LEAKTARD
As I just finished telling a friend as I argued to him that intelligent design (which is not science) should not be taught in science clasrooms, a law/policy/act need not be unconstitutional (i.e. a law forcing the teaching of intelligent design as science) to be a bad law/policy/act. In the I.D. case, teaching non-science as science will result in taxpayer funds being thrown to the winds, and will stunt students' educational development. Not unconstitutional. Just bad.
As far as the latest relevations in the Valerie Plame case; namely, that President Bush himself allegedly declassified portions of a National Intelligence Estimate, and told Scooter Libby, either through subordinates or directly, that Libby could reveal this information to the New York Times (whom, of course, Bush hates), the declassification itself may not have been illegal (I say "may not have been" because certain procedures must be followed to declassify something, even by the President, and we do not know if or when the President followed these procedures).
My answer: so what? Snott McClellan tells us that the leaked material (which, interestingly, was given to Miller, and then "formally declassified" roughly ten days later - this suggests that the procedures may indeed not have been followed) was leaked for the public benefit. Libby's main line of defense (or one of them) to the charges of perjury and obstruction is that certain disclosures were authorized. If the information Bush "declassified" did not include Valerie Plame's identity, then how does this defense aid Libby? If it does, then how is a declassification that outs a CIA agent in the public interest? Someone, please tell me. The portions of the NIE that were leaked were exclusively the cherry-picked "evidence" (which the Administration knew or should have known was false) that Saddam had WMDs. So, given that there were copious amounts of information in the NIE that pretty much disproved that claim that were not declassified, one must conclude that it is in the public interest to mislead the American people, either into war, or either into supporting a war once it has started.
Much has been made of Bush's saying "There are too many leaks in Washington. If someone who works for me has leaked information, that person will be dealt with." McClellan said, when told that, in effect, the enemy was us, "Well, there's a distinction between leaking information that's in the public interest, and leaking information that's damaging to national security - i.e. information about the existence of the NSA wiretapping program."
The distinction constitutes mere wordplay. Our national security is damaged when our leaders force-feed us misleading information without giving us the whole picture. Even if one agrees with McClellan's assertion that the leak of the existence of the NSA wiretapping program damaged national security (this assertion is basically a way of stating that Bush couldn't act like a dictator for a day; no evidence of a breach of national security has been proven), the selective leaking did too. Also, as the old saying goes, he who lives by the sword dies by it. Let's say that Bush is correct and that the President has the authority to declassify information at will, without following any procedures, and that he can declassify it selectively so as to produce substantively misleading informaton, and so as to result in violation of other laws which he claims (and for the sake of argument, I'll accept his claims) he cannot be held accountable for breaking. Again, at the end of the day, so what? Bush's high-minded rhetoric about leaking, and his insistence that "you can't criticize my decision for going to war or rewrite history", thanks to his deliberate choice to use the power (illegally or not) of declassification for pure political gain, have effectively destroyed whatever credibility he has left on the subject of Iraq. He can perhaps console himself with the knowledge that he is King, or that he broke no laws. But that's kind of like a Titanic casualty saying (once he's dead) that he should be happy because he found the time to put his lifejacket on.
As far as the latest relevations in the Valerie Plame case; namely, that President Bush himself allegedly declassified portions of a National Intelligence Estimate, and told Scooter Libby, either through subordinates or directly, that Libby could reveal this information to the New York Times (whom, of course, Bush hates), the declassification itself may not have been illegal (I say "may not have been" because certain procedures must be followed to declassify something, even by the President, and we do not know if or when the President followed these procedures).
My answer: so what? Snott McClellan tells us that the leaked material (which, interestingly, was given to Miller, and then "formally declassified" roughly ten days later - this suggests that the procedures may indeed not have been followed) was leaked for the public benefit. Libby's main line of defense (or one of them) to the charges of perjury and obstruction is that certain disclosures were authorized. If the information Bush "declassified" did not include Valerie Plame's identity, then how does this defense aid Libby? If it does, then how is a declassification that outs a CIA agent in the public interest? Someone, please tell me. The portions of the NIE that were leaked were exclusively the cherry-picked "evidence" (which the Administration knew or should have known was false) that Saddam had WMDs. So, given that there were copious amounts of information in the NIE that pretty much disproved that claim that were not declassified, one must conclude that it is in the public interest to mislead the American people, either into war, or either into supporting a war once it has started.
Much has been made of Bush's saying "There are too many leaks in Washington. If someone who works for me has leaked information, that person will be dealt with." McClellan said, when told that, in effect, the enemy was us, "Well, there's a distinction between leaking information that's in the public interest, and leaking information that's damaging to national security - i.e. information about the existence of the NSA wiretapping program."
The distinction constitutes mere wordplay. Our national security is damaged when our leaders force-feed us misleading information without giving us the whole picture. Even if one agrees with McClellan's assertion that the leak of the existence of the NSA wiretapping program damaged national security (this assertion is basically a way of stating that Bush couldn't act like a dictator for a day; no evidence of a breach of national security has been proven), the selective leaking did too. Also, as the old saying goes, he who lives by the sword dies by it. Let's say that Bush is correct and that the President has the authority to declassify information at will, without following any procedures, and that he can declassify it selectively so as to produce substantively misleading informaton, and so as to result in violation of other laws which he claims (and for the sake of argument, I'll accept his claims) he cannot be held accountable for breaking. Again, at the end of the day, so what? Bush's high-minded rhetoric about leaking, and his insistence that "you can't criticize my decision for going to war or rewrite history", thanks to his deliberate choice to use the power (illegally or not) of declassification for pure political gain, have effectively destroyed whatever credibility he has left on the subject of Iraq. He can perhaps console himself with the knowledge that he is King, or that he broke no laws. But that's kind of like a Titanic casualty saying (once he's dead) that he should be happy because he found the time to put his lifejacket on.
posted by EnterCenter at 7:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home