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?

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.

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.

What do you think of their methods Cal?

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.

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.

What is supposed to be a democracy is looking more like a Kingdom every day.

What do you think of their methods Cal?

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. . . . 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 with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.”

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.

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.