pudge's Journal: Bush Did Absolutely Nothing Wrong, Get Over It

Everyone who says Bush did anything wrong over this supposed "leak" simply do not understand what actually happened.

Bush told Cheney to tell Libby to release portions of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMD to Juidth Miller on July 8, 2003. The same information was released to the rest of the press corps on July 18, 2003.

This information was declassified by Bush. No one at the time, or since -- until now -- expressed any belief that this information should not have been declassified, because it was "highly sensitive." This was not a "leak" in the sense of releasing information that should not be released; it was it was only a "leak" in the sense of telling one reporter before you tell everyone else.

There's nothing to see here. Really. Bush is not being hypocritical at all; for that to be the case, he'd have had to at some point said that it was wrong to declassify information, or to disclose declassified information, or to disclose declassified information to a single journalist first, instead of to all journalists at once. He never said any of those things are wrong, and that's all that's happened here.

I can't believe this is still a story, and worse, that pundits on both sides actually think this makes Bush look bad in any way. We already knew this information was declassified in July 2003! We've known that for almost three years! The only new revelation here is that Bush said Libby could tell Miller 10 days before the White House told everyone else, and that's nothing new.

Jeez. Seriously people, get over it.

Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to

[NeMon'ess]

The White House continued to publicly assert that no Bush administration officials were involved in the leak until after the Supreme Court decision of 2005, the subsequent release of internal TIME magazine email, and TIME reporter Matt Cooper's decision to testify to the grand jury. Once Karl Rove's involvement was disclosed, the White House refused to comment on the ongoing investigation and stated that they would fire anyone convicted of criminal activity. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

If the Bush Administration knew all along, why has there been such a waste of time, money, resources, manpower, investigating this? Why has the Bush Administration allowed this waste to happen?

Re:Cat got your tongue? (something important seems

[pudge]

The White House continued to publicly assert that no Bush administration officials were involved in the leak until after the Supreme Court decision of 2005, the subsequent release of internal TIME magazine email, and TIME reporter Matt Cooper's decision to testify to the grand jury. Once Karl Rove's involvement was disclosed, the White House refused to comment on the ongoing investigation and stated that they would fire anyone convicted of criminal activity.

That's essentially correct, and has nothing to do

Bush is no Thomas Jefferson

[ahamilton]

Let's all remember that, by definition, the president is incapable of leaking information since that is the unauthorized disclosure of information. As head of the executive branch and with the power to declassify information, information he gives out cannot be unauthorized. Now, that he gave one news source the information early might seem a bit odd, but that happens all the time. Officials regularly play those sorts of access games either to reward news sources they like, to punish those they don't like,

Re:Bush is no Thomas Jefferson

[pudge]

He doesn't even approach the poor ethics and assholishness of the first executive branch leaker, who later became the third President of the United States.

Jeez Alex, you sound bitter. It's been 200 years, let it go.

Nothing wrong?

[jdavidb]

Bush told Cheney to tell Libby to release portions of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMD to Juidth Miller on July 8, 2003. The same information was released to the rest of the press corps on July 18, 2003.

But by the media's definition, waiting to release information to the press corps later is wrong, because it hurts their feelings. :)

Um

[jamie]

This was not a "leak" in the sense of releasing information that should not be released; it was it was only a "leak" in the sense of telling one reporter before you tell everyone else.

Um... it was a "leak" in the sense of authorizing the release of classified information to a journalist.

Well... assuming you think Judith Miller is a journalist...

Re:Um

[pudge]

Um... it was a "leak" in the sense of authorizing the release of classified information to a journalist.

Yes, though I don't know how that is a rational definition of the word, and more to the point, that is clearly not what Bush was talking about when he said he against "leaks."

Re:Um

[jamie]

Disclosing classified information? You don't know how that fits the definition of "leak"?

Re:Um

[pudge]

Disclosing classified information? You don't know how that fits the definition of "leak"?

Um, no classified information was disclosed. Upon authorization, it became declassified.

So when you said "authorizing the release of classified information," that was essentially accurate, though incomplete, because it was no longer classified by the time it was released. But "disclosing classified information" is not accurate at all.

Re:Um

[jamie]

Bush, through his spokesman, has said it was classified at the time it was released on July 8.

Re:Um

[pudge]

Bush, through his spokesman, has said it was classified at the time it was released on July 8.

No. Bush did not say it, his spokesman did. And his spokesman, apparently, at the time was wrong, when he said on July 18, 2003, "and this information was just, as of today, officially declassified": Bush authorizing its disclosure MADE it declassified, by definition.

Although it is also possible that the sets of information declassified on July 8 and July 18 were not precisely the same, though overlapping, and th

Re:Um

[jamie]

You're a few days behind.

Scott McClellan, April 7 [whitehouse.gov]

Q Then why are you saying you won't back off anything you said before if, in fact, we have transcripts here where you say that's when it was officially declassified? Are you still saying that's when it was officially declassified?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's when it was made available to the public. So it's officially --

Q When was it officially declassified?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- so it's officially declassified at that point. I think we're talking past each oth

Re:Um

[pudge]

You're a few days behind.

Nope. I'm really not. And I already read those things you posted, but hey, it's not my time you're wasting! But nothing you posted affects what I wrote.

When Bush authorized the release of that information on July 8, it was THEREFORE declassified. This is fact, and no matter what you say, it remains fact.

There are several possible explanations for what McClellan said, one of which I already mentioned: that there were two slightly different but overlapping sets of information. An

Re:Um

[jamie]

When Bush authorized the release of that information on July 8, it was THEREFORE declassified. This is fact, and no matter what you say, it remains fact.

Well, you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with Bush (via his spokesman, who has had several days to get his story straight with Bush).

So I'm not going to argue. But I am curious: if you have any evidence to back up what you say -- like a citation for a law, or the text of a procedural regulation or something -- basically anything other than "be

Re:Um

[pudge]

Well, you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with Bush

No, I am not. I am arguing with McClellan. It is speculation on your part that he is speaking precisely for Bush. It may be true, and you may feel it is safe to assume it, but I don't accept it.

Further, McClellan did not say the information given on April 8 was not declassified, as you well know, as you read the same press briefings I did, and he explicitly rejected that notion.

So I'm not going to argue. But I am curious: if you have any evidence

Re:Um

[jamie]

Jamie: Well, you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with Bush (via his spokesman, who has had several days to get his story straight with Bush).

Pudge: No, I am not. I am arguing with McClellan. It is speculation on your part that he is speaking precisely for Bush. It may be true, and you may feel it is safe to assume it, but I don't accept it.

It's now been a week. Would you feel it is safe to assume, if McClellan had put forth something Bush disagreed with, that by now Bush would have ensured

Re:Um

[pudge]

It's now been a week. Would you feel it is safe to assume, if McClellan had put forth something Bush disagreed with, that by now Bush would have ensured that the public record was clarified on that matter?

No.

If not, then how many weeks would you estimate will have to go by before you accept that the President's spokesman spoke for the President?

That question makes absolutely no sense to me. It assumes something we know is false: that people will necessarily correct things that are wrong, given enough time.

Re:Um

[pudge]

Also, to be clear: while this search for what McClellan meant is vaguely interesting, it does not change the fact that the information was, in fact, declassified on July 8, by definition.