Comments on: Can Presidents Leak Classified Information?

By: Roger

Roger — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 03:39:31 +0000

MrGone has a good point. Well stated. Easy to understand. Who gives a crap about the legality argument? That Bush is scum is clear enough however you want to classify it.

By: Ben There

Ben There — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 23:56:21 +0000

Since legion is defending the indefensible, let us not forget the Clintoon hypocritical charging of various and sundry military and diplomatic folks with sex offences while Slick Willie was getting the spit shine. Then again, Democrats never do look any farther than their noses when it's their nose.

By: All Things Beautiful

All Things Beautiful — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 22:53:18 +0000

The President Declassified...

So, what is the breaking news story here? Properly declassified information has been released to the press who have demanded it ad nauseam. And? Equally if the President had not declassified the information the same accusers would be shouting him down ...

By: Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator

Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 18:34:44 +0000

White House Declines to Counter Leak Claim

...

The White House on Friday declined to challenge assertions that President Bush authorized the leaks ...

By: Bithead

Bithead — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:36:18 +0000

SLick;
Correct; that's simply the way it's done.
Anyone who's been on the other end of the mike for any amount of time knows this.

By: The Unalienable Right » Debunking Lyin’ Joe Wilson is still not a crime

Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:45:25 +0000

[...] Others: A really good assessment from Austin Bay Outside the Beltway The Corner posted by: The Editors @ 7:40 am April 7, 2006 [...]

By: slickdpdx

slickdpdx — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:33:28 +0000

Hypothesis: A leak and a scoop are each more attractive to a reporter than a press release. You can still have a rational argument whether the Bush administration showed good judgment by blowing the cover (?) of one of its agents. (I take the pro-"leak" side. CIA plays with fire it gets burned by its boss.)

By: tee bee

tee bee — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:19:35 +0000

While I don't share the notion that there's a corollary between NSA spying and this declassification, I think there were too many missteps. There never was a broad declassification, which weakens the select exposure case.

But the extended investigation and subsequent indictment and fall of Scooter Libby are what make this hardest of all to justify, along with the probable track the Dems will drag this along toward possible impeachment.

By: Guide to Midwestern Culture

Guide to Midwestern Culture — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:14:55 +0000

Drip, Drip: Rainy Days & Leaky Administrations...

When I read the bombshell the other day about Bush authorizing the leak that outed Valerie Plame, I figured I'd wait for the ensuing heavy weather to blow out a bit....

By: Fersboo

Fersboo — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:59:44 +0000

Why don't you attempt to illustrate your point a little more clearly McGone? Maybe a few cites or a link or two. Otherwise everyone will think you're just a ranting member of the public with BDS.

By: MrGone

MrGone — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:48:27 +0000

Bite me bithead! Why is it that you can't address a statement? All I was pointing out is that the public sees through these legal maneuvers. You may agree or disagree, but I would hardly call my post "ranting." So please, next time you respond to someone, have a POINT.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:39:06 +0000

Yeah, McGone... don't go and let mere facts spoil your rantings.

Sheesh.

By: MrGone

MrGone — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:37:14 +0000

More legal technicalities and apologies. Just like the NSA spying. Unfortunately for Bush, most people have a pretty good idea of what it means when the POTUS says he doesn't know anything about this and then turns out to be the one who authorized it. "We the people" don't care about technicalities. At this point it doesn't matter whether it was legal or not, the verdict will be delivered in the next poll, that is if it's possible for him to go any lower.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:13:28 +0000

Cliff May does a fair job of dispelling all of this:

If the President of the United States doesn't have the power to declassify information -- who does? The Pope? The ACLU? The Daily Kos? As Andy has pointed out, there is nothing unusual about releasing the NIE -- with some sections remaining classified to protect methods and sources. We have no reason to believe that anyone authorized Libby to leak any sections that would remain classified. It also is standard practice for every administration to leak to select reporters in advance information that later will be released to the press corps as a whole. Why? Because that ensures better coverage: When the New York Times gets it first and exclusively they are more likely to put it on the front page and run it big. And a second wave comes later because the other media have to play catch up. Every reporter in Washington knows this is how it works. If they donâ??t reflect that in their stories, they are feigning ignorance â?? either to make a better story or to stick it to Bush; or both.

Likely, just sticking it to Bush. Again.

By: legion

legion — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:13:11 +0000

"Unauthorized"? That's the defense? God, I dearly hope George Bush goes on national TV and spouts off about how it wasn't really a leak because it was "authorized". He's gonna make Bill Clinton and his "definition of 'is'" bullshit look like a paragon of virtue. And it still doesn't address the fact the the NIE, by the gov't's own records, wasn't actually declassified until a full 10 days _after_ Libby spun up Judy Miller. Even if Bush could declassify the info at whim, he can't do so retroactively - there's still plenty of felony counts (and hypocracy) in the mix here.