Bad Leak v Good Leak

NYTimes:
A Bad Leak, published today.

Choice bit:

“But the version of the facts that Mr. Libby was authorized to divulge was so distorted that it seems more like disinformation than any sincere attempt to inform the public.”

This fits the pattern of Mr. Bush’s original sales pitch on the Iraq war — hyping the intelligence that bolstered his case and suppressing the intelligence that undercut it. In this case, Mr. Libby was authorized to talk about claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium for nuclear weapons in Africa and not more reliable evidence to the contrary.”

Washington Post:
A Good Leak, published last Sunday.

Blurbomat .02¢:
The President seems petty. Legal? Maybe. Leaking like this underscores the hypocrisy and weak arguments for policy decisions.

  • southerngirl
  • Lively Lady

    The $64,000 question:

    Is a President legally entitled to ward off political embarrassment and conceal past failures in the exercise of his office by unilaterally and informally declassifying selected — as well as false and misleading — portions of a classified National Intelligence Estimate that he has previously refused to declassify, in order to cause such information to be secretly disclosed to a “select” few reporters, with the intention of having those few publish such false and misleading information in prominent national newspapers?

    NO! Such a misuse of authority is the very essence of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States. It is also precisely the abuse of executive power that led to the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon.