Shoot the messenger

November 2, 2006

Yesterday, the New York Times reported on an important scoop: the United States Central Command prepared a classified briefing two weeks ago showing that Iraq is “edging towards chaos.” The report emphasized a sharp escalation in sectarian violence since the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February, and tracked worsening conditions in October. A one-page slide effectively debunked weeks of White House rhetoric about how things in Iraq are going “remarkably well.”

I was curious about how Bush’s political allies and supporters of the war would respond to the story, especially considering how overwhelming it was. What’s the appropriate response? That Iraq will get better if we wait long enough? That “chaos” isn’t as bad as it sounds?

Alas, the right has settled on a message: the New York Times shouldn’t have run the story in the first place. Here’s a report from Fox News, for example:

The Pentagon is looking into how classified information indicating Iraq is moving closer to chaos wound up on the front page of Wednesday’s New York Times, and is not ruling out an investigation that could lead to criminal charges.

A spokesman for U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for operations in Iraq, confirmed to FOX News that a chart published in The Times is a real reflection of the thinking of military intelligence on the situation in Iraq as of Oct. 18, adding that an effort is underway to find out who leaked the chart and if the breach of operational security constitutes a crime.(emphasis added)

In one of the more unintentionally funny things I’ve seen in a while, Malkin described the NYT as “blabbermouths,” and said the paper should be “held accountable” for reporting on “illegally leaked info.” Sister Toldjah wants the leakers to be “caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” National Review equated the article with “treason.”

The problem isn’t that Iraq is sliding into chaos; it’s that the New York Times is telling us that Iraq is sliding into chaos.

I suppose this is easier than defending the war or debating the administration’s “policy” on its merits, but the right’s reaction is pretty bizarre, even by Malkinesque standards. Shouldn’t these folks be a little more concerned about the hellish conditions in Iraq, instead of a report highlighting the hellish conditions?

Obviously, reporting on classified leaks can be tricky, but this report doesn’t seem to meet any of the criteria for concern. It doesn’t disclose troop movements, classified methods, future plans, etc. The New York Times let us know what military leaders know: that conditions in Iraq are sliding towards chaos. The appropriate response is figure out how best to address the crisis, not whine about a newspaper and threaten “criminal charges” against those who exposed the truth.

Glenn Greenwald explained the broader dynamic nicely.

As is always the case, what the Bush administration and its followers are furious about is not that there have been any disclosures of national security secrets which can harm the U.S. It is not exactly a secret that Iraq is disintegrating and spiraling towards civil war, any more than it was a secret that the Bush administration eavesdrops on the conversations of suspected terrorists or monitors their banking transactions. What they are furious about — and want to threaten and even imprison people for — is not any harm to national security, but harm to the political interests of the Bush movement.

This is what the ideal world of the Bush follower looks like: If the Government is waging a war and things are going horribly, the Government has the right to lie to its citizens and claim that things are going remarkably well. If a newspaper is furnished with documents prepared by the military that shows that the Government is lying and that things are actually going very poorly, the newspaper should then be barred from informing their readers about that truth — and ought to criminally prosecuted, perhaps even executed, if they do so.

It truly takes an authoritarian mind of the most irredeemable proportions to watch our political leaders have their lies exposed about a war and have as their first reaction the desire that those who exposed the lies be prosecuted and imprisoned. But it isn’t just Bush followers here who are demanding that, but the Bush administration itself, through the military, that is threatening to do so.

I’ve heard of blaming the messenger, but this is ridiculous.

Wow … just … damn.

This is what so many of us have been saying/typing/screaming for the past three years: Truth is irrelevant for these people. All that matters is fealty to Bush, and anything that goes against that somehow equals treason.

The question now becomes: Will every blog that featured the same chart also be investigated? Will charges be brought against The Carpetbagger, ThinkProgress, and other sites that featured it?

If so, I’ll chip in to help bail you out. 🙂

  • What part of Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances don’t these pigs understand?

  • Greenwald really crystalized this kerfuffle: it’s crime for anyone in the government to admit the truth. When denial is the party line, admisssion is a crime. It’s not about the military conflict, it’s political and PR conflict that is to be won at all costs.

  • And to think, people in this administration made fun of Baghdad Bob. Now they are sounding amazingly like him. “Ignore the lies of the infidels at the NYT! Iraqis are meeting us in the streets with flowers and chocolates! Those aren’t IEDs, those are celebratory fireworks to salute our success in bringing freedom and stability to Iraq!”

  • Why are the wingnuts worried when they have the evening news on their side (aka Kerry is the biggest story of the day)?

  • A spokesman for U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for operations in Iraq, confirmed to FOX News that a chart published in The Times is a real reflection of the thinking of military intelligence on the situation in Iraq as of Oct. 18.

    Isn’t confirming that the slide is accurate also criminal activity? Shouldn’t the spokesdrone have said no comment but we’re looking into who leaked it? And shouldn’t FOX Snooze get a spanking for reporting said confirmation?

    I was surprised the little arrow wasn’t all the way to the right of the box or perhaps beyond (This goes to 11) but this shows ShrubCo really does think that anyone who has been following this mess might still believe Iraq hasn’t become the clusterfuck o’ the decade. I’m also dead certain that neither the NYT and who ever leaked the document is surprised the howling for blood. If the military’s policy towards gays & lesbians is “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” the Shrub Admin’s policy towards bad news is “Don’t think, don’t talk.”

  • I haven’t paid much attention to this story, so I’m not sure on the details, but if the info that was reported was “classified” info, then there probably should be an investigation into where the leak came from. I wanted an investigation into who leaked the classified Plame info, and for the same reasons I think an investigation is appropriate here as well.

  • I for one thought the war in Iraq was going fine until the NY Times showed me that color-coded chart. Now I’m not so sure, and I’m even beginning to wonder if Bush really is a visionary genius or not.

  • I wanted an investigation into who leaked the classified Plame info, and for the same reasons I think an investigation is appropriate here as well.

    Bush leaked the Plame info, #8. Bush.

  • This chart was only classified to protect the Bushites from embarassment. There is nothing there to truely qualify as either a top secret or a secret. It’s just obvious acknowledgement of the situation.

  • Presumably the insurgents already know how bad a job we are doing of controlling things in Iraq by virtue of them being on the scene with their own eyes. So why should this information be classified at all? Is it important for some reason that the insurgents don’t know that WE know how bad a job we are doing?

    I have a sneaky feeling they haven’t been buying the President’s “We’re winning” spiel any more than the rest of us.

    I’m not surprised by the Bushista reaction. This report is dangerously close to suggesting that the Emperor’s new clothes are perhaps not completely stylish and glorious. That is a treasonable offense.

  • “Bush leaked the Plame info, #8. Bush.” – Haik Bedrosian

    What makes you say this?

    “There is nothing there to truely qualify as either a top secret or a secret.” – Lance

    And a lot of GOP supporters didn’t feel that Plame’s classified status was deserved/needed either. The point is that the info is classified. I can understand the need to accept leaking classified info when the info is classified in order to protect someone from criminal charges, but neither the Plame info nor this were leaked to demonstrate criminal activity. They were both leaked to discredit someone that the leaker disliked, and that is not appropriate and is perhaps criminal.

  • If it were the 1980s and it was the Soviet Union and it’s occupation of Afghanistan and somehow a newspaper was able to leak that contrary to public announcements that the leadership had been told that the situation was bad and descending into chaos and that newspaper was threatened with reprisals, wouldn’t this entire country, from Reagan on down, be saluting that newspaper’s bravery and devotion to getting the truth out and wouldn’t they be going around making speeches about liberty and freedom of the press and how our system is so much better, etc., etc?
    This really is something out of Animal Farm.

  • ” And a lot of GOP supporters didn’t feel that Plame’s classified status was deserved/needed either.” – Danny

    Not quite. A lot of GOP kool aid drinkers attacked Plame after her husband disputed Boy George II’s claims while ignoring the fact that Plame’s CIA work was classified for the good of this country and involved trying to keep track of the progress Iran is making towards Uranium enrichment, among other things. No GOP supporter said before Novak’s column that CIA operatives working on non-proliferation should not have their identities kept secret and NO ONE is saying now that any other agent should be outed.

    That’s a lot different from my saying that a chart stating clearly that Iraq is headed into total chaos has no reason to be classified other than it is a political embarassment to Boy George II which is not grounds for classification.

  • “and that newspaper was threatened with reprisals” – DeepDarkDiamond

    I never thought the papers/reporters should have been threatened with reprisals over the Plame issue, nor do I think the papers should be threatened with reprisals now.

    An investigation should focus on determining who the person is that leaks the info to the paper/reporter.

    Freedom of the press?… Yes.

    Freedom of government employees to leak classified information with the intent of discrediting their rivals?… Not so much.

  • While you make a point Danny, I don’t see an equal comparison in your Plame -v- chart leak. The Plame leak, intended to ruin a CIA operative and spread mis-information, was treasonous. Leaking a vague, PH test strip of a chart, that tells us what the world press has been saying for over a year? I just don’t see the urgency.

    ” We hold these truths to be self evident…”
    We all know right from wrong. But not all of us have the courage to say so.
    And the band played on………..

  • “That’s a lot different from my saying that a chart stating clearly that Iraq is headed into total chaos has no reason to be classified” – Lance

    My point is that leaking information that you don’t think deserves to be classified doesn’t make it ok. If it is classified, it is classified. I don’t think it is a valid defense to say, “In my opinion there is nothing about this infor that is deserving of classified status.”

    I accept an excpetion when the info being leaked was classifed for the purpose of hiding criminal activity, but aside from that the legality of leaking classified information shouldn’t be based on how dangerous the information seems to the general public.

  • biggerbox,

    As you say, the insurgents already know how bad it is over there – they’re over there, after all. But, they think our spirits aren’t broken yet. This leak tells us how bad it is over there and now my spirit is broken and I’m going to vote for all democrats Tuesday because I no longer have the will to fight. I want to surrender to the terra-ists. Now, the insurgents will know this. Despite the fact that I’m sure they were just about to give up, this will now give them the will to continue. It’s important that the insurgents don’t know that we know that they know how bad it is over there.

  • Freedom of government employees to leak classified information with the intent of discrediting their rivals?… Not so much.

    to me, though, what I think is important is that we, as a “free” society, have always lauded those who lived in repressive regimes, like the Nazis and the Soviets, and yet risked all to publicize the “truth” about government lies even when that surely meant breaking the law.

    I guess I look at it as along the same lines as the ultimate defense to chages of defamation (whether libel or slander) is “truth”.

    Since you don’t know who made the leak or why, why engage in the cheap GOP tactic of character smear by asserting an “intent” when you have no idea what the “intent” was?

  • Danny–
    According to Scooter, Bush authorized the Plame leak.

    I shoud note, however, that I see what you’re getting at here and agree — the source of the chart leak should be investigated for the reasons you state.

    The NYT, however, should NOT be punished for publishing it, IMHO. The American people have a right to the truth, and it’s supposed to be the media’s job to ensure the truth is told. Far too often, papers, TV, whatever, fail to call our leaders (from both sides) on their bulls*** statements.

  • “Since you don’t know who made the leak or why, why engage in the cheap GOP tactic of character smear by asserting an “intent” when you have no idea what the “intent” was?” – DeepDarkDiamond

    On my part in this case, it is not so much a “cheap GOP tactic of character smear” as it is more of a common human reaction to make intent assumptions.

    You are correct though, in that I shouldn’t assume that the intent was to discredit the Bush administration. Especially when I’m at least partially basing my point on the concept that we shouldn’t assert an intent on the act of classifying the information.

    So, I take back anything I said about the intent of the leak being “to discredit” anyone. But I stand by my opinion that unless the intent is to reveal criminal activity, the leaking of classified information should be investigated.

  • Presumably the insurgents already know how bad a job we are doing of controlling things in Iraq by virtue of them being on the scene with their own eyes. So why should this information be classified at all? Is it important for some reason that the insurgents don’t know that WE know how bad a job we are doing?

    You’re right about the insurgents and most likely anyone outside of U.S. borders knowing how badly the war is going.

    But look at these remarks in a broader context. It’s 5 days to a midterm election that almost everyone, but Bush and the truly insane right-wing, thinks will go very badly for the Republicans. They’re not worried about how this will play to the terrorist audience. They’re worried about how this will play with domestic voters.

    Surely they’ve seen the polls that show the majority of Americans are disgusted with the war. Surely they know the constant litany of happy talk and lies aren’t working. Surely they know the jig is up. They’re desperate and the NY Times is a convenient right-wing scapegoat.

  • Unholy Moses –

    It’s good to know that I’m not alone in my opinion here at TCR. I am in complete agreement with you. The papers should NOT be punished for publishing the info, but the source of the leak should be investigated.

    By the way I checked that link you posted. It says that Bush authorized the release of parts of a classified report, but that “The information did not name CIA agent Valerie Plame”. Not that it matters for the sake of this disscussion.

    My point when I asked Haik Bedrosian, “What makes you say this?” was that we only know where the leaks came from because there was an investigation.

  • Danny–
    If you don’t think that Bush knew damn well that Plame’s name was in that report, I have some oceanfront property in Kansas City I’d like to sell you.

    🙂

    I’d give them the benefit of the doubt, but the fact is that this administration has proven time and time and time and time again that it cares little about policy or truth. It only cares about smearing every single critic, destroying all of those who disagree with them on factual grounds, and maintaining their hold on power for power’s sake.

  • Oh, and I have seen the slide online, and, for those who are/ have been in the government, that slide actually has a LOT of interesting information on it. Without the numbers, most people wouldn’t note it, but all of the bullet-points, if you are familiar with the presentations in government, tell us quite a story. The brass do have some justification in being pissed off. (For example, note the fact that the presentation is a weekly thing, and the note about a Kurdish independence movement. For something to appear on the summary page, with weekly high-level viewing, means that the Brass is highly concerned about that point, and wants essentially minute-to-minute updates. Now, when was the last time that you heard serious mention of ANYTHING in the Kurdish region of Iraq in the papers? If I was the Brass, I would be seriously pissed off, too.)

  • Danny (esp. #22) –

    The “criminal activity” exception seems awfully narrow. Here, Bush is actually telling the American people something that his own administration believes to be untrue. A functioning democracy needs accurate information to get to the electorate. It seems to me that if the President believes the status of Iraq, where it falls between “peace” and “chaos,” is classifiable and classified, he cannot then run around saying “Iraq is going great.” Do the people have no right to know the truth? Can classifying information be used to ensure a President can mislead with impunity? How far would you take that line?

  • Danny, how would you have dealt with the leak of the Pentagon Papers? Would you have thrown Ellsberg in the slammer? As Nixon said, “Let’s get the son-of-a-bitch in jail.” There too the NY Times and, later, the WaPo were vilified and ultimately taken to court—and vindicated. Ellsberg himself feared he’d end up in jail for the rest of his life, but was set free in consideration of “gross governmental misconduct.”

    It is absolutely absurd to pretend that the bar graph has any reason other than for political considerations to be classified. Use your head! I don’t give a damn about the technicalities or the “Oh my, what would happen if everybody could decide for themselves what should be classified or not!?!” That’s kindergarten thinking, on a par with the ticking time bomb torture scenario. But I guess this administration is pretty well versed in such BS.

  • Unholy Moses,

    I’m not disagreeing that Bush authorized the leak of Plame’s name. I was pointing out that your label says “Bush authorized the Plame leak” but your link says, “The information did not name CIA agent Valerie Plame”. I’m just suggesting either finding a better link next time, or leaving the link out all together.

    As I mentioned in my first post, I don’t know much about the details on this, so I’ve been accepting at face value the statements that people here have been making that:

    “This chart was only classified to protect the Bushites from embarassment”

    “There is nothing there to truely qualify as either a top secret or a secret”

    “So why should this information be classified at all? Is it important for some reason that the insurgents don’t know that WE know how bad a job we are doing?”

    “This report is dangerously close to suggesting that the Emperor’s new clothes are perhaps not completely stylish and glorious”

    “a chart stating clearly that Iraq is headed into total chaos has no reason to be classified other than it is a political embarassment to Boy George II”

    “a vague, PH test strip of a chart, that tells us what the world press has been saying for over a year”

    From what I just read in Castor Troy’s post, it sounds like maybe there was more to this leak than just a chart that says we are closer to Chaos than peace. If the information in Castor Troy’s post is accurate, than perhaps there is even more reason to consider this a leak of information that should be classified and not just a leak of inconvienient embarrasing information that was being hidden because it was inconvienient and embarassing.

  • Danny- Actually, I find myself agreeing with you, but only in parts. Having seen the slide, I do think that it is quite revealing- probably much more so than the person who released it intended it to be. I am willing to bet that that was the most ‘innocent’ slide of the group.

    But, even though the revelation may, on its face, be damaging (it gives a clear line-up of our immediate priorities and goals), the fact that what it reveals gives lie to everything that BushCo. has said over the past few weeks makes it extremely important. Bush said, only last night, that things were going great- Rumsfeld was doing a great job, etc. This single slide tells a massively different story.

    To make a comparative analogy- your local tv station just said that “one person accidentally cut themselves and bled to death last night”, when the real story was “texas chainsaw massacre”.

    Thus, I see no reason why this should be kept under wraps. Lying to the Boss is never excusable (and, since we aren’t- theoretically, now, I guess- in a dictatorship, the Boss is the People).

  • Ellsberg himself feared he’d end up in jail for the rest of his life, but was set free in consideration of “gross governmental misconduct.”

    Which, I’m guessing, would apply in this case as well.

    Please, don’t get me wrong here — I’m glad that someone made this info public. Hell, I’d do the same if in the same position. I may even post it on my site tonight just to see what happens.

    Regardless of WHY something is classified, it was. Period. We may all think it was wrong (and, all logic point that it was wrong to designate it as such), but again, we have to hold everyone to the same standard. A law is a law, whether we like it or not.

    **ducks and covers**

    Oh, and Danny — that link was just one of the top three in Google. Don’t have time to do a more thorough search, but IIRC, Bush said himself that he authrorized it when pressed in a news conference. I could be wrong, though.

  • how would you have dealt with the leak of the Pentagon Papers – President Lindsay

    Sorry, I don’t know much about that. Did it fall under the “classified to hide criminal activity” exception?

    Use your head! – President Lindsay

    I’m pretty sure I am. Are you?

    I don’t give a damn about the technicalities or the “Oh my, what would happen if everybody could decide for themselves what should be classified or not!?!” That’s kindergarten thinking – President Lindsay

    Actually the idea that it’s ok for one person to do something bad if it benefits you, but not ok for someone else to do the same bad thing if it benefits them seems a lot more like kindergarten thinking. But I’m no child psychologist, so perhaps you are correct on this one. I would like to mention that “I don’t give a damn about technicalities” sounds a lot like when my nephew says “I don’t care about the rules, I want to do it my way!” Come to think of it, that sounds a bit like the attitude Bush has demonstrated.

  • Hey now … don’t make me pull this thread over!!
    😉

    Seriously, though, let’s keep this civil, folks. I really don’t think Danny’s a troll.

  • it is more of a common human reaction to make intent assumptions.

    I guess I am just as guilty by automatically making the assumption that the intent of the leaker was inherently noble – not knowing what the intent was, it really could have been anything. I would *like* to think that the intent was something heroic along the lines of the “people have the right to know the truth”, but in fact it could have been something much baser than that including something along the lines of someone just out to discredit someone else, possibly for personal reasons.

    Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.

  • “Hey now … don’t make me pull this thread over!!” – Unholy Moses

    Sorry about that. I suppose I could have been a bit more civil in my response to President Lindsay. I’ll try and temper my responses a bit better in the future.

    “Thanks for the thoughtful discussion” – DeepDarkDiamond

    No problem. I hope I’ve been reasonably open minded and that I haven’t been overly agressive or demeaning towards anyone. I truely value the discussion I find here at TCR.

    “I really don’t think Danny’s a troll” – Unholy Moses

    ROTFLOL! No, definitely not a troll. I strongly suspect I’ve been a reader of TCR longer than anyone who has posted on this thread. I agree with CB on many of his topics, and am not the type to post a comment saying “Yeah! What he said!”, unless I’m already involved in the conversation. So you only see me post here when I disagree with CB or some of his commenters. Disagreement doesn’t make me a troll. I’m open to changing my opinions given sufficient reasoning.

  • “But when Dick Cheney talks about “interrogation” techniques – nothing.” – Rian Mueller

    But the Dickster has the authority to declassify anything he wants to spill, retroactively. Says so right in the executive order on classification authorities.

    Of course, the CIA and DIA don’t particularly like him spilling secrets that get our agents and their contacts dead. And the NRO and NSA don’t particularly like him spilling technical details about our spy satellites. And the NGA really don’t like him giving our imagery away so that the enemy will know how to foil it next time (that’s what happened during the Iraq-Iran war, by the way).

    But all that doesn’t matter because the Dickster can be trusted to declassify just the right amount, can’t he?

  • No Danny,
    you are no troll, but a thoughtful and insightful person, though I suspect you may be a lawyer, or at least should be. You argue/debate very well.
    Methinks a conservative democrat would be an appropriate title. Keep us on our toes, and we all benefit.
    Fight the good fight!

  • I am in agreement with Danny here. There is serious room for debate about this topic. Personally, I see a lot of potent information in that slide (having knowledge of the type of information which typically precedes or follows a round-up slide like that- and others can certainly come to the same conclusions), and I am not sure that I like it out there, either.

    But I don’t think that questioning it makes someone a troll. Heck, we should ask the hard questions, right or left. As I like to say, I am a gun-loving liberal- e.g. I have both conservative and liberal tendencies. I try not to follow any one ideology any more than it is to the benefit of society.

  • I think Danny’s point is reasonably valid (though I disagree with much of the comparison to the Plame leaking.) HOWEVER, it isn’t precisely a secret that Iraq is in a bad way, and it’s terribly unsurprising to find that there’s at least some key people in Military Intelligence who believe that too.

    The fact that someone may have leaked classified (though you have to be pretty deranged to find it “treason-able”) information should pale next to the fact that the President is (still) directly lying to the country about the state of the war. In fact, Danny, I’d argue that this meets your ‘covering criminal activity’ exception.

    Maybe an investigation is called for – it appears to be a crime. But it is not treason, and the ‘outrage’ is clearly manufactured to change the subject away from the fact that the real damage of the information is political. Possibly excepting a few serious kool-aid drinkers, who really do believe that damaging Dear Leader should be punishable by death, but the law doesn’t say that. (Not yet.)

  • Danny,

    My apologies if I came off too ad hominem there. I meant it more rhetorically than personally. I suspect I’m a bit older than you and remember the Ellsberg dustup well, and the parallels are striking, evoking a fairly visceral response. Essentially his leaking of the Pentagon papers revealed how the administration was lying their asses off about a war, just as they’re doing today. The P papers were very extensive, though, not just a small bit like this time.

    This administration has used classification of documents constantly and maliciously for their political purposes for the last six years. It would not be a stretch in the least to interpret this as more of the same. As for the motives of the leaker, I seriously doubt it would be personal. What could someone benefit personally from this? Considerably more likely that whoever did it wanted the truth to come out in the face of constant lies by the administration. So the law says to prosecute him? Maybe so, but you wouldn’t see me pushing that line. This was a public service.

    So much of what’s going on right now is an echo of Vietnam, in so many ways. Very sad.

    • Comments are closed.