Why 'leaker in chief' charge harms the president

[rodeodance]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060410/ts_csm/alibbyspeaks;_ylt=Aq4Fp8IYves_Vv122yk0zSKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

Why 'leaker in chief' charge harms the president

By Linda Feldmann, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Mon Apr 10, 4:00 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Leaks of information out of the White House are as old as the republic. So the assertion that the president himself had authorized the dissemination of then-classified information to select reporters should come as no surprise. Except that the president in question is George W. Bush.


President Bush has long railed against leaks of classified information as a threat to national security; his administration is vigorously investigating unauthorized revelations of classified material to the press about secret overseas prisons and warrantless wiretapping. Now, a revelation of grand jury testimony establishes Bush himself as a player in White House efforts to discredit an
Iraq war critic through the use of classified information.

The president is not accused of illegality. And no one questions his legal right to declassify information. But critics are now charging Mr. Bush with hypocrisy - a development that makes efforts to put his presidency back on track all the more daunting.

"Here's why this hurts: It reminds people again that the intelligence was bad and we're in Iraq without end for some of the wrong reasons, and that's at the heart of his 36 percent," says Larry Sabato, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, referring to Bush's job approval rating in recent polls.

[mdmc]

1. w. is the master of doublespeak

[UpInArms]

2. I made my car a new window sticker yesterday

Leaker in Chief

[stepnw1f]

3. How About, "Leaker and Thief" instead (nt)

[rodeodance]

4. the label is making the rounds (at least in the press).

[Tempest]

5. Latest ABC/WP poll has Bush at 38%

The lowest rating he's received in the poll.

[rocktivity]

6. Beg pardon?

Why SHOULDN'T the label "hurt" the Bush? HE did the leaking and pretended that he didn't know who did! I should hope that it does hurt!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Jackpine Radical]

7. The BIG hit will come if Bush authorized the Plame leak.

Under existing law, President does not EVER have the authority to out a clandestine operative. If he did that, Bush will have committed a crime. The only recourse when the President commits a crime is impeachment.

We need to communicate the seriousness of exposing Plame, and we need to start doing it now. We need to fight the "Plame wasn't undercover; there was no harm done" meme that the Puggies are gonna try to spread. We have to communicate the potential harm, e.g. to her foreign "assets," that can result from her becoming known as an agent, as well as the outing of Brewster-Jennings as a CIA front organization.

If we do these things, we may be able to force even a Republican Congress into impeachment mode.