What has the President declassified and why did he leak it?

[RedEarth]

Sen. Howard Baker and Sen. Sam Ervin during the Watergate hearings.


What has the President declassified and why did he leak it?

By Christy Hardin Smith


Someone had to ask it eventually, didn’t they? Since I haven’t heard this one yet, I’m asking it myself:

What has the President declassified and why did he leak it?

Honestly, isn’t that the question we’re all asking ourselves now? And since the Rubber Stamp Republican Congress has done very little oversight for the last five years, it’s not likely that any of us will be getting answers to this any time soon, is it? But was it plausible deniability that kept the initial selective NIE declassification only between Libby, Cheney and Bushn — or will we now learn that this was yet another Scooter Libby lie? (Or at least, will the WH spin it that way?) Was there any paper trail — shouldn’t there have been — but if there was, then why the charade of asking other Cabinet-level officials to re-declassify those parts of the NIE without telling anyone the President had already done so?

What else has been selectively declassified for public manipulation purposes?

How many times has the Bush Administration used its declassification power for their own, personal political gain — how many times have they lied to the public by omitting the whole truth? How many media-planted lies have then been used by Administration officials in public interviews as justifications for their actions? Did Condi know when she was prattling on about mushroom clouds that she was flat out lying to the public?

Shouldn’t someone in this Administration be held accountable at some point for all the lies — and for being so weak, so craven, so unwilling to face the whole truth, especially after so many of our brave men and women in uniform have lost their lives and limbs in a war ginned up on these public lies? Isn’t declassifying something solely to bolster your political position with the American public a misuse of your power — especially given the sensitivity of the information and the fact that public disclosure of it without a thorough vetting by the intelligence agency might mean that sources were burned by your actions? Does the Bush Administration even care about the consequences of their petty and impulsive behavior — or has cheating simply become their preferred mode of operation?

We have a President and a Vice President who put their own, personal political vendetta and their desire to maintain a hold on power and look good to the public ahead of our national security interests. George Bush declassified a selected portion of the NIE unilaterally (only the ones favorable to his argument, not the parts that said he was flat out wrong, so the public only got half the story in the lead-up to the war), and in doing so bypassed the clearance procedures that would have ensured that long-term US national security interests would not have been threatened by any portion of this disclosure. This is beyond selfish, beyond cheating — it is reckless and it is wrong. Getting even with a political enemy should never, ever come before protecting this nation as a whole — and worrying about your own political skin is a pathetic excuse from a weak man who puts himself above his country and above his duty to protect our nation’s most closely guarded secrets. Shame on you, Mr. President.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/07/what-has-the-president-declassified-and-why-did-he-leak-it/

[mdmc]

1. thanks for the question

[JDPriestly]

2. Even if he had the authority to declassify the information,

it was a breach of the trust that members of the CIA place on the U.S. government to at least not betray them intentionally. Even if Plame was working without cover, the administration should not have intentionally outed her and her colleagues. There are, no doubt, places in the world in which Plame is no longer safe -- places she can no longer go -- people she can no longer meet because they now see her as a spy. This breach of trust has done enormous harm to our intelligence apparatus I am sure. Any innocent person in any country that befriended Plame and intentionally or inadvertently helped her in her work has been harmed by this. We will never know how many there were. Even if outing Plame was not criminal, Bush should apologize, and a process should be put in place for preventing such conduct by anyone, president or not, in the future.

[global1]

3. "This Is Beyond Selfish, Beyond Cheating - It is Reckless & It Is Wrong" .

NO - IT'S TREASON. Why mince words?

[JohnnyRingo]

4. We have to assume he declassified the covert status of an agent...

then classified the declassification when reporters asked him if he knew who leaked the info. That's why he had to lie.

...I'm sure it'll sound better when Rush explains it.
And I'm sure he was up all night poppin' oxys to get it done.

[Karmakaze]

5. DUer's bring it on themselves sometimes...

They are handed what looks like juicy meat, only to find out after they have swallowed it that it is rotten.

Here is the deal: Nothing in Libby's testimony says that Bush authorised the leaking of Plame's identity. In fact it would be sheer stupidity for Libby to claim that because it would be admission of guilt that he had indeed leaked th identity and lied about it to investigators.

Secondly, Bush (as president) does have the authority to declassify the NIE except for parts of it that are classified beyond his ability to declassify. In other words he may be able to declassify the findings of a secret investigation, but NOT the identity of a covert agent. However, remember that Libby did not say Bush authorised the leaking of Plames identity.

You are being conned!!!

You have been fed a half truth with the hope you will grab it and make a huge deal out of it, only to be proven wrong.

Don't fall for it! Stop trying to argue that what Libby claimed is that Bush authorised the leak of Plame's identity - he didn't. Stop trying to say that what Bush DID authorise was illegal - it wasn't. Don't fall into their trap!

Instead, argue that it does not matter that what Bush DID authorise was legal, it was a breach of the public trust! He lied to the PEOPLE, not some prosecutor. He broke the people's TRUST, not some law.

That is how you can avoid the Bush trap and still do damage. Arguing that he broke the law or authorised the leak of Plame's identity based on Libby's testimony will only damage YOUR reputation, not his!