It’s Not the Crime, It’s the Cover-up
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in The Plame GameJohn Podhoretz of The New York Post is moving at about 1000 rpms in an attempt to spin yesterday’s revelation that President Bush himself may have authorized the release of information the resulted in exposing covert CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity. Podhoretz wants us to think this is much-ado-about nothing and lays out an argument the goes roughly like this:
1) The “leaked� information was from a document called the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), but most of that document was already public knowledge nine months before this whole thing began because an unclassified version had been released.
2) The President has the right to declassify anything, so it is impossible that he could break the law by leaking classified information.
3) The NIE was released to prove that Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson was lying when he claimed to have inside information that the White House was lying about Saddam Hussein’s attempts to get uranium from Niger.
4) No one has been indicted for leaking classified information
5) It was good and proper to discredit Wilson because he’s a lying sack of you-know-what who slandered the White House.
That, at least, is the gist of Podhoretz’s argument. You’ll have to read the whole thing to get a feel for how deep he lays it on, and how conspicuously he leaves out the exact connection between the release of the NIE and the exposure of Plame.
Nevertheless, it should be said that Podhoretz is probably right when he says Bush didn’t break the law. In fact, given that there have been no indictments for leaking classified information, it’s possible that no one broke the law here…that is until they tried to cover up the whole matter.
And that’s what gets me. When this thing became a story, the White House acted earnestly disturbed and vowed that they would get to the bottom of it. But the reality seems to be that just about every high-ranking official, including the President himself, knew quite well how Plame’s identity ended up being revealed.
Podhoretz wants us to believe that nothing happened and that the hubbub over all this is just the ignorant reaction of ignorant people. But doesn’t that flat-out miss the point? Isn’t the point now that the White House knowingly hid the truth about this whole affair? That the administration b.s.’ed the country because they wanted to avoid responsibility and shield themselves from blame?
Perhaps there was honest confusion within the White House about how Plame’s name got out. Perhaps the President really didn’t know that his authorization of the NIE release directly led to the problem. Perhaps. But I, for one, am not willing to give them the benefit-of-the-doubt.
This entry was posted on Friday, April 7th, 2006 and is filed under The Plame Game. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 7th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
There is truly a pernicious mindset at work in the White House and elsewhere, IMO, and it’s exactly that mindset which puts me firmly in your camp with regard to giving the benefit of the doubt. (And I’m one who thinks the Plame affairs is vastly overblow and with almost no clean hands anywhere–including on Joe Wilson and his wife.)
I’ve written about how much that mindset bothers a number of times, over time, elsewhere, but this pretty much puts it in a nutshell:
“‘ But I have say that it has become clear to me that too many people in our government–including those in the White House–appear to be either unwilling, or incapable, of adopting a mindset that can effectively strike a balance between promoting security from outside threats and preserving the civil rights that make America what it is. Instead, they appear to push and push and push and push the envelope. To hand these types of people the cloak of secrecy and opacity is to also give them a loaded gun pointed at our most cherished freedoms.’
From time to time, in this sandbox and elsewhere, I’ve stated that it’s the mindset that is bothering me, and that there appeared to be some significant, and growing, thread of people in various parts of our current government who–to put it in stark words this time–share the attitude that the ends justify any and all means in pursuing their political agenda.”
Sorry about the odd quotation marks: I was actually quoting myself, from another post, in the particular post from which this is excerpted. (Wow! Now there’s one heckuva a sentence! LOL).
Donklephant posters: If it wasn’t OK for me to quote a post of mine in this way here, just let me know. I just couldn ‘t see the point of rephrasing something that I’d already put into words to my satisfaction previously.
April 7th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Maybe I’m missing something, but how did Bush authorizing the release of the NIE contribute to the leakage of Plame’s name? And why would Bush know about it?
April 7th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
It wasn’t long ago that the Republicans were enjoying calling President Clinton “Slick Willy”. It seems more than evident today that President Bush and his mouthpiece minions have far advanced the art of “well it depends on what the meaning of is, is”.
This is the same President who campaigned as a man of principles who would restore honor to the White House. There’s a limit to the amount of doublespeak that the American public will accept…recent polling indicates this administration has far exceeded that threshold.
http://www.thoughttheater.com
April 7th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Jeff, I think ‘contributed to’ is questionable, though it’s possible that if Libby knew Bush authorized the NIE info, he either misinterpreted the directive or assumed he was cleared to leak Plame’s identity.
I think if true, this is further evidence that the administration was going to great length to discredit anyone who dared speak in opposition of its policies, to the extent of releasing confidential info (even done if legally) to support its position in “the interest of national security.” The Plame allegation is separate; if that’s true, it exposes a personal vendetta, showing another example of the “great length” the administration was willing to go to.
Either way, as Daniel states clearly, these are not the acts of a person bringing morals back to the White House.
April 7th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
A question I’d like to see debated is when is it ok to leak classified intelligence? Obviously there are times it’s ok. For example the CIA secret prisons was classified info. The press relies on leaks of classified info for their reporting. So how do we determine when it’s ok, and when it’s not ok?
Someone should start a post about this. I’d love to see a debate.
April 7th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
ASC - are you surprised?
Jeff - Are you serious? The debate about release of CI would be fairly convoluted, but I think it is fair to say that it is legal for the President to de-classify at will if it is in the interest of national security. I don’t think the Plames could be classified as enemies of the state. …. and Bush’s legal rights are in place for administrative (not political) reasons.
April 7th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
One of the issues involved with this is that the Prez has stated, in reference to Libby leaking info about Plame, that he condemns this type of behavior and that anyone doing it would be fired. Now that it seems he has engaged in that behavior, shouldn’t he be fired? Of course not because he didn’t do anything “illegal,” and it was necessary because of terrorists and evil-doers.
I’m not sure what it would take before Bush would be held accountable for his misdeeds. I listened to a radio program yesterday where the gist of the opinion was: Just one more example of BS coming from this teflon president. Just like all the other stuff he has done, he will say that he had a right to do it, and it’s necessary because of terrorism, and enough people will say, “Yeah, goddam right. This is America!!! F’ yeah!” Since he won’t be getting in trouble EVER, I just continue to hope that the damage he does during the remainder of his term isn’t too bad.
BTW - Getting a BJ in the oval office isn’t a crime either, but everyone got all excited about that. Will someone explain to me how that is more important than any ONE of the “unethical” things Bush has done?
April 7th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
I’m talking about any kind of leakage of classified info, authorized or unauthorized. You can’t say that any leakage of unauthorized info is bad, since that would severely limit government transparancy, which is necessary for the public to make informed decisions about it’s leaders. I think this is an issue that needs to be debated. But I see reluctance on either side to do so.
April 7th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Getting a BJ in the oval office isn’t a crime either, but everyone got all excited about that.
Well, to be fair, apart from the fact that the act involved an intern, I believe the reports at the time noted that some of the activity was occurring while President Clinton was talking on the phone to some foreign leader or representative.
Yeah, I think that was worth getting a LITTLE excited about, don’t you?
(I’m not a Clinton “hater” any more than I’m a Bush “hater,” so I’d respectfully request that no one go there.)
Something about using the word “exciting” in this context is a bit disturbing, btw.
April 7th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Yeah, I think that was worth getting a LITTLE excited about, don’t you?
Getting to combine a little business with a little gittin’ busy? Hell yeah, I’m excited!
April 7th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not wild about the idea of our President having an affair while he’s on the job (I was mad about the BJ when it happened because I don’t think it shows much respect for his office or the people who elected him to be carrying on like that during business hours), but it still pales in comparison to the crap that Bush has pulled. It’s not like anyone was put in danger because of Clinton’s behavior (except for his wife, and all the other harm that goes along with adultery - I don’t mean to minimize that because I think it’s BAD). How hard is it to talk on the phone while receiving oral sex, anyway?
BTW - the use of the word “excited” was unintentional, as is the use of the word “wild,” which I just noticed I used above. I’m sure it’s a subconscious thing.
April 7th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
I just noticed that I used the word “hard” as well. I am just really inappropriate, aren’t I?
BTW - the word “disturbing” is what I would use to describe torture or something; maybe “ironic” would be more fitting?
April 7th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
In a post about the coverup being worse than the crime, you bring up Clinton’s impeachment as an example of…..wait, what? OK, whatever.
I disagree that Clinton’s behavior didn’t put anyone in danger. In retrospect his pusillanimous (official, not personal) behaviour in office encouraged al Qaida et al. to consider us weak, while his failure over eight years to attack their bases or their infrastructure seriously left them free to attack us pretty much at will. I’m inclined to let people blow that off though (ba-zing!) because at the time I didn’t think see that we had real enemies either.
Also, since the point is that this wasn’t an illegal leak (I think the point is worth further discussion: “if the president leaks it it’s not illegal” is both too broad a definition of presidential powers and has echoes of Nixon) I think you’re assuming your conclusion by calling it a misdeed, or you’re talking about other things which you think are mideeds.
April 7th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
Strikes me that the only remaining impeachable offence is lying under oath to a Committee of Congress.
At the moment, I can imagine that Committee working out just what the definition of “is” is for him so that he is not telling lies…
April 7th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Meredith: I was using the word “disturbing” ironically. Heh. No, I was using it in an amused way. Really. I wasn’t “disturbed” in the sense of disapproving or thinking it was inappropriate–quite the opposite.
One of those comments that probably would have worked better in person, so that I’d have had the tone and expression going for me.
April 8th, 2006 at 9:54 am
If the vice president ordered this, he should be impeached. That would have been very illegal. The vice president has no right to release classified information, even if he thinks it shouldn’t be.
If the president ordered this, he should be censured. It isn’t strictly illegal, but it would expose him as having had lied to the American people to cover his own ass, which is disgusting.