New Twist in CIA Leak Probe

[ProSense]

The twist is that the media is trying to spin it that all of it was legal.

New Twist in CIA Leak Probe

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
36 minutes ago

Q. Did Bush do something illegal?

A. Legal experts say it is highly unusual, but legal, for a president to unilaterally declassify intelligence without informing anyone other than his vice president and, in this case, a designated leaker, Libby. Bush renewed his own authority to declassify by signing an executive order in 2003.

Q. If what Bush did was legal, why does this matter?

A. The furor prompted by the latest disclosure that Bush and Cheney were directing a leak campaign against Wilson goes to the practice of declassifying secrets to gain political advantage. That kind of conduct has been deplored, most recently last year by a commission Bush appointed to examine U.S. intelligence failures on Iraq. The White House says there is an important distinction between declassifying information in the public interest and leaking classified information that could compromise national security.

Q. What else did Libby leak?

A. Aside from allegedly revealing Plame's CIA identity, Libby discussed with New York Times report Judith Miller a then-classified CIA report that arguably undercut Wilson's public attacks on the administration. In it, Wilson described how an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger in 1999 and sought to expand commercial relations, which Niger understood to be a desire to obtain uranium. On the one hand, Wilson was saying publicly it was highly doubtful Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. On the other hand, Wilson was leaving out from his public criticism the information he had learned during his CIA-sponsored trip to Niger about Iraq's desire to expand commercial relations.

Q. What is the main focus of Fitzgerald's investigation?

A. The investigation appears to be on hold. He is consumed for now by pretrial battles with defense lawyers demanding thousands of additional documents from the government in an effort to defend their client. White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove still is under investigation. Fitzgerald also is examining the circumstances under which a source revealed Plame's identity to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.

more…

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060408/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_q_a_1

Tim Rutten:
Regarding Media

Spin cycle springs a leak

April 8, 2006

THIS week's revelation that a former White House aide testified under oath that President George W. Bush personally authorized the leak of classified information as part of a campaign to discredit a prominent critic of the Iraq war raises a number of difficult questions for the press.

According to court papers filed late Wednesday by Patrick J. Fitzgerald — the special prosecutor investigating the leak of ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity to the press — Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, testified that, in the summer of 2003, his then-boss told him Bush had personally approved the leak of a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate to Judith Miller, then a reporter for the New York Times

Snip...

Right, and how convenient that the realization that there was no security risk in leaking a classified document alleging that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase African uranium just happened to coincide with the need to justify the invasion of Iraq as part of the president's reelection campaign.

It does seem clear, though, that whatever their real intentions, neither Libby nor Cheney nor the president broke the law in this matter. (Libby was indicted for allegedly lying about whether he told Miller that Plame worked for the CIA.) Most legal authorities agree that the president has the power to declassify information virtually at will. Thursday, Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales went further, saying the president has the "inherent authority to decide who should have classified information." That wasn't a surprise, of course. Earlier in the week, Gonzales testified to Congress that the president has "inherent authority" to order warrantless wiretaps of American citizens communicating with each other inside the United States.

more...

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-rutten8apr08,1,4541881.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true

When none of it was:

Thursday :: Apr 6, 2006

Treasongate: Libby and the NIE "key judgements"

by eriposte

Snip...

Isn't that fascinating? The August 2002 CIA assessment (drafted by NESA) did not actually mention the uranium from Africa claim at all (as I also discussed in Sec. 2.1.1); only the September 2002 DIA report did (how's that for irony, considering that the CIA was blamed for the uranium claim by the Bush administration).

The question, then, is: how did the uranium claim get into the NIE?

Here's the relevant Senate Report discussion on this (emphasis mine):

Snip…

So, the uranium from Africa claim was in the body of the NIE but it was rebutted by INR in a text box in the Annex. See this PDF file which has the key judgments along with the text in the body of the NIE (on the uranium claim) and the INR rebuttal. What I wonder though is whether the Bush administration made it appear as if the text in the body of the NIE was part of the key judgments. (Now that I look more carefully at the PDF file, I wonder if that was really what happened). Enterprising reporters may want to take a look.
more...

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007296.php#3_2_5

News Analysis

First, a Leak; Now, a Jam; Timing Is Bad for President

By SCOTT SHANE
Published: April 8, 2006
Snip...

For months, Mr. Bush and his top aides have campaigned against leaks of classified information as a danger to the nation and as criminal acts. A Washington Post report on secret overseas jails run by the C.I.A. and a New York Times report on domestic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency have led to criminal investigations, and scores of intelligence officers have been ordered to take polygraph tests.

In that context, the report that the president was himself approving a leak may do serious political damage, said Mr. Shenkman, who has a blog on presidential politics. "It does give the public such a powerful example of hypocrisy that I think it might linger for a while," he said.


Snip...


Republicans in Congress, led by Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, have also pressed the issue. By coincidence, the committee's report on the annual intelligence authorization bill was made public on Friday. It features a vehement attack, describing leakers as "a small few who have taken it upon themselves to, for political or other motives, recklessly and illegally disclose America's necessary secrets and national security information."

Leaking intelligence information to the news media, the committee reports, "costs untold millions of dollars in lost intelligence collection capabilities funded by U.S. taxpayers, literally puts lives in jeopardy, and makes the work by the honorable people of our intelligence community far more difficult."

more…

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/08/washington/08assess.html

MATTHEWS: Is the president—was the president at that time, should I say, being straight with the American people about WMD in Iraq?

KERRY: No.

MATTHEWS: The American people have thought for a while now that the president was wrong, that there was no WMD there; it was a mistake he made. Does it now look like it wasn't a mistake he made, it was a failure to tell the whole truth as he got it?

KERRY: If the president indeed authorized the leak of information that was selective, that only made the case, and he specifically left out that information that was to the contrary, then the president engaged in the very activity that they have denied all along, which is misleading Americans about the case for the war.

MATTHEWS: How serious is that?

KERRY: It's about as serious as it gets.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12193433/

Your Credibility Is Leaking

by Mike Liddell
Thu Apr 6th, 2006 at 12:32:13 PM EST

President Bush claims to be a straight-talking kind of guy who doesn't like to send mixed signals. I guess we know how credible that claim is:

President Bush, 9/30/03:
“There’s just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.”

President Bush, 7/18/05:
"President Bush said Monday that if anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA leak case, that person will 'no longer work in my administration.'"

The Associated Press, today:
"Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case."


http://www.fromtheroots.org/story/2006/4/6/123213/8678

[ProSense]

1. Text of the excutive order on declassifying information

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 25, 2003

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292
- - - - - - -

FURTHER AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958, AS AMENDED,
CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to further amend Executive Order 12958, as amended, it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12958 is amended to read as follows:



PART 3--DECLASSIFICATION AND DOWNGRADING

Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification. (a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.

(b) It is presumed that information that continues to meet the classification requirements under this order requires continued protection. In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified. When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official. That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure. This provision does not:


(1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or
(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.


(c) If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office determines that information is classified in violation of this order, the Director may require the information to be declassified by the agency that originated the classification. Any such decision by the Director may be appealed to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The information shall remain classified pending a prompt decision on the appeal.
(d) The provisions of this section shall also apply to agencies that, under the terms of this order, do not have original classification authority, but had such authority under predecessor orders.

Sec. 3.2. Transferred Records. (a) In the case of classified records transferred in conjunction with a transfer of functions, and not merely for storage purposes, the receiving agency shall be deemed to be the originating agency for purposes of this order.

(b) In the case of classified records that are not officially transferred as described in paragraph (a) of this section, but that originated in an agency that has ceased to exist and for which there is no successor agency, each agency in possession of such records shall be deemed to be the originating agency for purposes of this order. Such records may be declassified or downgraded by the agency in possession after consultation with any other agency that has an interest in the subject matter of the records.

(c) Classified records accessioned into the National Archives and Records Administration (National Archives) as of the effective date of this order shall be declassified or downgraded by the Archivist of the United States (Archivist) in accordance with this order, the directives issued pursuant to this order, agency declassification guides, and any existing procedural agreement between the Archivist and the relevant agency head.

(d) The originating agency shall take all reasonable steps to declassify classified information contained in records determined to have permanent historical value before they are accessioned into the National Archives. However, the Archivist may require that classified records be accessioned into the National Archives when necessary to comply with the provisions of the Federal Records Act. This provision does not apply to records being transferred to the Archivist pursuant to section 2203 of title 44, United States Code, or records for which the National Archives serves as the custodian of the records of an agency or organization that has gone out of existence.

(e) To the extent practicable, agencies shall adopt a system of records management that will facilitate the public release of documents at the time such documents are declassified pursuant to the provisions for automatic declassification in section 3.3 of this order.

Sec. 3.3. Automatic Declassification. (a) Subject to paragraphs (b)-(e) of this section, on December 31, 2006, all classified records that (1) are more than 25 years old and (2) have been determined to have permanent historical value under title 44, United States Code, shall be automatically declassified whether or not the records have been reviewed. Subsequently, all classified records shall be automatically declassified on December 31 of the year that is 25 years from the date of its original classification, except as provided in paragraphs (b)-(e) of this section.

(b) An agency head may exempt from automatic declassification under paragraph (a) of this section specific information, the release of which could be expected to:


(1) reveal the identity of a confidential human source, or a human intelligence source, or reveal information about the application of an intelligence source or method;
(2) reveal information that would assist in the development or use of weapons of mass destruction;

(3) reveal information that would impair U.S. cryptologic systems or activities;

(4) reveal information that would impair the application of state of the art technology within a U.S. weapon system;

(5) reveal actual U.S. military war plans that remain in effect;

(6) reveal information, including foreign government information, that would seriously and demonstrably impair relations between the United States and a foreign government, or seriously and demonstrably undermine ongoing diplomatic activities of the United States;

(7) reveal information that would clearly and demonstrably impair the current ability of United States Government officials to protect the President, Vice President, and other protectees for whom protection services, in the interest of the national security, are authorized;

(8) reveal information that would seriously and demonstrably impair current national security emergency preparedness plans or reveal current vulnerabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, or projects relating to the national security; or

(9) violate a statute, treaty, or international agreement.


(c) An agency head shall notify the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs of any specific file series of records for which a review or assessment has determined that the information within that file series almost invariably falls within one or more of the exemption categories listed in paragraph (b) of this section and which the agency proposes to exempt from automatic declassification. The notification shall include:

(1) a description of the file series;
(2) an explanation of why the information within the file series is almost invariably exempt from automatic declassification and why the information must remain classified for a longer period of time; and

(3) except for the identity of a confidential human source or a human intelligence source, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a specific date or event for declassification of the information.


The President may direct the agency head not to exempt the file series or to declassify the information within that series at an earlier date than recommended. File series exemptions previously approved by the President shall remain valid without any additional agency action.
(d) At least 180 days before information is automatically declassified under this section, an agency head or senior agency official shall notify the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, serving as Executive Secretary of the Panel, of any specific information beyond that included in a notification to the President under paragraph (c) of this section that the agency proposes to exempt from automatic declassification. The notification shall include:


(1) a description of the information, either by reference to information in specific records or in the form of a declassification guide;
(2) an explanation of why the information is exempt from automatic declassification and must remain classified for a longer period of time; and

(3) except for the identity of a confidential human source or a human intelligence source, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a specific date or event for declassification of the information. The Panel may direct the agency not to exempt the information or to declassify it at an earlier date than recommended. The agency head may appeal such a decision to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The information will remain classified while such an appeal is pending.


(e) The following provisions shall apply to the onset of automatic declassification:

(1) Classified records within an integral file block, as defined in this order, that are otherwise subject to automatic declassification under this section shall not be automatically declassified until December 31 of the year that is 25 years from the date of the most recent record within the file block.
(2) By notification to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, before the records are subject to automatic declassification, an agency head or senior agency official designated under section 5.4 of this order may delay automatic declassification for up to 5 additional years for classified information contained in microforms, motion pictures, audiotapes, videotapes, or comparable media that make a review for possible declassification exemptions more difficult or costly.

(3) By notification to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, before the records are subject to automatic declassification, an agency head or senior agency official designated under section 5.4 of this order may delay automatic declassification for up to 3 years for classified records that have been referred or transferred to that agency by another agency less than 3 years before automatic declassification would otherwise be required.

(4) By notification to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, an agency head or senior agency official designated under section 5.4 of this order may delay automatic declassification for up to 3 years from the date of discovery of classified records that were inadvertently not reviewed prior to the effective date of automatic declassification.


(f) Information exempted from automatic declassification under this section shall remain subject to the mandatory and systematic declassification review provisions of this order.
(g) The Secretary of State shall determine when the United States should commence negotiations with the appropriate officials of a foreign government or international organization of governments to modify any treaty or international agreement that requires the classification of information contained in records affected by this section for a period longer than 25 years from the date of its creation, unless the treaty or international agreement pertains to information that may otherwise remain classified beyond 25 years under this section.

(h) Records containing information that originated with other agencies or the disclosure of which would affect the interests or activities of other agencies shall be referred for review to those agencies and the information of concern shall be subject to automatic declassification only by those agencies, consistent with the provisions of subparagraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) of this section.

Sec. 3.4. Systematic Declassification Review. (a) Each agency that has originated classified information under this order or its predecessors shall establish and conduct a program for systematic declassification review. This program shall apply to records of permanent historical value exempted from automatic declassification under section 3.3 of this order. Agencies shall prioritize the systematic review of records based upon the degree of researcher interest and the likelihood of declassification upon review.

(b) The Archivist shall conduct a systematic declassification review program for classified records: (1) accessioned into the National Archives as of the effective date of this order; (2) transferred to the Archivist pursuant to section 2203 of title 44, United States Code; and (3) for which the National Archives serves as the custodian for an agency or organization that has gone out of existence. This program shall apply to pertinent records no later than 25 years from the date of their creation. The Archivist shall establish priorities for the systematic review of these records based upon the degree of researcher interest and the likelihood of declassification upon review. These records shall be reviewed in accordance with the standards of this order, its implementing directives, and declassification guides provided to the Archivist by each agency that originated the records. The Director of the Information Security Oversight Office shall ensure that agencies provide the Archivist with adequate and current declassification guides.

(c) After consultation with affected agencies, the Secretary of Defense may establish special procedures for systematic review for declassification of classified cryptologic information, and the Director of Central Intelligence may establish special procedures for systematic review for declassification of classified information pertaining to intelligence activities (including special activities), or intelligence sources or methods.

Sec. 3.5. Mandatory Declassification Review. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all information classified under this order or predecessor orders shall be subject to a review for declassification by the originating agency if:


(1) the request for a review describes the document or material containing the information with sufficient specificity to enable the agency to locate it with a reasonable amount of effort;
(2) the information is not exempted from search and review under sections 105C, 105D, or 701 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-5c, 403-5e, and 431); and

(3) the information has not been reviewed for declassification within the past 2 years. If the agency has reviewed the information within the past 2 years, or the information is the subject of pending litigation, the agency shall inform the requester of this fact and of the requesters appeal rights.


(b) Information originated by:

(1) the incumbent President or, in the performance of executive duties, the incumbent Vice President;
(2) the incumbent Presidents White House Staff or, in the performance of executive duties, the incumbent Vice Presidents Staff;

(3) committees, commissions, or boards appointed by the incumbent President; or

(4) other entities within the Executive Office of the President that solely advise and assist the incumbent President is exempted from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section. However, the Archivist shall have the authority to review, downgrade, and declassify papers or records of former Presidents under the control of the Archivist pursuant to sections 2107, 2111, 2111 note, or 2203 of title 44, United States Code. Review procedures developed by the Archivist shall provide for consultation with agencies having primary subject matter interest and shall be consistent with the provisions of applicable laws or lawful agreements that pertain to the respective Presidential papers or records. Agencies with primary subject matter interest shall be notified promptly of the Archivists decision. Any final decision by the Archivist may be appealed by the requester or an agency to the Panel. The information shall remain classified pending a prompt decision on the appeal.


(c) Agencies conducting a mandatory review for declassification shall declassify information that no longer meets the standards for classification under this order. They shall release this information unless withholding is otherwise authorized and warranted under applicable law.
(d) In accordance with directives issued pursuant to this order, agency heads shall develop procedures to process requests for the mandatory review of classified information. These procedures shall apply to information classified under this or predecessor orders. They also shall provide a means for administratively appealing a denial of a mandatory review request, and for notifying the requester of the right to appeal a final agency decision to the Panel.

(e) After consultation with affected agencies, the Secretary of Defense shall develop special procedures for the review of cryptologic information; the Director of Central Intelligence shall develop special procedures for the review of information pertaining to intelligence activities (including special activities), or intelligence sources or methods; and the Archivist shall develop special procedures for the review of information accessioned into the National Archives.

Sec. 3.6. Processing Requests and Reviews. In response to a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, or the mandatory review provisions of this order, or pursuant to the automatic declassification or systematic review provisions of this order:

(a) An agency may refuse to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of requested records whenever the fact of their existence or nonexistence is itself classified under this order or its predecessors.

(b) When an agency receives any request for documents in its custody that contain information that was originally classified by another agency, or comes across such documents in the process of the automatic declassification or systematic review provisions of this order, it shall refer copies of any request and the pertinent documents to the originating agency for processing, and may, after consultation with the originating agency, inform any requester of the referral unless such association is itself classified under this order or its predecessors. In cases in which the originating agency determines in writing that a response under paragraph (a) of this section is required, the referring agency shall respond to the requester in accordance with that paragraph.

Sec. 3.7. Declassification Database. (a) The Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, in conjunction with those agencies that originate classified information, shall coordinate the linkage and effective utilization of existing agency databases of records that have been declassified and publicly released.

(b) Agency heads shall fully cooperate with the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office in these efforts.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

[Media_Lies_Daily]

2. The executive order says it all....declassifying can only take...

...place when "it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order". The order is VERY clear, and the NeoCons are trying to escape by flooding the media with false information.

And the crap about Fitz being stalled? No way...otherwise we wouldn't see all of this tap-dancing by the NeoCons.

[magnolia]

3. So...

...Scooter Libby is risking going to prison over something that's legal??? I guess someone should have told him!

[Peace Patriot]

4. "What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!"

The other day BooMan posted an analysis of one of Judith Miller's propaganda gems that indicates that SOMEONE gave her the false parts of the NIE way back in Sept. 2002. So, if the NIE was "declassified" in July 2003 (to keep Libby legal), WHO leaked the NIE to Miller some ten months before that? Also, what about the evidence that Miller had it in June '03? And what about the fact that it was "declassified" on July 18, 2003, but the Libby/Miller meeting was on July 8?

I'll tell you something else that was happening on July 18, 2003. That's the day they found the Brits' chief WMD expert David Kelly's dead body outdoors under a tree near his house (one slashed wrist, bled to death all night out in the rain, according to the official story, which is about 99% B.S.) He had been whistleblowing to the BBC about the Brits' "sexed up" pre-war WMD intel. He had been interrogated at a safe house the week before Valerie Plame was outed (first week of July). The day after Joseph Wilson's article was published (about the Niger forgeries), July 7, Tony Blair had been informed that Kelly "could say some uncomfortable things" (could say, not had said). Plame was outed July 14, by Novak. Kelly was found dead July 18. His office and computers were searched. Four days later, July 22, Novak ADDITIONALLY outed the entire CIA/Brewster-Jennings counter-proliferation program, headed by Plame, putting all its covert agents and contacts around the world at great risk of getting killed.

Mr. Shakespeare to our aid once again: "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

[ProSense]

5. Libby testimony shows a White House pattern of intelligence leaks

Posted on Fri, Apr. 07, 2006

Libby testimony shows a White House pattern of intelligence leaks

By Warren P. Strobel and Ron Hutcheson
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The revelation that President Bush authorized former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to divulge classified information about Iraq fits a pattern of selective leaks of secret intelligence to further the administration's political agenda.

Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials have reacted angrily at unauthorized leaks, such as the exposure of a domestic wiretapping program and a network of secret CIA prisons, both of which are now the subject of far-reaching investigations.

But secret information that supports their policies, particularly about the Iraq war, has surfaced everywhere from the U.N. Security Council to major newspapers and magazines. Much of the information that the administration leaked or declassified, however, has proved to be incomplete, exaggerated, incorrect or fabricated.

Court papers filed late Wednesday by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald quote Libby as telling a grand jury that Bush, via Cheney, authorized him to reveal the key judgments of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to New York Times reporter Judith Miller. The president and vice president have virtually unlimited legal authority to declassify government secrets.

more...

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/14291979.htm

[ProSense]

6. Lawyer: Bush Left Leak Details to Cheney

Another day, another excuse:

Lawyer: Bush Left Leak Details to Cheney

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 25 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush declassified sensitive intelligence in 2003 and authorized its public disclosure to rebut Iraq war critics, but he did not specifically direct that Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, be the one to disseminate the information, an attorney knowledgeable about the case said Saturday.

Bush merely instructed Cheney to "get it out" and left the details to him, said the lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case for the White House. The vice president chose Libby and communicated the president's wishes to his then-top aide, the lawyer said.

It is not known when the conversation between Bush and Cheney took place. The White House has declined to provide the date when the president used his authority to declassify the portions of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a classified document that detailed the intelligence community's conclusions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The new information about Bush and Cheney's roles came as the president's aides have scrambled to defuse the political fallout from a court filing Wednesday by the prosecutors in the complex, ongoing investigation into whether the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame was disclosed to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, an Iraq war critic.

more...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060408/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak

[ProSense]

7. Washington Post Editor Caught Brazenly Lying: When is this going to stop?

Sunday :: Apr 9, 2006

A Washington Post Editor Caught Brazenly Lying: When is this going to stop?

by eriposte

The Washington Post has a deeply fraudulent editorial defending Bush's involvement in the NIE leak. It's not just that they get the facts wrong, but by a fair accounting this editorial involves deliberate lying that also specifically excludes contradictory information, much like what George Bush did - and the editor who wrote this is clearly guilty of journalistic malpractice. I don't have time to go through every detail, so I'll just mention a couple of things. (All emphasis in quoted portions is mine). (Other bloggers have posted some rebuttals as well)

The WP editor who wrote this piece of garbage says:

PRESIDENT BUSH was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons.

Snip...

Clearly, the editor hasn't read his own paper and should be fired. After all, I pointed out the moment Fitzgerald's filing became public that Libby, and by extension Cheney and Bush, were deliberately misrepresenting the portion of the NIE that Libby leaked:

What we've learnt today is that Libby, Cheney and Bush appear to have been trying to mislead reporters by claiming that what was really in the BODY of the NIE (and which was rebutted in the ANNEX and which was NOT part of the NIE's key judgments), was somehow part of the key judgmemts.

more..

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007321.php