Libby: Bush OK'd Secret Intel Leak

[CapelDodger]

And even that that is still of no matter, because this story and this thread is only tangentially about Ms. Plame. It's about the President's entirely legal declassification of parts of a document for the entirely legitimate purpose of building public support for an action which he had proposed and engaged in.

(My emphasis)

Entirely legitimate? Selective declassification is a propaganda exercise, and that is not legitimate in a democracy. Smearing people who give out the bigger picture is not legitimate in a democracy. Bush Minor had not engaged in an invasion of Iraq when he was doing this. Bushco had determined on it, for reasons not yet made public because they would not have convinced the electorate. The proles had to be brought on-board by propaganda.

That's rarely difficult. Keeping them on-board when it all goes ◊◊◊◊-shaped is the hard part. That's when most supporters want to be told they were lied to. Ergo, not their fault. There are usually some die-hards who've invested too much to let go, however convoluted and fantastical their justifications become.

 

[Manny]

I wish there were a God so I could damn him.

Entirely legitimate? Selective declassification is a propaganda exercise, and that is not legitimate in a democracy.

Of course it is. You might agree or disagree with this or that particular instance, but it's been a legitimate part of our democracy since we've had one. That said, I'll note the following: Fitzgerald's response to the third motion to compel does not specify which parts of the NIE were declassified prior to the July 8th meeting he references, but the declassified version of the NIE which were released to the public 10 days later also had the dissenting views in it.

Smearing people who give out the bigger picture is not legitimate in a democracy.

That's correct. I agree with the President that whoever leaked Ms. Plame's identity, if they were in the Bush administration, should be punished, including by law if applicable.

Bush Minor had not engaged in an invasion of Iraq when he was doing this.

On July 8, 2003? Son, you've seriously got to come back to our universe.

 

[Renfield]

Bush is the President. Under the constitution, Republican presidents are infallible and posses ABSOLUTE POWER.

Damn, you libs are ignorant. Don't you know anything. Too much pot and LSD back in the sixties?

 

[Upchurch]

Gee, other moderators, ones who don't rely on wikipedia for their information, might object to posters putting words in others' mouths. They certainly wouldn't join the game. I've come to expect better from you, on both fronts, and register my disappointment here.

Yes, I am a moderator and as such, I have just as much right to express my opinions and stick my foot in my mouth as anyone else does.

That being said, I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was expressing my unanswered questions about what has been going on concerning this situation.

But even that is of no matter. Even if it were established beyond any doubt that she were covert (if for example, when Novak ran her name by the CIA guys they had said, "Hey, she's covert, don't be naming her or I'll see you in jail" as opposed to telling him she was "an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative"), it's still entirely possible that her name was not leaked by the administration. It could have come up in some other way.

Of course, it could have. It could have been the gunman on the grass knoll for all we know.

And even that that is still of no matter, because this story and this thread is only tangentially about Ms. Plame. It's about the President's entirely legal declassification of parts of a document for the entirely legitimate purpose of building public support for an action which he had proposed and engaged in. There's not even a hint of a whiff of a speculation (except by persons who are clinically idiots) that the President declassified Ms. Plame's status.

"the entirely legitimate purpose of building public support for an action which he had proposed and engaged in." That has to be the nicest euphemism for "government propaganda" I've ever heard.

 

[davefoc]

Gee, other moderators, ones who don't rely on wikipedia for their information, might object to posters putting words in others' mouths. They certainly wouldn't join the game. I've come to expect better from you, on both fronts, and register my disappointment here.

Manny, it was not my intent to put words in your mouth. I thought that I had made it clear that I was trying to figure out what your thoughts might be on Upchurch's post. You had been a little terse in this thread. Perhaps my attempt at humor was less than it might have been and I apologize for any disrespect.

As an aside I thought I came close to predicting what your thoughts with my items 1 & 3. You didn't say anything that corresponded too well with items 2 & 4 so perhaps I missed with those completely.

On the substance of your response I notice that you made this claim:

That she served overseas within the last five years is a necessary, but not sufficient condition of her being covert for purposes of the statute.

The Wikipedia article had this to say about that:

Former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson attempted to clear up the confusion surrounding Plame's status in a column responding to Max Boot: "The law actually requires that a covered person 'served' overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job

Do you disagree with that statement?

I think it has also been argued that there are other statutes that might be violated when the name of a covert operative is revealed and so even if Plame didn't satisfy the requirements of one law's definition of a covert agent it is still conceivable that there would be legal ramifications to revealing her name.

 

[Cylinder]

Bush is the President. Under the constitution, Republican presidents are infallible and posses ABSOLUTE POWER.

You really need to crack a history book. Every president has exercised the same power. In fact, the President does have absolute Constitutional authority to declassify information as his judgment - and his judgment alone - sees fit.

FDR released the objective of Overlord the day of the invasion to provide political support for that operation. The day before that release it was the second most closely-guarded secret that the United States maintained.

Truman released the objective of the Manhattan Project to provide political support for a Japanese surrender. The day before it was released it was the single most closely-held secret the US maintained.

Ike I cannot think an example for off the top of my head.

Kennedy leaked near real-time imagery of Soviet medium range ballistic missile sites under construction in Cuba to provide political support for his naval blockade strategy during a time that U2 camera capabilities were a very closely guarded secret.

Johnson declassified air strikes in response to the Gulf of Tonkin incident before the packages launched in order to meet the deadline for the morning headlines which were distributed after the strikes had egressed.

Nixon declassified combat camera footage on an almost daily basis for news outlets. I'll have to search for a more specific example.

Ford I cannot think of a specific example for off the top of my head.

Carter released details of Operation Eagleclaw - the failed attempt to rescue US hostages being held in Iran.

Reagan released SIGINT intercepts against Libya as well as combat camera and impending operations during the air battles over the Gulf of Sidra.

George HW Bush released tons of combat camera from Desert Storm, the date of the operation and the fact the the US could predict SCUD-III missile launches to buttress political support for that operation.

Clinton revealed through back-channel press outlets the fact that Iraq was cooperating with al Qaeda in the production of VX nerve agent at the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant near Khartoum in the Sudan - including the fact that the CIA had taken covert soil samples near the plant - to silence critics of Operation Infinite Reach.

 

[Rob Lister]

Carter released details of Operation Eagleclaw - the failed attempt to rescue US hostages being held in Iran.
.

Carter 'leaked' the stealth program, IIRC, during the election

 

[Upchurch]

Carter 'leaked' the stealth program, IIRC, during the election

Did he then pretend that he hadn't but he would get to the bottom of who had?

 

[Cylinder]

Did he then pretend that he hadn't but he would get to the bottom of who had?

Bush was responding to questions about unauthorized leaks in the context of the Plame affair. The fact that portions of the NIE were declassified was already public record at that point. In fact, the document was available and already read by many (including me) on the intel committes' web site.

 

[davefoc]

I find myself agreeing a bit with Manny on this issue of selective leaking of intelligence data.

It is certainly problematic. When is it ethical for the executive branch to mislead the public and congress by selectively releasing classified information? If it is ever ethical, it seems like it would be at a time of war when attempting to unify the country around a war effort might be beneficial to the country even if at the same time citizens and congress are mislead.

I think the problem for me is that what was done here appears to be that Bushco mislead the country about the principal justification for the war to get the country to go along with a war that they would not have otherwise supported. It is looking more likely as more information becomes available that the reason that Bushco made so many misjudgments with respect to WMD is that they believed in this neocon idea of reshaping the middle east and their biases lead them to find credible, information that would support a middle east reshaping campaign, that most objective observers would not have or as is also likely they just bullsh**tted us about a lot of it.

So now the question is when a president (or at least his policy gurus) believes in the benefits of a war is it ethical for the administration to mislead the country so as to get the country into that war. I suppose if intent is a primary arbiter of ethics than perhaps so. i.e. Bush believed that the benefits of a war against Iraq justified behavior that by itself would be unethical but when seen as part of the total picture would be justified.

Still, part of ethics involves examining our biases and I wonder if that was done to a sufficient degree by the Bushco players to really deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to judging them ethical. Clearly the Bush administration has seen the rewarding of industrial benefactors as a priority. Is it possible that there biases towards rewarding friends in high places served as an underlying reason for this war? Is it possible that Rumsfeld's desire to lead troops in battle lead him to make poor judgments? Is it possible that proving their neocon musings right lead to more poor judgments? I don't know, but the judgments surrounding the decision to go to war and the prosecution of the war seem so bad that it is hard to see that self serving biases weren't an important factor.

 

[Cylinder]

Clearly the Bush administration has seen the rewarding of industrial benefactors as a priority.

I think we all pine for the day when JDAMS were hand-crafted in grandpa's little workshop.

 

[Manny]

Manny, it was not my intent to put words in your mouth. I thought that I had made it clear that I was trying to figure out what your thoughts might be on Upchurch's post. You had been a little terse in this thread. Perhaps my attempt at humor was less than it might have been and I apologize for any disrespect.

Well, then I in turn apologize for mis-reading. I'd go further, but I've had a beer or six and PWI is a bad thing. So, tomorrow!

 

[davefoc]

You really need to crack a history book. Every president has exercised the same power. In fact, the President does have absolute Constitutional authority to declassify information as his judgment - and his judgment alone - sees fit.

FDR released the objective of Overlord the day of the invasion to provide political support for that operation. The day before that release it was the second most closely-guarded secret that the United States maintained.

Truman released the objective of the Manhattan Project to provide political support for a Japanese surrender. The day before it was released it was the single most closely-held secret the US maintained.

Ike I cannot think an example for off the top of my head.

Kennedy leaked near real-time imagery of Soviet medium range ballistic missile sites under construction in Cuba to provide political support for his naval blockade strategy during a time that U2 camera capabilities were a very closely guarded secret.

Johnson declassified air strikes in response to the Gulf of Tonkin incident before the packages launched in order to meet the deadline for the morning headlines which were distributed after the strikes had egressed.

Nixon declassified combat camera footage on an almost daily basis for news outlets. I'll have to search for a more specific example.

Ford I cannot think of a specific example for off the top of my head.

Carter released details of Operation Eagleclaw - the failed attempt to rescue US hostages being held in Iran.

Reagan released SIGINT intercepts against Libya as well as combat camera and impending operations during the air battles over the Gulf of Sidra.

George HW Bush released tons of combat camera from Desert Storm, the date of the operation and the fact the the US could predict SCUD-III missile launches to buttress political support for that operation.

Clinton revealed through back-channel press outlets the fact that Iraq was cooperating with al Qaeda in the production of VX nerve agent at the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant near Khartoum in the Sudan - including the fact that the CIA had taken covert soil samples near the plant - to silence critics of Operation Infinite Reach.

Nice post Cylinder.

In the specific case here it appears that Bushco surreptiously released portions of secret documents that gave a misleading view of the actual underlying facts.

Presumably, Bushco did this to rebuild credibility in the administration because many of their public pronouncements with regard to Iraq's possession of WMD were not being supported by actual investigations on the ground. So the Bush administration embarked on a plan to mislead the public and presumably congress about the actual strength of the evidence used to justify the war.

This seems to be a largely self serving purpose for the surreptitious releases of previously classified information, although I suppose that it could be argued that maintaining the credibility of the president in a time of war is in the American public's interest even if lies are required to accomplish that. Still it seems there was a more clear public purpose for the release of classified information in most if not all of your examples.

Also none of your examples are of a situation where the information was released with the goal of promoting false information as the Bushco actions seemed designed to do.

None of this conflicts with your basic point that the president seems to have free reign as to deciding what classified information can be released and how that information is to be released.

But the cumulative picture of an administration deeply involved in lying to the public and congress about the strength of evidence for war and using various deceptive techniques to further the misrepresentations created by their lies seems a bit troubling.

 

[delphi_ote]

The day before that release it was the second most closely-guarded secret that the United States maintained...
The day before it was released it was the single most closely-held secret the US maintained...

So what are the units when measuring secrecy?

 

[Mephisto]

Did he then pretend that he hadn't but he would get to the bottom of who had?

 

[Cylinder]

So what are the units when measuring secrecy?

The level of compartmentalization, the number of persons cleared into the top-level compartment and the restrictions placed on cleared persons. I'm not certain about the meaning of the rolleyes in this instance but I am sure that not all secrets are created equal. The Big 4 during WWII was Manhattan, Enigma/Ultra, Overlord and Purple/Majic. Overlord could be argued to be third in line behind Ultra.

 

[CapelDodger]

Of course it is. You might agree or disagree with this or that particular instance, but it's been a legitimate part of our democracy since we've had one.

Propaganda to justify a policy when the real motives would be unpopular may always have been part of US democracy but that doesn't legitimise it. It's something of an indictment of the US democratic model, IMO. To me, an informed democracy is the finest kind. That doesn't mean people need to know about Stealth or the Manhattan Project, but they need to know and support the policy that lies behind them.

On July 8, 2003? Son, you've seriously got to come back to our universe.

I meant to refer to the pre-war manipulation and selective leaking to promote the war.

A democracy going to war should really be informed about the reasons. Pearl Harbour : No problem, let's go f*** 'em over good. We built a city-killing bomb in the process? Excellent ...

Vietnam and Iraq, though, what's that sort of thing all about? Would the US electorate have gone for them if they hadn't been manipulated? The Great War, even? 'Murricans are famously reluctant to send their sons (and daughters these days) into distant wars. It's a powerful part of the US psyche, dating back before its formal existence, that one of their blessings is to have escaped foreign entanglements. All the European baggage of old scores and ancient rivalries was left behind.

Post-1945 policy has been wildly at odds with that, never more so than right now.

 

[CapelDodger]

You really need to crack a history book. Every president has exercised the same power. In fact, the President does have absolute Constitutional authority to declassify information as his judgment - and his judgment alone - sees fit.

I dont doubt it. But D-Day declassified the objective of Overlord - it was Normandy. Hiroshima declassified the Manhattan Project. Kennedy's policy was in response to the Cuban missile-sites, nobody was being misled, ergo a legitimate example. U2 capabilities were old news to the Soviets by then, and anyway that asset was worth expending on such an important issue.

The Gulf of Tonkin affair was meant to be publicised so as to ratchet-up US involvement. Eagleclaw was declassified the moment it was launched. The Reagan administration was well up for batting little people like Libya around, without entanglements. If Reagan revealed impending operations it was meant as a lure.

If Bush Minor claimed missile launches could be predicted I don't think he was being honest. The misguided cruise-missile strike in the Sudan de-classified itself.

Ford I cannot think of a specific example for off the top of my head.

That's Ford for you. A decent and dedicated man, but not a mover-and-shaker. A safe pair of hands. Not known for anything much, ergo no egregious mistakes. The last thing anyone needed at the time was an activist.

 

[Cylinder]

I dont doubt it. But D-Day declassified the objective of Overlord - it was Normandy.

I was meaning the strategic objective - not the tactical one. It's the difference between "the Great Crusade to liberate Europe" and another reconnaissance in force such as Dieppe. The value of that information is clearly demonstrable in that both XX and the FUSAG deception operations continued to convince Hitler that the real invasion was still impending and that Normandy was a feint.

Hiroshima declassified the Manhattan Project.

Truman released this information to Stalin at Potsdam before the bombing and was the first to inform the Japanese that it was an atomic bomb that was used. The Japanese did not have this information at the time.

Kennedy's policy was in response to the Cuban missile-sites, nobody was being misled, ergo a legitimate example. U2 capabilities were old news to the Soviets by then, and anyway that asset was worth expending on such an important issue.

Can you provide an example of U2 imagery that was declassified prior to the Kennedy address? They use this very example in the various intelligence schools to underscore the concept of this executive power.

The rest is really more of the same. Who exactly do you claim has the Constitutional power to classify and declassify national security information?

 

[Renfield]

Did he then pretend that he hadn't but he would get to the bottom of who had?

And that is the crux of it, really, not whether the Prez has the right to declassify no?

Uusually when you declassify information you do it openly, and you go with the actual information. You don't do it sneakily, concealing your involvement, through a single reporter, and secondhand. No reason for all that if what you're doing is honest and ethical. Amazes me how the true believers can continue to defent this kind of thing.