Bush had the authority to declassify or if he followed the right channels. This is all about what we all already know– that the Bush Administration’s MO is secrecy, stonewalling and a sense of entitlement to do whatever, whenever, and that no one is ever allowed to challenge their powers. It is what makes them so dangerous. They believe they are the law and they are above the law at the same time.

    I don’t think this is the last straw, but I have a feeling it might be one of the last ones.

  • I had always assumed that Libby’s instructions to leak were given to him by Cheney – now it comes out that Bush may have been actively in the loop, too.

    What I don’t understand is this: why didn’t Bush pardon Libby before all the dirt started coming out??? My tinfoil conspiracy hat is telling me that Cheney was telling Bush there was no need to pardon – with Cheney knowing full well that this position would eventually undermine Bush. (Might solve the mystery of who’s behind the leaks to the Washington Times, too, CB…)

    I just want to remind everyone that if Bush is driven out of office we’re left with President Cheney. I’d much prefer that – after the Dem’s secure a congressional majority in November – Cheney resign first, a Dem VP is installed, and then Bush resign.

  • Can I just say the hipocrisy of the administration and the GOP with regards the administrations moral relativism is getting to be just too much. I also find the mental contortions they use to be painful to understand.

    The excuse that by virtute of his being president leaks aren’t leak is weak. I mean if they didn’t feel it was a leak at the time, and clearly they did or they wouldn’t have gotten so verbally and falsely righteous, then why didn’t they just come out and say it? So they knew it was a leak in the technical sense, so it was wrong, they did it anyway, and then when it got out and they couldn’t avoid/burry this issue they “allow” and investigation. All in the hopes that nothing would come of it, that it would be quitely dropped, or at the very least, nothing would happen until after the election. And now that the story has gotten closer to Cheney and Bush they come up with “because I am president” defense.

  • If Bush thought he could get away with it… he’d tell us all to shut the fuck up and obey him or leave the country.

    Those are the sorts of thougths that swim in the Royal Adolescent’s brain.

    Yeah, that’s it. L’etat c’est moi.

    Has everyone seen that clip of him being confronted yesterday? For me the most telling part was just watching the Littlest Prince’s face and body language while that guy was talking. He’s a psych study personified by one man. That smirk. It looked to me like he wanted to vault into the balcony and punch the guy out. I find him frightening – he’s only very barely in control of himself. He.Does.Not.Like.Being.Questioned.

  • He’s NOT in control of himself. And no else (except that guy in the video clip, Harry Taylor) is willing to control him. Cheney is disgraced; lost his balls when he shot the old man in face. Rumsfeld’s a laughing stock. No Republican in the administration or in Congress has any courage. With any luck some Democrats may, finally, come to life after November.

  • I agree now that the Democrats are forced to consider impeachment, or else renounce all claim to being defenders of the Constitution.

    But the politics still doesn’t work. We need to focus on a positive agenda between now and November. The comprehensive failure of “big government conservatism” has opened the field for bold ideas not only in health care, entitlement reform, political reform, education–areas where we’re typically strong with the public–but also issues that previously worked for the Repubs, including security/defense and reproductive issues. (Just let them try to explain why the “Prevention First Act” is bad policy. They can’t, and it will split the theocrats from the greedheads.) These are also the issues we need to govern on, if/when we retake the Congress.

    But I do think that in January or February 2007, if Democratic majorities are in place, we need to do something to check the larger issue of untrammeled executive power. Maybe with Bush the lamest of ducks and the whole Rove/Norquist/Dobson/DeLay project discredited, we can even frame it as an institutional debate (legislature vs. executive) rather than a partisan one. If that happens, the whole country will be better off, and much better positioned to take on the huge problems we’ll face as a nation in the next 10-20 years.

  • Re-reading my last comment, I think I should probably clarify a couple points.

    First, do I think Bush deserves some sort of punishment for his crimes against the Constitution? Abso. Fucking. Lutely. And this is why I said that the Democrats (really the Congress as an institution) are “forced” to consider punitive remedies.

    But the way our country holds political debates, to push this issue now will be counterproductive. I believe (and maybe I’m wrong) that a big part of why the public has turned against the Repubs is that people have finally tumbled to the fact that they’re more interested in the perpetuation of their own power and influence than actually, y’know, governing. A big part of that is their all-embracing efforts to screw over the Democrats. But as public response to the Abramoff scandal (“both parties do it”) shows, the default view is that all factions look to do the same. This is the most corrosive legacy of politics by Rove, Norquist and DeLay: the baseline assumption is that party comes before country. Because for those bastards, it obviously does.

    So not only does a focus on issues speak more to the vast majority of voters who aren’t on blogs like this one, it helps reestablish the Democrats as the party that’s both competent to govern and interested in doing so. “Getting Bush” is fine for firing up the base, but it’s not going to change a lot of minds. The Constitution requires us to take action, as do our own best traditions of governance, but we need to win majorities first.

  • Here is a little irony for you from Judith Miller’s NYTimes article on her role in the leaking of Plame’s name. This is part of her description of her July 8, 2004 meeting with Libby during which he selectively leaked part of the NIE,

    As I told the grand jury, I recalled Mr. Libby’s frustration and anger about what he called “selective leaking” by the C.I.A. and other agencies to distance themselves from what he recalled as their unequivocal prewar intelligence assessments. The selective leaks trying to shift blame to the White House, he told me, were part of a “perverted war” over the war in Iraq.

    These guys know no shame.

  • So if Bush declassifies something to financially benefit a friend, that’s legal, right?

  • We need to focus on a positive agenda between now and November.

    I can think of nothing more positive for this country than throwing George W. Bush and Dick Cheney out of office. You can even frame it like this:

    If we throw Bush out of office, we can adopt a sane and mature approach to Iraq.

    If we throw Bush out of office, we can make our country safer from the threat of terrorism.

    If we throw Bush out of office, we can rebuild New Orleans.

    If we throw Bush out of office, we can restore government accountability.

    If we throw Bush out of office, we affirm Constitutional rule.

    You get the idea. Without Bush and Cheney gone, nothing positive in this country gets done.

  • “Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done.”

    Still no real admission from the White House that Bush did authorize Cheney to tell Libby to leak the NIE,

    nor any confirmation by Cheney that he told Libby that Bush authorized the leak.

    Without those, all this is theoretical. Bush may think he can declassify intelligence at a whim, but he may not have done it here.

    Still, I think we should keep pressing him as if he had done this solely to protect his chances of winning in 2004.

  • The clock is ticking toward November – and at the rate Bush’s numbers are falling – if the GOP had a brain, they’d be leading the impeachment. This may end with pitchforks, torches and scenes out of Frankenstein. If Bush thinks he can escape his troubles by a pre-semptive nuclear strike against Iran . . .

  • Zoekentucky, and Tom,

    Why does Duhbia have to be as bad as robert taylor to be a war criminal? If he committed one war crime, he’s a war criminal. No one has accused him of being the worst war criminal ever, (not yet anyway, but give him time, he still has 3 more years and two more members of the axis of evil) but what he as done, invading a sovereign nation on false pretenses seems at least like it might be a war crime. He’s not a war criminal until he’s convicted of a war crime.

  • I think I finally figured out some things…

    The proverbial Lightbulb Moment came while I was recovering from a bad relationship with a person having a disordered personality.

    The outrageous crap-ola coming out of the Rove Whitehouse is absolutely Crazy-Making. Kind of makes the brains of any thinking person feel like they have been pureed in a Cusinart.

    Case in point:

    For a group of people who claim to be “in the right, in the majority, etc.” and who claim that Bush is a great president and that the war in Iraq was not based on lies and is going well, The Bushites seem very defensive, especially recently.

    Not only defensive, but offensive, ignorant of facts, incapable of making intellectually unsustainable arguments, and obviously willing to practice Projection as an art form.

    It’s practically axiomatic that when a group of people (who are pathologically incapable of admitting they are wrong) are backed into a corner, their arguments become strictly emotional, ever more strident, and ever more devoid of fact and reason.

    Back to my ex-SO, and Borderline Personality Disorder…
    For those of you unfamiliar with this condition, go to http://www.bpdcentral.com

    This should be required reading for anyone trying to comprehend the behavior of the current administration and their fawning brown-shirt minions, as well as that psycho ex-boy(girl)friend you had in college.

    While you are at it- look up Narcissistic PD and Anti-Social PD. Guaranteed to make the hair on the back of your neck stand up!

    • Comments are closed.