At The American Prospect, they showed the three tactics that are being used to defend the leak that recently came out by I Lewis "Scooter" Libby. They focus on an article by John Podhoretz
The first is that the leak wasn't a leak because it was authorized by the President.
This one's easy to knock down. First, a leak doesn't suddenly become a non-leak because it was secretly "authorized" by a higher-up. Plenty of info is leaked with tacit authorization from above, and we all agree to call that "leaking." This info certainly was leaked, in the sense that it was passed on confidentially by Libby to a reporter who wasn't supposed to reveal the source of it. In other words, the info was supposed to get out -- without anyone knowing where it came from or who authorized it. By contrast, if the info had been "released," to use Pod's preferred word, the administration would publicly own up to being the source for it. So yes, it was a leak.As for Pod's argument that the president "can't leak" -- another pushback rapidly gaining currency -- keep in mind that the president isn't the one who is accused of doing the leaking. Rather, Bush is accused of authorizing the leak. Libby carried it out.
The second tactic is saying that Bush was really just trying to fight back against that mean ol' Joe Wilson. That it was all OK because Wilson started it.
What this basically says is that if the President has real good political motivation, he's allowed to leak. Which pretty much proves the point of the Knight-Ridder story that says
The revelation that President Bush authorized former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to divulge classified information about Iraq fits a pattern of selective leaks of secret intelligence to further the administration's political agenda.
So Pod says that it's OK. As long a he has real good political reason.
Pod's third argument is it was already declassified! No big deal. The whole fuss has been blown out of proportion because the National Intelligence Estimate was already out there, declassified. Back to the American Prospect:
[I]t's obvious that whatever was declassified in October 2002 wasn't the portion that Libby says Bush authorized for leaking. Why, if Pod were right, would Libby have needed to ask Cheney lawyer David Addington if leaking the info was kosher, as he had testified? Answer: He wouldn't have. And why would Addington have opined that the president's authorization effectively declassified the info if, as Pod says, it was already declassified? He wouldn't have.
The verdict? Yes, it was a leak - and yes, it was for solely political purposes, with no real thought to the actual effect on the national security or the governing of the country.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I love the state of mental denial some of these Bush-lovers will go to convince themselves that the emperor has clothes on.
First, they say it wasn't a leak because President Bush authorized it. Second, they say it was declassified anyways. Wait a second, why would this leak need to be authorized if it was public knowledge and record anyways?
Not only does it show that Bush is using his power for retaliation against political enemies, statements made by Bush after the leak was made possibly gives indication that Bush was obstructing instead of cooperating with the Justice Department's investigation, lied blatantly through his teeth about finding the source of the CIA leak (why would he, President Bush himself, consider it a leak if it wasn't a leak at all?), and also that, once again, President Bush only obeys the law when it suits him and breaks it when it doesn't.
Citizen Press Revolution
But but but…Cl Cl Clinton lied under oath ! HA ! He he he had sex in the oval office ! How can you compare the moral decay of that man with what our great president is obliged to do to protect us ? You libruls hate America !