Today’s Wall Street Journal [link for subscribers only] says all that is needed about the serious side of the latest “leak scandal”:
So what “leak” did Mr. Bush authorize? Not the disclosure of Ms. Plame’s name and the fact that she was employed by theCIA. . . . No one is accusing him ofthat. . . .
Rather, the President is believed to have authorized the disclosure of portions of the [National Intelligence Estimate dealing with pre-war analyses of Iraqi WMD capabilities] to counter illegal leaks that had distorted its contents. He did so both to correct the record and to fight back against critics such as Ms. Plame’s husband Joseph Wilson, who were accusing him of lying about Iraq. As we found out later in a report from the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Wilson and the leakers were the ones who spread disinformation.
Surely the President has a right – even a duty – to set the record straight. In authorizing Mr. Libby to disclose previously classified information, Mr. Bush was divulging the truth. That alone distinguishes it from the common “leak”.
Those politicians, commentators and media figures who scream about this entirely proper Presidential conduct reveal their stunning lack of good faith. Their arguments have become a better subject for psychological than logical debate.
Comments