Post-Gazette Editorial – 4/7/06

This page was last updated on April 10, 2006.

Above the law / Documents put Bush at the center of a scandal; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; April 7, 2006.

In the last PG editorial I critiqued on this subject, the editorial got it all wrong. If you recall, the PG had Karl Rove fitted for an orange prison jumpsuit. Continuing in that proud tradition, this editorial also gets it all wrong.

The PG has tried to promote bogus stories in the past, but this is up there with the most ridiculous.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“When the investigation of who leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame reached into the White House and the vice president’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., was indicted, there was speculation that it couldn’t have happened without the knowledge of President Bush.”

[RWC] You would never know from this editorial, but the basis for this editorial has absolutely nothing to do with the Valerie Plame case. The objective of this editorial is to conflate the authorized release of declassified information with the alleged outing of a CIA agent and turn a perfectly legal act into something illegal and sinister.

“Documents filed in federal court yesterday state that Mr. Libby told prosecutors it was the president who authorized Vice President Dick Cheney to let Mr. Libby leak sensitive intelligence information on Iraq. The papers say the authorization led to a conversation between Mr. Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller. At the time, Mr. Bush was trying to strengthen his case to the public for the invasion of Iraq on the claim that it possessed weapons of mass destruction -- something, of course, that turned out to be false.”

[RWC] Note the misuse of the word “leak.” President Bush has the authority to classify/declassify intelligence all by himself and no one debates this fact. Therefore, when the President authorizes someone to discuss previously classified intelligence, it’s not leaking. Leaking refers to an illegal and/or unauthorized act. As a side note, VP Cheney also has the authority to classify/declassify intelligence.

The “sensitive intelligence information on Iraq” was actually pre-war WMD intelligence from an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Not surprisingly, the editorial fails to note eight pages of this NIE were declassified the week following the “conversation between Mr. Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.” If this intelligence had been so sensitive at the time, would the NIE have been declassified within 10 days?

Why was this info declassified? Because Joe Wilson – Valerie Plame’s husband – lied in a New York Times op-ed piece about his work for the CIA, there was a lot of public speculation going on that President Bush lied about the pre-war WMD intelligence, especially the part about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger. The only way for the Administration to defend itself was with the truth and to make it public. That’s why President Bush declassified this portion of the NIE. I’m sure the PG would have preferred President Bush just sit back and not defend himself, but that would have been wrong.

Why did Ms. Miller of the NYT get the scoop a week before everyone else? I don’t know, but I suspect it was because her paper published Mr. Wilson’s aforementioned op-ed piece. If you read my links, you know it is not my opinion that Joe Wilson lied. That was the conclusion of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in its report of July 7, 2004.

Finally, the declassification of this information is old news. Here are some examples of what I mean. On the day of the declassification, July 18, 2003, an unnamed “senior administration official” announced the declassification and provided a background briefing to the press. The declassification was covered in the White House press conference of July 18, 2003. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) read the declassified portions of the NIE into the Congressional Record on July 21, 2003. The PG itself reported on a statement by then-CIA Director George Tenet (July 12, 2003) in which Mr. Tenet quoted from the NIE in question.

“What has been filed in federal court does not indicate that Mr. Bush authorized Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby to reveal the fact that Ms. Plame worked for the CIA. Nevertheless, the communication between Mr. Libby and Ms. Miller was sensitive enough that the reporter spent 85 days in jail rather than reveal Mr. Libby as the leaker without his explicit permission.”

[RWC] I still don’t know why Ms. Miller chose to spend time in jail. It’s been documented she had Mr. Libby’s “explicit permission” to discuss their conversations long before Ms. Miller went to jail.

“Mr. Bush is likely to say he has the right to classify and declassify documents, thus making his authorization for the vice president to let Mr. Libby leak intelligence to The New York Times a legal act. But that argument is the same ‘I’m above all that’ approach that lies behind his argument that it’s legal for him to disregard the requirement of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that wiretaps be approved by a court in advance.”

[RWC] “Mr. Bush is likely to say he has the right to classify and declassify documents …” President Bush didn’t need to. Everyone quoted in the news media – even sources not friendly to President Bush – acknowledged the President of the United States has this authority.

Regarding FISA, it does not require “that wiretaps be approved by a court in advance.” The editorial author needs to read the law.

“This is all about whether U.S. laws apply to the president. Three decades ago there was a president of the United States who believed they did not. A string led from a 1972 hotel break-in all the way to the White House and ultimately to his resignation from office two years later.”

[RWC] Man, these guys must be trying to relive their “glory days” of the 1970s! To them, everything is Watergate when a Republican is president.

Everyone agrees President Bush acted perfectly within the law and did nothing improper when he declassified the information, yet the PG tries to equate his actions with those of Richard Nixon during the Watergate cover-up.

“The situation regarding Mr. Bush is just as troubling, but different. This time national security information is being used for political purposes, as opposed to campaign trickery. But the attitude of the president is the same.”

[RWC] Never let it be said the PG lets facts get in the way of a smear.

“This is one more outrageous example in which George Bush believes his actions are above the law. Yet he couldn’t be more wrong.”

[RWC] Once more, everyone – other than moon bats like this editorial author – agree President Bush’s action was completely legal.

“It’s time for the president and the vice president to come clean with the American people.”

[RWC] Yes, they need to come clean for acting completely legally.

You may have noticed the PG doesn’t seem to care about true intelligence leaks. I don’t recall hearing a peep from the PG when someone leaked information about the NSA terrorist surveillance program, when Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) leaked the name of a covert agent during the Bolton confirmation hearings last year, or when Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) leaked information about a classified spy satellite.

Finally, to show how screwy this editorial is, even the liberal Washington Post opined the release of the information was not only entirely proper, it was the right thing to do.