Andrew Sullivan has all the relevant quotes. Among them:
“There’s a lot of leaking in Washington, D.C. It’s a town famous for it. This investigation in finding the truth, it will not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked — and this is a serious charge, by the way. We’re talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth,” – President George W. Bush, October 7, 2003.
Â
So my friend sent me this reply followed by the comments of a blogger called small dead animals.
Harry:
I haven’t had enough interest in this to have become motivated to become familiar with details that are available. My main motivation in sending the captain’s excerpt to you, was to indicate that there are views about this that are inconsistent with yours.
I would agree with you that Bush’s verbalization is not a joy to consider. However, regarding the consideration of whether he is disingenuous or deceitful, I am no more uncomfortable with him than I was with Slick Willy or Lyndon Baines Johnson, and if the last two presidential elections would be conducted again, with the same players, I would still vote for Bush instead of Gore and Kerry. Finally, as a political independent for several decades, who voted for McGovern and McCarthy, I haven’t noticed that saintliness is peculiar to Democrats or Republicans.
From http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/:
April 07, 2006
“Demagoguery, not journalism”
Why do we need bloggers to fill in the relevant legal details on news stories? In other words, where is the “due diligence” we are told sets professional journalism apart from amateurs?
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.
This story was coming across local news radio this afternoon in the context of “Bush authorized leak of classified Iraq intelligence”. As there are individuals there who also read this blog, it will be interesting to see how quickly the story is updated to reflect the facts.
Speaking of which, this reminder is also appropriate;
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.)
To which I replied:
Dead rodent woman adopts the same dismissive tone as the Captain. Yeah, its good to be reminded that Scooter is in trouble for possible perjury and not for releasing state secrets but the issue in the public’s mind all has to do with this Administration’s honesty. Even so, perjury is an act of dishonesty and therefore entirely consonant with the public’s loss of faith.
LBJ, who did more to advance Civil Rights than any other President, also foisted the Tonkin Gulf Resolution on the US to justify his war. Lyndon got it passed in Congress based on a flat out lie. Is that in the same league as all the WMD stuff…….Well, the more we hear of the expert’s skepticism about WMD’s and the Administration’s scramble to silence the skeptics, the more Bush seems to be channeling LBJ. Don’t forget, LBJ had worthy motives too except that they didn’t change as much over the course of his war. Johnson was simply protecting the Free World from the advance of Communism.
At least LBJ, who craved adulation, had the humility not to run for reelection after he lost control of his tar baby. Bush only needs approval from God. Apparently God has told the President that lies told in pursuit of a good cause are no big deal… and lies told to cover up lies told in pursuit of a good cause…and the lies told to cover the lies told to cover the lies…….Oops, sorry. I meant the disingenuities.
Oh, and if the war Bush waged stirs up a generation of angry, unemployed, young Moslem men to spend all their waking hours trying to think of ways to kill Americans where ever they can find them ………well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Obviously the Captain and Dead Rodent woman have views inconsistent with mine. Madly applauding claques hired by theater owners also have different motives from the rest of the audience at mediocre theatricals. George Bush’s Presidency needs a laugh track.
My friend wrote this back in reply.
Harry:
Scooter Libby has been alleged to have committed perjury. He hasn’t been convicted of such allegations. However, even if he is convicted of such allegations, would those convictions accurately reflect “this Administration’s honesty”? How many people in the Clinton administration were prosecuted for similar behavior? Does one rotten apple in a barrel mean that all apples in that barrel are rotten?
About what has President Bush lied? Do you need to again read Logic Cop Asks, “Is Bush a Liar?”, at http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=103003A; or have you not yet read it?
Perhaps the excerpts from the two commentaries that I have sent to you, are tendentious. However, I suggest that there are no more tendentious — and thus no more deserving of skepticism or scorn — than your related comments.
And so, of course, I had to respond:
I’ll freely admit to being tendentious. Its the historians who will finally make more sober judgments about the issues being debated today. In the meantime I have to make my judgments based on flimsier evidence.
In 2000 when I had to go to a damned special school board meeting rather than hear Bush at the DECC I was chagrined. I voted for him that year despite my misgivings about the way his goons treated John McCain.
I did go to the rally for him at the DECC in 2004 although I was already almost certain that I would be voting for Kerry. Talk about mindless adulation. The Bush campaign machine did an excellent job shielding him from dissenters. Oh, one guy with a hidden sign critical of the war did sneak in but he was hustled out within moments.
Even Nixon once went walking among the young protesters camping out around the White House to try and figure them out. Not Bush. I have little respect for leaders who brook no dissent and that seems to describe Bush to a tee. Again, maybe the historians will discover that my analysis of Bush is completely wrong and that he has actively sought out all opinions. If they do no one will be more surprised than me.
I’m a lot like my Dad. He was a liberal Republican who voted for LBJ because he didn’t like Goldwater’s reckless hyperbole. I used to hear him cuss out Johnson on the evening news every time there was an announcement that more troops were being sent to Vietnam. Its hard to be entirely rational when you think your President is a dunce. Oh, yes, that’s putting it too baldly. Bush does have an MBA from Harvard but for me it just goes to show that paper credentials are no guarantee of competence.
A lot of his supporters think we were a hell of a lot better off with Bush as Prez than Gore when 9-11 hit. To that I’d reply that its a damn good thing Bush wasn’t President during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He doesn’t remotely resemble JFK, FDR or Lincoln; Presidents who had keen insights into the complexities of the world. That’s a rational observation not a tendentious one. It may not be fair. It may not be accurate. It is, however, my honest opinion of the President.
I don’t think the posts you’ve been sending me which blindly defend Bush are particularly rational. They annoy me but I’m glad to read them. I just can’t read them with studied indifference when I see them being used to justify what I regard as stupidity. They remind me of that old lady who told me during Vietnam that we should support the President because he knows more than us.