NIE Leaks: Who’s Right?
By Callimachus | Related entries in Blogging, General Politics, The Plame GameWhile many on the left are hyperventilating about the latest little twist in the Plame story, painting it as Bush’s blue dress, voices on the right are shrugging it off as a questionable choice, but nothing more. Cf. Captain Ed:
One can argue about the wisdom of George Bush in declassifying the Iraq NIE when he did, but let’s remember that the press had been clamoring for that information ever since the fall of Baghdad three months earlier. The WMD stockpiles had not been found, and Joe Wilson among others had claimed that “Bush lied”. In response, Bush declassified the NIE so that everyone could see what exactly the intelligence services had told him about Iraq’s WMD programs. Now everyone wants to proclaim George Bush a criminal for releasing the information that the entire media establishment demanded he reveal.
This entry was posted on Sunday, April 9th, 2006 and is filed under Blogging, General Politics, 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 9th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
It’s not about the timing of the release, but the method. I’m sure that the President can declassify anything that he wants, but why not just put a pdf up on a webpage somewhere and have McClellan discuss its contents? If the information were declassified, why did it need to be leaked?
Maybe if this were a one-time affair, I might be forgiving. However, this administration hasn’t done anything in a very long time to show that they deserve my trust. I’m not going to give it to them now. Therefore, I think the presidential defenders are full of it on this one.
April 9th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
You know, we lefties are tad put off because once again the president was caught in a bold-faced lie.
Why go through all of that trouble dancing around for the cameras when he already knew where the link came from? Are our memories supposed to fail when the administration decides that history isn’t how we remember it? He’s a liar and we’re sick of it.
April 9th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
As the other two commentors have said, the leaking and the lying is the big thing. As Alan Stewart Carl said recently, it’s not the crime, it’s the cover up. Bush’s credibility with the American people is getting close to becoming unsalvagable, and that’s what worries me. In fact, that’s what worries me about all of the administration’s questionable methods when fighting the WOT.
What do you think of their methods Cal?
April 9th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
[...] Some right wing[1] and “moderate” blogs just don’t understand why we angry liberals are so angry about the revelation that Bush himself authorized the leaks. They don’t understand why, after we found out the king made the decree, we don’t just follow them and say “Well, shoot. Ok, well, enough investigating then. He was only trying to prove to those damned naysayers that he was right all along.” And I thought that elephants were supposed to have long memories. Guess it’s the kool-aid that makes them forgetful. Thanks to “The Raw Story”[2] for compiling all the lies for us to take a look at, perhaps jarring some memories about why Bush is a bold-faced liar. President Bush, 9/30/03: [...]
April 9th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Cal, even if one is totally loyal to the man, his actions are pretty much indefensible …. he is ego-maniacal to a fault. If there was a reasoned release of information he should have had a press conference and put it out there. He has no problem coming out to attempt a reconciliation to defend a lie … just say it up front. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to see some of the things that he is still defending.
What is supposed to be a democracy is looking more like a Kingdom every day.
April 9th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Well, the presentation of this story here has been pretty one-sided so I felt it was my duty as the House Incarnation of Neo-Con Evil or whatever it is I’m supposed to be, to throw out one of the views from the other side. In the interest of, y’know, balance or whatever it is we’re supposed to be trying to do.
Me, I think it’s debatable whether you absolutely can call something a “leak” if the president authorized it. Which makes his quote about leaks kind of moot. And since I’m for knowing more, not less, about what the government knew about Iraq, I’m glad to have had access to the information about Niger. As a media type, I’m in favor of leaks, generally, whether the president approves them or not.
April 9th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
We can have that discussion another time. I don’t perform on demand. And I’m still a “water’s edge” guy when it comes to situations where our troops are under fire. And there’s no water’s edge on the blogosphere, so I choose my words and situations deliberately. Sorry, just the way I am. I’m not arrogant enough to think my mouth matters, but not impudent enough to think that means I should shoot it off at every opportunity.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:48 am
Before: “We demand you tell us information about Iraq! Since you aren’t you aren’t being forward with us! Gimme Gimme Gimme! Bush lied. People died!”
After: “You gave the information in a way different from what we thought you would! You did not follow our vague demands exactly as we wanted you to! Bush lied. People died!”
Conclusion: If you have Bush Derangement Syndrome, everything Bush does is somehow either a lie or a cover-up, and you will proclaim his support is waning regardless of what he does. Bush isn’t running for re-election, therefore his approval numbers don’t mean squat. At least Bush has a platform, I’m still waiting for the “clear vision” the Democrats keep saying they have. I’d rather vote for a party who has a clue for a party who won’t leak the intelligence on what their freaking plan is.
April 10th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Bush’s quote about the “leak” was referring to the leak of Plame’s name, not about the release of the intelligence his administration used to go to war.
The only thing I can conclude with this situation is that that people who cannot see this difference simply don’t want to.
I’m open to being convinced otherwise.
April 14th, 2006 at 9:59 am
Well, I’m sure no one will read this, but I wrote it when comments were off so I’d might as well post it.
The way Bush leaked this information is certainly relevant. It’s deceptive to continue to use the word “release.” If Bush felt the public needed the information, why was it leaked to a single reporter? And yes, providing information to one reporter on the grounds that she can’t identify its source is leaking. He’s the President, not God. He can’t change the meaning of words on a whim.
Just as important, the information was leaked after opposing views were deleted. Bush claims he was interested in the public’s right to know, but he really only wanted them to know information that helped him. I’m sorry, but I don’t see how anyone could look at these facts and not agree that Bush was being very dishonest.
And Brian, could you please leave the “Bush lied, people died” and “Bush Derangement Syndrome” talk to the Michelle Malkins of the world? I like this board because the exchanges are pretty reasonable. When you’re the only one using that kind of language, who exactly are you satirizing?
May 15th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
[...] Some right wing[1] and “moderate” blogs just don’t understand why we angry liberals are so angry about the revelation that Bush himself authorized the leaks. They don’t understand why, after we found out the king made the decree, we don’t just follow them and say “Well, shoot. Ok, well, enough investigating then. He was only trying to prove to those damned naysayers that he was right all along.” And I thought that elephants were supposed to have long memories. Guess it’s the kool-aid that makes them forgetful. Thanks to “The Raw Story” [2] for compiling all the lies for us to take a look at, perhaps jarring some memories about why Bush is a bold-faced liar. President Bush, 9/30/03: “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,{a} and we’ll take the appropriate action.” President Bush, 9/30/03: “If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of{b}. . . . I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward{c} with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.” President Bush, 10/28/03: “I’d like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information.” President Bush, 6/10/04: Reporter: “Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?” President Bush: “Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.”{d} President Bush, 10/28/03: “I want to know the truth. … I have no idea whether we’ll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers.” President Bush, 7/18/05 issue of USA Today: “If someone committed crime, they will no longer work in my administration.” White House Press Secretary, 9/29/03: “The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.”{e} White House Press Secretary, 10/7/03: “Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I’ll talk to you about what he wants . . .If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration {f}, because that’s not the way this White House operates, that’s not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business.” [...]