If I Poke a Hole In My Own Waterbed, Is It Still a Leak, or Just a Disclosure?

To the Editor:

As I was reading your editorial page in the April 14 issue, I noticed Ellen Goodman's column, "When 'manliness' goes awry," and started to read it. But not for long.

In the second paragraph, I came across two glaring errors: "George W. Bush himself approved the leaking of classified intelligence...." It's not credible to believe that Ms. Goodman, given her profession, doesn't know that President Bush declassified the intelligence report and authorized its use before it was widely released.

Thus, no "leak," because the information wasn't "classified intelligence."

John

Why is it that every time something comes down the wire that doesn't work for ardent supporters of the President, they turn to the strategy of twisting semantics? Nobody denies that the President can declassify information. He can, although in this case, the order to leak the information, according to Libby's testimony, occured ten days before the information was declared declassified on July 18th. If he chose to release NIE information to the press, that was within his power. What is at question is not the legality of the President's actions, but the ethics of the matter.

Powers granted to the President are granted to him for use in serving the people of the United States, not his own political interests. If the President chooses to release classified information simply to advance his own agenda, or to discredit those who disagree with him, he is misusing the powers granted to him by the people. Sure, Bush claims he released the information to give people an 'accurate' account of the WMD situation in Iraq, but that begs the question: Why wasn't the entire NIE report released, instead of only select passages taken out of context? More salient is Libby's testimony, which states in no uncertain terms that the orders to leak NIE information were part of a strategy to discredit Joe Wilson's criticism of the administration's intelligence. It was a purely political move. Of course, it turns out Joe Wilson was right, but ultimately, that's not the point. George W. Bush used his power of declassification for the sole purpose of damaging the reputation of a political rival. I have absolutely no doubt that the fanatical right has no problem with this... they support any power taken by the President, no matter how unethical or underhanded, if it builds the administration's power. Frankly, though, they should just grow a set and own their opinions. Bush can not do anything that these folks will criticize. Okay, fine. Own up to the fact that you'd rather see the president retain power than act ethically. That's a valid political position. Embrace it, and stop toying with semantics.

A "leak," by the way, does not refer only to classified information. A leak is any information that gets to the press by unconventional means. Administration staffers have leaked everything from the topic of cabinet meetings to the mood of the president. These aren't examples of classified information, but they are leaks that the president has railed against in the past. Claiming that only classified information makes a leak flies directly in the face of the Bush's own comments about the danger of other leaks that did not involve classified intelligence. It's also the convenient semantics of the hour, though, and we all know which the fanatic right will choose.

"Well, the investigators will ask our staff about what people did or did not do. This is a town of . . .that. . . where a lot of people leak, and I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information." - President Bush, 10/7/03

As you can see, Bush himself has mentioned he dislikes leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. Bush obviously believes that leaks come in both classified and unclassified flavors. It then becomes difficult to support his actions by holding up a definition that Bush himself obviously doesn't accept.

Whether or not you think the President can employ his granted powers for purely political purposes, this incident certainly calls into question Bush's integrity. Granted, he didn't have much left, but this time, the dishonesty is particularly egregious. When originally asked about the NIE leaks, Bush put on an act of outrage and portrayed a sense of betrayal. He spoke of the dangers of leaking information, and said that he would get to the bottom of the leak. he asked that anyone, inside the administration or without, provide him with any information they might have on the source of the leak.

". . .if there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. . . And so I welcome the investigation. . . I have told our administration people in my administration to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth." - President Bush, 10/30/03

Of course, now those clips bearing a striking resemblance to early videos of Susan Smith, begging the man who'd kidnapped her children to please return them, while she knew full well that her children were strapped into their carseats at the bottom of a lake. The problem here is actually less that Bush ordered the leaks, and more that he spent days afterwards pretending to be shocked and angry at the leaker. Again, if you think it's fine for Bush to purposefully fool the media and the public to shift blame away from himself, that's fine. Just be willing to accept your feelings about it. You're Machiavellian. You're calculating. You want Bush to maintain power more than you want a president who acts with integrity. Why do you have to mask your feelings with vocabulary games?