Decision ‘08

Two Things To Keep In Mind About The President And Joe Wilson

File this one under ‘what liberal media?’…

There are two indisputable things that we know in relation to the news that Libby claims Bush authorized the leak of the NIE information:

(1). President Bush has complete legal authority to do so.

(2). No one has presented any credible allegation that he did so to discredit Joe Wilson, or to out Valerie Plame, or…take your pick. In other words, you don’t know his motivation and neither do I. People can make assumptions, but they should label them as speculative if they care about honesty.

Someone needs to tell that to the Washington Post and NY Times. First, the Post:

Legal experts say that President Bush had the unquestionable authority to approve the disclosure of secret CIA information to reporters, but they add that the leak was highly unusual and amounted to using sensitive intelligence data for political gain.

“It is a question of whether the classified National Intelligence Estimate was used for domestic political purposes,” said Jeffrey H. Smith, a Washington lawyer who formerly served as general counsel for the CIA.

The article is quite short, and does not quote any other expert on this subject. So, Michael Fletcher takes the statement “It is a question of whether…” and spits out “amounted to”. A fair interpretation of the expert’s quote, or the reporter’s own speculation? I think the answer is obvious.

Now, we go to the Times, courtesy of the great Maguire:

According to these papers, Mr. Libby testified that President Bush authorized him to tell reporters about classified intelligence on Iraq as part of an effort to discredit Mrs. Wilson’s husband, Joseph Wilson…

As Tom points out, the papers said no such thing:

…[A] casual reader might infer that President Bush was specifically apprised of the motivation behind NIE disclosure. In fact, the Fitzgerald filing does not address Bush’s state of mind in approving the disclosure, nor was Libby privy to that conversation, which, per Libby’s testimony, took place between Bush and Cheney. In any event, if rebutting one’s critics is a crime, all of Washington should be locked up.

Is it possible that Bush was out to discredit Wilson? Sure…it’s more than possible, it’s a reasonable assumption. After all, the President is entitled to rebut arguments by his critics. Let’s just try to keep in mind what is speculation and what is fact.

For that matter, let’s keep in mind that these are assertions by Libby and his defense team, and open to rebuttal themselves…

22 Responses to “Two Things To Keep In Mind About The President And Joe Wilson”

1 peter Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 11:32 am
1) I don’t think the WaPo piece is biased as much as sloppy – it’s unclear what the “it” in the second sentence refers to.

2) The key phrase in the Times editorial is “according to these papers,” referring to the National Journal and the New York Sun. The Times based today’s editorial on reporting in these papers, whose source was documents from the Libby case. If Maguire has a problem with the reporting, he should direct it to the Journal and the Sun.

3) “If rebutting one’s critics is a crime, all of Washington should be locked up:” only if rebutting critics includes exposing undercover CIA agents for partisan gain.
2 Mark Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 11:44 am
peter, your number three ignores the whole point of my post…I must be having problems with clarity. I think I stated that you don’t know Bush’s motivations any more than I do, now, do you? And please show me the part of the Libby indictment that accuses him of exposing an undercover CIA agent - chapter and verse, if you please…

Assumptions vs. facts - that’s what I’m saying…
3 Mark Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Regarding your point two - is the New York Times now leaving the business of independent reporting? Isn’t there a rather large staff who might know a thing or two about the PlameGate proceedings that could answer questions for the editors? Or must they now rely on the far-less-well-heeled National Journal and New York Sun?

If your interpretation is right, considering that the reporting was based on publicly available documents, it’s one of the true howlers in New York Times history…
4 Mark Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 11:52 am
Finally, your point one defies belief - ‘It is a question of whether’ is not the same as ‘amounts to’, and no amount of spinning on your part can ever change that. One implies uncertaintly, the other equivalence…
5 Anonymous Liberal Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Mark,
I agree that what Bush is alleged to have done is probably not illegal, but it’s certainly improper and unethical. There’s an enormous difference between declassifying parts of document through normal procedures (by going through the proper steps and then providing a redacted version to the public) and instructing an aide to deliver a cherry-picked version of that document to a reporter on deep background (remember Libby asked to have the information attributed to a “former Hill staffer.”) The latter scenario is the one Libby describes, and it’s certainly not on the up-and-up. It’s dishonest and weasely. Plus, it’s not as if Libby told Miller that the information had been de facto declassified by the President. Instead he played upon its classified status to intrigue Miller and get here to bite on the story. That kind of behavior is just not how Presidents should behave when it comes to sensitive national security information.

Finally, it’s worth pointing out that many features of Libby’s story don’t make a whole lot of sense. Libby claims to have balked when Cheney first asked him to discuss the NIE with Miller. Only after the President gave his okay and Libby consulted Addington did he agree to leak the information. Does that make any sense? Why would Libby suddenly be so cautious and circumspect regarding classified information. As Murray Waas pointed it out yesterday, Libby had leaked all sorts of classified info in the leadup to war, apparently on the authority of the Vice President alone. Why was Cheney’s authority suddenly insufficient? This entire testimony sounds suspiciously like a cover-your-ass story concocted by Libby and Cheney. I wonder if Bush really did authorize anything.
6 Mark Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Anonymous, indeed, that is yet another possibility, and a real one at that - I have read some speculation from Maguire and others that these revelations buttress the idea that Cheney was the original target, but Libby didn’t play along by flipping…

Obviously, I can’t make an argument that what the President did was not immoral or unethical that would convince you…I think we’re both pretty set in our opinions on Bush the man, and I doubt we would find much evidence to the contrary very persuasive. However, I grant you that the case can be made.

That’s not the same as saying it has been made, and it’s certainly not the case that these court filings make the case. They buttress speculation, yes, and they fit in better with some sets of suppositions than they do with others, and certainly, some of the implications aren’t very flattering to Bush and/or Cheney.

I think the point I am making (or rather following up on, since it was really Maguire’s point), is that these documents, while quite intriguing, are perhaps being blown a teensy bit out of proportion…
7 peter Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
1) Re the WaPo piece: of course “‘It is a question of whether’ is not the same as ‘amounts to.’” My point is that the editorial is unclear because you can’t tell what “it” refers to. (Is “it” whether or not there was illegality? If so, then the second sentence contradicts the first sentence. Does it refer to whether the leak was “unusual?” Possibly: but then you have a pretty limp sentence. Does it refer to whether the leak “ amounted to using sensitive intelligence data for political gain?” Then you have circular logic.) Hence my point that the writing is sloppy but not necessarily biased.

2) Re point two: the Times piece was an editorial, not reporting (so, not to disappoint you, the Times will continue its tradition of well-researched and objective reporting). Moreover, the documents are not publicly available(earlier in the editorial: “the most recent additions … came yesterday, in reports by the New York Sun, the National Journal, and other news organizations on documents from the case against Lewis Libby.” Presumably, if the documents were public the Times would have referred to them directly without mention to the reporting in the other media.)

3) Re point three: Libby was not indicted for exposing Valerie Plame, as presumably Fitzgerald feels that the other charges are easier to prove in court. (Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion, not racketeering). And while I do not have access to the inner workings of Bush’s mind, certain things are blazingly obvious. Joe Wilson wrote an article in the Times which (correctly) stated that the Bush administration vastly exaggerated the Iraqi threat to build its case for war. His wife was exposed within two weeks. If you think these two events are unrelated, then I invite you to watch CBS this weekend to see me play in the Masters Tournament. Quite obviously it was the intent of those who authorized and executed the leak to punish a critic. The thing speaks for itself.
8 Mark Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
peter, note the length of time it took for me to provide you with the very public thirty-nine page .pdf version of the court filing.

Is that public enough?
9 Mark Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Oh, and good luck at the Masters…Vijay’s looking tough this year…
10 peter Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
I don’t have the time now to open and read the pdf – but I would assume that the reporting in the other papers comes from other documents. It doesn’t make sense that the Times would use hearsay if the document were publicly available.

I have done most of the things I really want to do in life, but high on the list of things I haven’t done is attending the Masters Tournament. (Playing there is, of course, only a fantasy – although I was happy to note that Ben Crenshaw, who is three years older than me, played competitively yesterday). My wife and daughter will be out this evening, so tonight’s activities are: a) avoid all news outlets with sports reporting, b) grill ribs, and c) watch the Masters in TiVo. My idea of heaven.
11 Mark Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Well, I can assure you that this is indeed the document in question…when you do have time, you can verify for yourself. It’s also available in direct links from the Washington Post and New York Times websites, so you can take it as a given that the Times editors were either (a) too lazy, or (b) incompetent in this case…
12 Mark Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
As to the golf, I’m a horrible golfer, but I do enjoy watching it…I hope to see the final two rounds myself…
13 Dave Johnson Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
“Is it possible that Bush was out to discredit Wilson? Sure…it’s more than possible, it’s a reasonable assumption. After all, the President is entitled to rebut arguments by his critics.”

We are not talking about some game between the President and “critics.” We are talking about the Government of the United States making the case to invade another country, launching a war that has killed tens of thousands of people, potentially destabilized a region, and cost the United States upward of a trillion dollar (adding in ongoing costs like medical to injured vets…)

The question here is was it for the good of the country that the President authorized a covert leak of classified intelligence, or was it for other reasons? We should all be concerned about this. We all now know enough that it is clear it was not for the good of the country.
14 Mark Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Ummm, no, we’re not talking about all of those things. We’re talking about a report by Joe Wilson that involved the accuracy of intelligence that Saddam sought uranium from Niger. It was a part of the pre-war argument, but only a part. Regardless, it remains the case that the President is entitled to rebut arguments by his critics. Note that rebuttal in this case took the form of a National Intelligence Estimate, not just some random stuff pulled out of the President’s, um, posterior…
15 All Things Beautiful Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
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 …
16 Muffin the Cat Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Mark,

A “teensy bit out of proportion”. A monstrous bit out of proportion. The Kansas City “Red” Star covered it’s front page this morning with this “story”. I agree with Anonymous that you could find this action “immoral or unethical” but that is an opinion for the editorial page, not the front page. The “Star” referred to this “story” as a “scandal”. One of the problems I have with the LSM is that they have turned into a tabloid publication. They remind me of the Drudge Report. Totally sensationalized with no substance behind the story.

The only reason the Star comes into our house is because my wife likes to read the FYI section and comics. The rest of the paper is basically unread. The last time they wanted us to subscribe, it was offered at $5 a month.
17 peter Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
The President is certainly entitled to rebut his critics, but in this case the rebuttal would be evidence that Iraq had nuclear plans which justified an invasion, and not a personal attack on Wilson or his wife. It should certainly not include the leaks of classified information. As Bush said in September 2003, “”I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take appropriate action.” If Libby’s claim that Bush authorized the leaks is true, then you can include the September quote in the pile of other Bush statements which are now (to quote Ron Ziegler) inoperative.
18 topsecretk9 Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
case the rebuttal would be evidence that Iraq had nuclear plans which justified an invasion, and not a personal attack on Wilson or his wife.

Then Wilson shouldn’t have lied to reporters telling them Cheney sent him, then reporters wouldn’t be asking the WH and OVP if Cheney sent him. Wilson had NO regard for his wife’s status when he lied.
19 too many steves Says:
April 8th, 2006 at 5:26 am
And the Boston Globe continues, in today’s edition, to call it a “leak” (and so does Peter): “White House defends CIA data leak”, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/08/white_house_defends_cia_data_leak/

As has been said by others, in the face of criticism, lies, and misinformation, the President has an obligation to set the record straight. In that context, declassifying and releasing the information is the opposite of unethical and immoral.
20 peter Says:
April 8th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Well, first of all, it is a leak. Assuming Libby’s deposition is correct, when you have a proxy (i.e., Libby) reveal classified information to a reporter, describe it as classified, and ask her to identify the source as a retired Hill staffer, then you have leaked information.

Secondly, if “the President has an obligation to set the record straight,” then he certainly has an obligation to be forthcoming about why we used discredited and obsolete intelligence to invade Iraq, among many other things.

This is not about setting the record straight. It is about a Presidency on the defensive striking out against those who (correctly) challenged the rationale for going to war.
21 topsecretk9 Says:
April 8th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
then he certainly has an obligation to be forthcoming about why we used discredited and obsolete intelligence to invade Iraq, among many other things.

It is certainly ashamed the CIA provided their boss, the President such discredited and obsolete intelligence and I wonder why Bush wasn’t more forthcoming about the agencies incompetence and negligence. It would have certainly been an eye-opener that that years of intelligence gathering by the CIA in WINPAC was 1- a waste of time and resources and 2- so dangerously careless.
22 Louisiana Libertarian » Blog Archive » RINO Sightings Says:
April 9th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
[…] Decision ‘08 has a post about how the liberal media is misrepresenting Scooter Libby’s claims that Bush authorized the leak. […]