Political dialog is so frequently an exercise is opponents talking past one another with the aim of political gain as to be a combination of amusing and depressing. The latest example of this is the swirl around the testimony of Scooter Libby that he was authorized to discuss pre-war intelligence with reporters, including the declassification of the National Intelligence Estimate (the NIE) as the basis for some of those discussions.
To the opponents of the administration this has become an “a-HA!” moment that promises to entangle the President and Vice President in a web of malicious and hopefully illegal behavior. Certainly it provides ample ammunition for the argument that the administration is hypocritical on the subject of leaks. To them, it could be the moment they’ve all been waiting for vis-a-vis Bush-Cheney.
To the supporters of the administration, the argument has been, and will be, that he had the legal right to do what he did, and therefore there is no story here. To them, this is just the Left and the Liberal Media making a mountain out of molehill.
However, they are both partially correct. The supporters would appear to be correct (I am not an expert on the law in this area, but there appears to be a consensus on this topic): the President can declassify documents as he sees fit (see here, for example). However, the opponents are correct as well: there was some clear politicking going on here, and the President can be seen to be acting hypocritically on the subject of leaks. Further, the situation is complicated by the fact that the White House has, heretofore, painted the Plame leak as something that a rogue member of the administration did on his or her own. Even if there is no evidence that the President directly or indirectly authorized discussion of Plame, it is clear now that whatever Libby did, it was done was some serious official blessing. That alters the public narrative that the White House has been telling since this story first broke.
First off, let’s all just agree that everyone in Washington is hypocritical on the subject of leaks–because both sides have done it, do it, and will do it. Further, both sides will consistently criticize the other side for leaks that they don’t like and praise the leaks of leakers which aid them politically. This is practically a sociological law.
Second, any evaluation of this situation must realize that there are two tracks here: there is the issue of the legality of the declassification, which would appear to be an easy issue. However, that isn’t where the real story is, so defending the actions on those grounds is not an efficacious route to take. The story here is a political one which deals with perceptions of the President and the administration and will serve to likely increase distrust by the public of the President’s approach to Iraq. Yes, it is true that Bush will never again run for office (as noted here, and, no doubt, elsewhere) but the attitudes behind those approval numbers (which are likely to go even lower) are relevant to his ability to govern for the next two and half-plus years, the mid-term elections, and even the fortunes of the GOP in 2008. So, to argue that all of this is of no consequence is simply incorrect.
And a side note: I would recommend against the Clinton Card (not to pick on Dan Riehl): while Clinton may have done the same thing or worse really isn’t relevant here. Even if such facts demonstrate hypocrisy by Democrats (see above) it would also show hypocrisy by Republicans–who decried Clinton then, but seek to protect Bush now. More importantly, it has no real bearing on the merits of the current debate.
In conclusion: we can bicker over whether this was “authorized declassification” or a “leak” but in all practical matters such arguments are silly. Just because the President had legal authorization to release the document doesn’t make this less a leak–it was still selectively released to the press for the purpose of benefiting the administration before it was widely made available to the public. Ultimately, it seems to me that regardless of the source and the degree of official acquiescence, a leak is simply the selective release of information to a limited number of members of the press in such as way as to fashion political advantage for the leaker (as such, I disagree with Podheretz’s definition). As such, I am not sure how this can be called anything other than a leak.
Still, call it what you like, the political ramifications remain in place.
Sphere: Related Content
April 8th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
A Note To Dr. Taylor
Dr. Steven Taylor references a previous post of mine on the leak story.And a side note: I would recommend against the Clinton Card (not to pick on Dan Riehl): while Clinton may have done the same thing or worse really
April 8th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
When Words Have Multiple Meanings
Steven Taylor has two interesting posts today on the subject of what constitutes a “leak.” In the first, he argues that, while the president is legally entitled to authorize selective release of information, doing so constitutes a “l…
April 9th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
[...] tic
By Dr. Steven Taylor @ 1:57 pm
Here’s a follow-up post on my posts (here and here) on the word “leak” (as noted and discussed by James Joyner yesterday. Leaking is a [...]