Infinite Monkeys

Early predictions on Republican partisan response to this story:

1. We're in a war!
2. Libby says that Cheney told him that Bush approved the leak. That doesn't prove that Bush did.
3. The Associated Press got the story all wrong. Liberal bias!
4. This is irresponsible journalism in an election year.

Anyone else care to take a stab?

To quote a Great American, a Great Republican (as if there could be any other type of Great American):

"Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."

[Here is the context:]

FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.

NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

FROST: By definition.

NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law.

http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/nixonview.html

You can always count on Dick Nixon to provide a compelling constitutional argument.

Al Gore, lacking Nixon's suave and sexy delivery, opted for the "no controlling legal authority" argument.

There we go. I knew I could count on PowerLine to crank out the Republican Party line on this and downplay its importance. Well done, gentlemen. Those advanced degrees have served you well.

The argument unfortunately falls flat to anyone who doesn't have a desperate psychological need to still believe the Bush administration. This pathology is revealed even more deeply in a prior PowerLine entry, when John refers to the torture of inmates at Abu Ghraib as the "most over-hyped story of modern times." REALLY, John? I assume that (to cite the first example that occurs to me) several years of publicly convulsing about a prior President's sexual exploits falls prior to your definition of "modern times," then?

On the other hand, I'm sad to report that Hugh Hewitt, Fraters Libertas, Mitch Berg, Captain Ed, and my fellow Monkeys have yet to even acknowledge that this news exists. Waiting to see if it dies out in the news cycle so you can avoid it, fellas?

It exists. Sorry none of my recent storm of blogging has been on it. I'm busy dealing with "politics" on a much more local level.

Oh, you never blog anyway. I wasn't talking about you. No, I was referring to the traditionally prolific rantings of Dr. Monkeystein, of course.

But who could resist responding to such snark? Not I.

It looks like this is the official line of attack for the neo-cons. Captain Ed joins in for what looks like the standard response to the story at this point: The President has the authority to declassify documents at his discretion. Therefore, there's no story here.

Nonsense. The reason this is a story is because, at the time, the entire White House was carrying on as if this information WAS leaked by some low-level insider, and that this was completely unacceptable. Via Andrew Sullivan:
"There's a lot of leaking in Washington, D.C. It's a town famous for it. This investigation in finding the truth, it will not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked — and this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth," - President George W. Bush, October 7, 2003.
"Q: But can you confirm that the President would fire anyone on his staff found to have leaked classified information?
McClellan: I think I made that very clear last week. The topic came up, and I said that if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration." - White House press conference, October 6, 2003.
At this point, I would ask that you re-read the Nixon quote above, posted by commenter "G. Gordon", because the argument is the same: I'm the President. I can do whatever the hell I want.

The administration responded (or feigned to respond) to this leak initially just as the press did: Outrage that such a leak would take place. A horrible breach of security that the President knew nothing about. Now the message is, "Sure, the President released that information. He has the right to do so."

You can't have it both ways, folks. The BEST case scenario here is that the President stared right into the camera and lied, back in October of 2003. That's the best case.

OK, I'll take the bait: Who gives a fuck?

So, is that:

A. "Who gives a fuck if the President is a liar? We all know that and we don't care. Hail King George!"
B. "Who gives a fuck if the President approved the leak of classified information just to stifle a political opponent? I'd do the same if I were in that position. Republicans forever!"
C. "Who gives a fuck about the Constitution, the Will of The People, or basic human morality? Give me my capital gains tax cut!!!"
D. All of the above

Oh wait, I forgot:

"Who gives a fuck about any of this? We got Meskins trying to invade California! Boycott burritos!!!"

How do you leak something that was already DECLASSIFIED?

I appreciate that Bill Clinton taught us all to look at everything through a legal prism, but dust off your moral and ethical compasses for a minute and look at what, again, is the BEST case scenario:

1. Bush & Co. SELECTIVELY released previously classified information to a single, malleable crony reporter (Judith Miller) for the express purpose of performing a political hit on Joe Wilson. They did not publically declassify the material (i.e. let the rest of the press and public know it had been declassified) until two weeks AFTER the Miller leak.
2. When the press asked Bush about the "leak" in question, he and McLellan both acted as if this WAS leaked, that this leak was an outrage, there would be an investigation, and whoever leaked the information would be "dealt with." In other words, the administration intentionally deceived the public for exclusively political reasons.

So, at best the administration lied to provide themselves political cover and attempt to humiliate a political opponent. If their intention had been to "set the record straight," then the report could have been quickly and publically declassified, and they could have made their case. That was not their intention, and they acted quite immorally in order to manipulate rather than inform the public.

And, of course, it could actually be worse than that. So put down the party kool-aid, and look at this story the way you did back when Clinton was lying about getting blown by an intern.

More: A few Sullivan posts on the subject.

Bonus: AG AG: PotUS's G2 AOK Kind of makes you miss that great lover of the Constitution, Janet Reno. At least she had better dance parties.

Robb-

Do you really not see the difference between a mid-level bureaucrat leaking classified information and the President authorizing disclosure of already declassified info to try to get the administration's side of the story out there? Look up the definition of "leak" in regard to press leaks. It includes the word "unauthorized."

Releasing information to friendly reporters is something that every administration in modern history has done to some extent or other.

Did you read the WaPo editorial on this? Are they "neo-con" Bush apologists too?

Lastly, one of the most annoying things for a blogger to do (and too many bloggers of all political stripes are guilty of this) is to attack a blog for not commenting about a news story. Bloggers don't have an obligation to comment on every latest media outrage (notice how quickly this one has faded already?) of the day. We blog about what we want to blog about. None of us have to defend every silly attack on politicians or positions we support and I wouldn't expect you to either.

Well, I've already pointed this out a couple of times in the comments above, but the issue is deception. When this story originally "broke" back in 2003, Bush and his administration intentionally misled both the press and the public by "accepting the premise" that there had been a leak, denouncing the leak, and promising to "deal with" the perpetrators. If Bush had already "declassified" the information in question, then he was demonstrating a remarkable lack of character by pretending there was a leak in the first place.

As Republicans used to be fond of saying, character counts. One of the talking points during the Lewinsky scandal (and, frankly, through just about every scandal involving Bill Clinton) was "if he'll lie about this [usually sex], then he could be lying about anything." In other words, you can't trust a liar.

Well, Bush didn't lie about sex. He lied about national security. He lied when he pretended there was a leak, he lied when he said he's prosecute that leak. He also lied when he selectively declassified only the portions of the CIA report that supported his case, and not the entire report. He did this expressly to provide himself political cover.

When you say that "every administration in modern history" has deceived the public by selectively "releasing information to friendly reporters," does that make it right? It sounds an awful lot like "everybody lies about sex" to me.

Finally, when I "called out" several blogs/bloggers (including my fellow Monkeys) for not discussing the story, I limited my list to folks with whom we've had some sort of historical relationship. This was an "elbow to the ribs" at a party, nothing more. I certainly recognize that most of us (including you) do this as a hobby, not a vocation.

The leak in question that the administration was talking about was Plame's identity, not information that was forthcoming in the NIE, which was released in its entirety ten days after Miller was tipped off on portions of it. How is the public deceived when information is given to the press with the intention that said information be made PUBLIC? If Bush had held back this info, you would have been screaming about the sinister secrecy of the administration.

On the contrary, from the initial news of the Plame leak through the recent news of Libby's testimony, the administration has been consistently feigning outrage that any of this information made it into the press. For example, cf. this recent WaPo item about the efforts of the White House to prosecute reporters who publish "leaked" information.

Of course, the administration could try to clear this up by being more forthcoming about the precise sequence of events in these disclosures, the parties involved, and what information was conveyed. But, they say, they wouldn't want to interfere with an ongoing investigation so they're staying tight-lipped on the subject.

Here's the kool-aid test, though: If it were revealed that Bush and/or Cheney WERE involved in leaking Plame's name, or knew who WAS involved, would you then agree that they lied? And, if so, would it matter to you? Would it be a negative reflection on their character, and a reason to question their trustworthiness in other contexts?

I believe you mean "litmus test." But you've certainly been drinking the paleo-conservative kool-aid, so I understand the confusion.
I also understand your confusion about the leaks. There was a lot of information flying around, a lot of decisions being made about what could be shared and what could not, and I think it's ridiculous to suggest that there was some intent of doing something wrong (as The Elder points out, it's secrecy that usually gets you in trouble, not disclosure). It's also very clear that no one involved thought Plame was a covert agent (most of the people didn't even know her name) and it's also becoming clear that she wasn't a covert agent. I don't see any intent to deceive or lie here. Members of the administration may or may not have lied in other cases, but it's crystal clear that in this case, all the way through, there was an attempt to tell the truth as much as they could within the limitations of classified information. Attempts to make this into a 21st century Iran-Contra Scandal are silly, and the American people (and most journalists) know it.