Bush Authorized Secrets' Release, Libby Testified washingtonpost.com By R. Jeffrey Smith Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, April 7, 2006; Page A01
President Bush authorized White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to disclose highly sensitive intelligence information to the news media in an attempt to discredit a CIA adviser whose views undermined the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, according to a federal prosecutor's account of Libby's testimony to a grand jury.
The court filing by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time places Bush and Vice President Cheney at the heart of what Libby testified was an exceptional and deliberate leak of material designed to buttress the administration's claim that Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear weapons. The information was contained in the National Intelligence Estimate, one of the most closely held CIA analyses of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the war....
Experts: Tactic Would Be Legal but Unusual
washingtonpost.com
By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 7, 2006; Page A08
Legal experts say that President Bush had the unquestionable authority to approve the disclosure of secret CIA information to reporters, but they add that the leak was highly unusual and amounted to using sensitive intelligence data for political gain.
"It is a question of whether the classified National Intelligence Estimate was used for domestic political purposes," said Jeffrey H. Smith, a Washington lawyer who formerly served as general counsel for the CIA. [...] The court filing says that Libby, who is fighting perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges in connection with the leak investigation, was concerned about the legality of sharing classified information with reporters. But he was assured by David S. Addington, who then served as counsel to Cheney, that presidential authorization to disclose the information amounted to declassification.
Experts said the power to classify and declassify documents in the federal government flows from the president and is often delegated down the chain of command. In March 2003, Bush signed an executive order delegating declassification authority to Cheney....
W. House does not dispute Bush leak allegation
reuters.com
Fri Apr 7, 2006 4:11 PM ET6
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Friday left unchallenged a prosecutor's disclosure that President George W. Bush authorized a former top official, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to share intelligence data on Iraq in 2003 with a reporter to counter Iraq war criticism.
Spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that Bush had the authority to declassify intelligence and rejected charges from Democrats that he did so selectively for political purposes. "Declassifying information and providing it to the public when it is in the public interest is one thing," McClellan told reporters during a combative briefing. "But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious, and there's a distinction."
Democrats seized on the issue, which has put Bush on the defensive at a time when his popularity is slumping and the Iraq war is increasingly unpopular. They accused the president, who has often spoken of the damage done by leaks, of hypocrisy.
"President Bush's selective declassification of highly sensitive intelligence for political purposes is wrong," said the House of Representatives Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada demanded an explanation from Bush, who has twice ignored shouted questions about the issue. "Only the president can put this matter to rest. He must tell the American people whether the Bush Oval Office is the place where the buck stops, or the leaks start," Reid said....
McClellan: President Can Declassify Information at Any Time
washingtonpost.com
By Daniela Deane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 7, 2006; 3:33 PM
President Bush's chief spokesman said today the president has the right to declassify sensitive information whenever he chooses and that when he does, it is effective immediately.
In an often testy exchange with the White House media, spokesman Scott McClellan refused to explain the administration's role in the 2003 disclosure -- described in a federal prosecutor's legal document -- of highly sensitive intelligence information about Iraq. The spokesman said it has long been the administration's policy not to comment on ongoing legal proceedings. [...] "The president can declassify information if he chooses," McClellan told reporters. "It's inherent in our Constitution. The president would never authorize the disclosure of information that he thought could compromise the nation's security."
Asked whether Bush was against the practice of leaking, as he has indicated in the past, McClellan said the president opposes the leaking of classified material. Pressed repeatedly on whether the material was classified at the time it was leaked, McClellan refused to discuss details of the case, saying it was an ongoing legal proceeding....
Yes, I should think that would have been a testy exchange.
(Purely a side note: I've often wondered how White House press secretaries/spokespeople keep their sanity and/or their principles intact while doing that job. Maybe lack of principle is a job requirement; if you have anything remotely resembling an ethic, they don't hire you. After all, you have to stand up there and either flat-out lie to the press and, by extension, the country, or you have to accept that the administration is going to use you for that purpose, and thus will lie to you. Either way, I don't see how any person with anything resembling a conscience could do that job for very long. But I digress.)
I'm just guessing that at this point that the government is either hoping that people won't notice this trial and its peculiar revelations, or won't care if they do notice, or maybe they're looking for some way to get Libby's trial continued into 2008. At that point, if it starts, then as he heads out, Bush can pardon Libby and tank the trial, thus preventing any more information from getting out.
The question of the trial will be: was the material actually declassified at the point that Libby was told that it was? Yes, the president undoubtedly has the authority to do so, but it doesn't normally happen quite so invisibly as it seems to have done here. After all, this investigation seems to be predicated on the fact that even at the time the investigation started, the information was still considered classified. Does it count as declassified if nobody knows that it was declassified?
The question before the public now is: does it matter to you that the president and vice president compromised national security for purely personal political gain? And I will confess that my own answer would be ... I don't know. I mean, yes, I care, and I wish with all my heart that this administration would resign. I do feel that this administration has frequently and repeatedly committed high crimes and misdemeanors warranting impeachment. I just don't know what I think should happen now.
I don't, myself, want to watch the country flounder through impeachment again, however deserved it may be. And it's a foregone conclusion that, given that the Republicans in Congress have the best interests of the party, rather than of the country, in mind as they "govern", if that's the word for what they're doing ... they will never authorize impeachment proceedings. If, by some miracle, impeachment articles were approved, they would never ever pass. And the Democrats, if they even want to try, can't make the attempt without them, because the Dems are the minority party. And all that said ... even if impeachment proceedings were approved, and even if Bush actually was found guilty and removed from office ... that would leave us with a year or two of Cheney. If, by yet another miracle, Cheney resigned along with Bush, that would leave us with a year or two of Hastert. I fail to see how any of those choices leave the country any better off than it was previously. A weak, caretaker government, just waiting to be swept out of office isn't what we need right now. (Mind, neither is the current administration; it's just that a weak, caretaker administration might actually be worse than what we do have.)
Question is, is the devil we know actually better than the devil we don't?
Posted by iain at April 07, 2006 04:29 PM
