so it begins... from today's WaPo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6/AR2006040602062.html?nav=rss_print/asection
Leaking the name of an undercover CIA operative who we know was doing VERY IMPORTANT UNDERCOVER WORK on such things as Iran's nuke program, terrorist monitoring in the middle east etc. actually helped our national security? One would think that keeping folks like Plame who were doing such important work undercover and able to continue that work would be what was good for national security. Bush has been one giant failure.
they never do on something like this, but in a few days of reading the neocon blogs they will form some argument based on the parsing of words that legitimizes bush/cheney/rove's actions in outing a cia operative for political gain.
When you learn about the Freedom of Information Act and declassification (I'm a Fed remember) they always emphasize that decisions to release or declassify cannot be affected by the eventual use of the information. The decisions cannot be affected by whether or not the release of information will cause embarassment to the government. You don't partially declassify a document without noting why other parts remain classified. You don't declassify a document for a small number of people and then don't tell anyone else. Of course the President has the authority to declassify information, but that is not what happened. This administration has been playing politics with national security secrets. The whole psuedo-issue about the president's right to declassify is a smokescreen.
The problem is that impeachment is far more of a political exercise than it is a legal one. Technically the Congress could impeach the president for picking his nose or farting in public or not impeach a president if during a press conference he shot Helen Thomas while she was asking a question. There isn't a statuatory definition of what is meant by "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" so its largely left up to Congress to decide. That's why in the Clinton impeachment the legal argument was murky since Clinton wasn't convicted in a court of law.
On the contrary, defining the term in the Constitution would have left no choice should there be extenuating circumstances, like a real national security concern. By not defining the term, the founders gave latitude to the Congress and flexibility to the Executive. It is, as was pointed out, a political process, not a legal one.
I should have said "sometimes founding fathers ..." Still both "high crimes" and "misdemeanors" are some kind of legal terms, aren't they?
I caught a bit of McClellan attempting to defend this at his daily briefing with the Forth Estate. It is painful to watch. I decided to record what was left of it, as I think I can only stand to watch a small bit of his bull**** at a time. Again, how can anyone defend this man? This President of the United States? He has become beyond an embarassment. He is at once both a joke and a scandal. He makes us look absurd in the eyes of the world, which is not what a great power needs from it's "leader." The idea that he is running this mad war that he started on a whim, and is in charge of the rest of our foreign policy, as well as being busy attempting to destroy our hard-won personal freedoms at home, simply scares the hell out of me. How can anyone defend him? Keep D&D Civil.
According to a new poll out today, 36% of America can. But the silence is growing louder and louder...
the talking point -- ------------------ good information = "provided" bad information = "leaked" ------------------ White House 'declassified' argument at odds with event timeline White House spokesman Scott McClellan today attempted to justify, rather than deny, allegations that President Bush authorized a leak of classified information to reporters in summer 2003. "There is a difference between providing declassified information to the public when it's in the public interest and leaking classified information that involved sensitive national intelligence regarding our security," McClellan told reporters at a White House press briefing. The White House, it seems, is attempting to argue that if Libby's allegations are true, the information was not leaked by definition. Rather, it was declassified by the President because it was in the public's interest. McClellan stated that while the information Bush may have ordered disclosed was in the interest of national security, the revelation of the warrantless NSA domestic wiretap program was an example of a leak that was not. On July 18, 2003, McClellan told the White House Press Corps that the "information was just, as of today, officially declassified." However, Libby spoke to reporters ten days earlier, according to the indictment, on July 8 of that year. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/White_House_declassified_argument_at_odds_0407.html
I cannot help but feel a sense of urgency in the Bush Administration after this, the ports deal and the wiretaps.
Mayday, mayday, mayday. Republican boat is sinking. The rats are jumping ship. Mayday, mayday, mayday.
