The New York Sun reported today that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has testified that he released information from a National Intelligence Estimate in 2003 to a reporter prior to its publication. Predictably, the media and the blogosphere has overreacted, proving once again that most people do not understand classified materials, unclassified materials, and the process used to classify documents...Austin Bay: "So what’s the story here? That someone who worked in the White House selectively passed properly declassified material to the press? That’s not a scandal; that’s Beltway business as usual...Power Line: "This is the same "scandal" the press tried to sell a few months ago. I wrote about it here...David Ensor at CNN:If the president decides to declassify information, he has that legal right. So, it's not about a law being broken here, and it's not about Valerie Plame-Wilson's name.
UPDATE: Once again, the President has the authority to declassify materials at his discretion, a point hammered home by the Washington Post as well: Comments (43)
'The media has one mode: "Get Bush."'
"Anyone who has ever worked in intelligence for the US government knows perfectly well that a President, any President, can declassify anything they wish for any reason. Any President can delegate declassification authority down to any level they wish, down to the most newly minted second lieutenant, if they wish, as well."
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/
Why do we need bloggers to fill in the relevant legal details on news stories...The sudden press flap over Scooter Libby’s alleged “revelation” that President Bush declassified intelligence information related to Iraq is silly but all too predictable...Read the original to access the background links mentioned...(Via Instapundit)...Byron York concurs...More for the reading-comprehension-challenged in the peanut gallery - CNN's David Ensor; Comments (5) |
As usual when one of these stories comes out, my esteemed colleagues on the loony left email me gloating about how Bush is going DOWN this time, man! Usually a few obscenities thrown in for emotional impact.
Wish I had a dollar for every pumped-up soon-debunked half-baked pseudo-scandal they’ve gloated over.
Because here we go again: Bush Authorized Leaks About Iraq, Libby Testified. link: 81 comments
Be sure to read this:
"Lets Discuss Derangement Syndrome Again"
Thanks. I liked this part:
When I was in New York a few weeks ago, a friend in the magazine business told me he thinks the ferocious Bush hating that he sees in New York is a way of calming the haters' fears of terrorism. It's not rational, but it's psychologically plausible--blame the cause you can control, at least indirectly through elections, rather than the threats you have no control over. I thought of that insight today when I glanced at Maureen Dowd's column and read this sentence, "Maybe it's because George Bush is relaxing at his ranch down there (again) while Osama is planning a big attack up here (again)."
That is the voice of a petulant child, angry that she has a tummy ache while Daddy is at work or Mommy is visiting a friend, or the voice of a grouchy wife angry that she has a migraine while her husband is out coaching the kids' baseball team. You're upset that you're in pain (we've all been there), so you get mad at someone whose presence wouldn't make the pain any better. No mature student of politics believes the president of the United States goofs off on vacation. It's not the kind of job you escape. George Bush may be completely insane to voluntarily. spend July in Texas--as opposed to Bill Clinton's favored coastal retreats--but Osama bin Laden is no more or less a threat than in Bush were in Washington. But if blaming Bush makes people feel better, safer, or at least able to focus their anger on someone they can hurt, they'll blame Bush.