Bush could find the leakers if he wanted to
This is a fast-moving story, so two quick points to watch on the Wilson-Plame scandal:
Point 1 - Let's not get distracted by the avalanche of irrelevancies.
Are leaks always bad? Do some help keep the public informed? Don't most leak investigations fail to find the culprit? Is Joe Wilson an inveterate partisan? And all the rest of it.
Some of those questions are bogus. Some are not. But all of them are beside the point.
snip
Point 2 - The White House's "classified information" strategy.
On Monday, the president seemed to up the ante by calling the Valerie Plame disclosure a "criminal action."
But look closer. From the beginning, the White House has pursued a conscious policy of changing the subject from one of blowing Plame's cover to one of opposition to all "leaks of classified information" - something this White House has been after Congress about for almost two years.
Go back and look at transcripts from the president and his press secretary, Scott McClellan, and you'll see that that's always the phrasing they use.
more
http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/100803.aspxAlso more on this at Marshall's blog, talkingpointsmemo.com
If they are splitting hairs over Rove, Libby or Abrams leaking 'classified information' versus leaking the identity of a CIA employee, well, that would take some nerve, in view of the predictable outcry when that meaning became clear. There's a thread today with a link to a Dana Priest WaPo chat, which mentions that no direct question has been plainly asked and answered like 'Did Libby reveal the Plame identity?'.
And Marshall is right about the prosecution of 'other leaks as well' threat being yet another warning shot across the path of would-be whistle-blowers. There's a pattern here that cries out the need for independent investigation, and Congressional closed hearings for classified info and personnel.
They've been given more than enough rope to do themselves in. Time to call the law.