Wash Post: Nothing Wrong with Bush 'Leak'

NewsMax ^ | April 9, 2006 | Carl Limbacher

[Kaslin]

The Washington Post has broken ranks with the rest of the press over the media fiction that President Bush's recently revealed decision to authorize Lewis "Scooter" Libby to leak prewar Iraq intelligence somehow constitutes a new scandal.

In a stunning editorial headlined "The Good Leak," the Post said Sunday:

"There was nothing illegal or even particularly unusual about [Bush's decision]; nor is this presidentially authorized leak necessarily comparable to other, unauthorized disclosures that the president believes, rightly or wrongly, compromise national security."

Instead, the paper says that, if anyone has behaved unethically in the entire Leakgate fiasco, its Bush's accuser, former Iraq ambassador Joe Wilson:

"Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately 'twisted' intelligence 'to exaggerate the Iraq threat.'"

But as the Post notes: "The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."

The Post says that Leakgate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has provided additional evidence of the Bush accuser's duplicity.

"Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative . . . [But] after more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge."

Predictably, the Post's dismissal of the latest Leakgate "bombshell" didn't rate a single mention on the Sunday chat shows, which instead continued to cover the development as earth-shattering news.

[lowbridge]

bump

[DoughtyOne]

I haven't been able to stand the WP since the late sixties. That was reinforced during the 1990s when Bill Clinton's escapades were deemed unworthy of the true full blown scrutiny that a "Richard M. Nixon's" escapades would have received.

The Post's two main hatchet men against Nixon said they did it all for the country. When it came to Clinton they took a dive. No they weren't active on the staff in the same roles they were around Nixon's time. Still, these were two men to canonized themselves as much as anyone else did.

Where was their interest in the truth, when it came to Clinton? Surely they could have used the income from books deals and movie rights.

What this told me about the WP, as if I didn't know Katheryn Graham's modus operandi already, was that their activities were ideologically driven. Under Clinton they were as well.

I have no love for the Washington Post, and if it should go belly up some day, I'll be somewhere smiling down on the rubble.

[DoughtyOne]

...and we will. LOL

[FOG724]

They did some excellent articles on the Nature Conservancy corruption.

[Almondjoy]

The whole leakgate thing is retarded. If anyone has the authority to "leak" classified information it would be the President.

The President has the authority to decide what should and should not be made public.

It's just like any CEO of a company... if a CEO wishes to say something to the public fine.. but if a line level employee starts talking about how they operate he can be fired.

Why oh why can't we just apply a little common sense.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that.

I should have mentioned that I do not read the WP as a rule. That is something that someone should mention if they're going to trash the paper like I did.

I have never forgotten the antics of the large eastern papers during the Vietnam, Nixon, Clinton and War on Terrorism years.
I hear just enough to know that they are for the most part up to their old antics, and it disgusts me.

[FOG724]

Well media bias is alive and well. I don't read them either but I know about the NC articles because of my property rights activism.

[DoughtyOne]

IMO, Nature Conservencies are leftist driven orgainizations that are trying to destroy property rights in the U.S., largely on government funding. Many people don't know that they are gifted with large government grants with which to purchase land. Private donation pale in comparison. Then these lands are ruled by NGOs that answer to no one. They do not stand before the public for election.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad the Post addressed the issue. Any press at all is welcome.

[Para-Ord.45]

ping

[kitkat]

BUMP

[Siena Dreaming]

It's Bob Woodward's personal influence.

He has insisted that there is no scandal almost from the beginning.

[Sprite518]

I just read your link. What are you talking about? The last line in the article sums it up.

[AmericaUnited]

I simply cannot figure the Washington Post angle on this.

They are one of the few who are smart enough that they are getting the rope-a-dope on this one and they're trying 'duck' while there's still time to keep the egg off their faces.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree.

[DoughtyOne]

I think a lot of people will agree with you on that. I'm not ruling it out myself.

[the invisib1e hand]

there was a blurb in the Wall Street Journal Weekend edition, on the OpEd page, to the effect that The Leak that everyone's yapping about is an out-and-out non-issue.

The American-hating-Bush-hating-liberty-hating motormouths have made a big smash with headlines that mean nothing. Now that the cacophany has ceased, my, it's awfully quiet out there.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Dayum!

Smokey from the movie "Friday," is that you?

[js1138]

The only thing I see in the original article that is negative toward Bush is that his handling of the affair was clumsy.

I think Bush plays rope-a-dope with the press, allowing them to saw off the limb they sit on. I think many hot democrat issues will evaporate just in time for this November.

[Right_in_Virginia]

BTTT

[norwaypinesavage]

"When faced with the inevitable, [the WaPo] may believe that it's best to now get on the side of the truth."

Why whould they be starting now?