<p>Definitions for the word “leak” from dictionaries across the web:</p>
<p>To disclose without authorization or official sanction</p>
<p>Unauthorized (especially deliberate) disclosure of confidential information</p>
<p>To become publicly known through a breach of secrecy</p>
<p>an unofficial release of confidential information, usually to the media</p>
<p>unauthorized (especially deliberate) disclosure of confidential information</p>
<p>to become known despite efforts at concealment </p>
<p>Darn, there’s not a single definition that says the authorized release of formerly classified information. </p>
<p>My main complaint is that the media is mischaracterizing what happened. It’s not a leak by any definition, the media is simply trying to color it in a way that’s not rational, particularly since the media, especially the Times, directly benefited from and insist that leaks are justified by the people’s right to know. Why is that suddenly not the case when the government decides to release the information they used in making such a major decision? Because the Administration decided it was OK to release the information. </p>
<p>This is just a perjorative way to say “scoop”, nothing more, for purely self-serving purposes.</p>
<p>I’ll keep that in mind in the future. Common sense goes out the door when demogoguery come in.</p>
<p>All I’m really asking is that people read critically and, in a case like this, bother to look at the wealth of original materal that’s available to validate what the media is saying.</p>
<p>The facts are really rather simple. There was a firestorm about the intelligence used to support attacking Iraq. In response the Administration, Bush, decided to declassify the main document summarizing that intelligence, the one provided to Congress. Twelve days (count 'em, twelve) before that document completed the declassification process, an aide was authorized to share that information with a NY Times reporter who specialized in reporting on WMDs. </p>
<p>The information released did contradict the charges being made, but could not be read by an open minded person as an attack or retaliation on the person or persons making them. They were entirely about Iraq itself, not about personalities or how the intelligence was gathered or vetted.</p>
<p>That’s not how the story reads in the press today, but you shouldn’t trust me anyway. You can look it all up for yourselves going back to Judy Miller’s original story, the NIE itself, and the events themselves as they were first reported some time ago. The fundamental facts about this event haven’t changed except in the language the media is using to color them. </p>
<p>Google is a wonderful thing.</p>
<p>Normally, releasing information on how the government reaches a major policy decision, in this case, the decision of the century so far, would be hailed as a major step in open government. Not this time, not even by the news organization that benefited most by the release. There has to be a reason for that, but hey, common sense is out the door, right?</p>
<p>After a quick look at the Duke lacrosse team thread (I thought the DNA test results would add clarity) I don’t feel quite as bad as I might, not by comparison.</p>
<p>Still, please explain why it wasn’t a press release, or good ole Scotty, or some other White House Official, going on the record, if this was SOOOOOO important for us to know about</p>
<p>Never stopped them before if it was a legitimate source of information, or not, so, that begs the question</p>
<p>Why the sneaky way of doing exactly what the President doesn’t like, saying, you tell him to tell him to tell her…but don’t mention me</p>
<p>It’s sometimes a goose or a loon, especially to people who aren’t big on looking closely.</p>
<p>The simplest answer is that the Administration is extremely clumsy at responding to bogus attacks and didn’t take the particular canard (that’s a semi-sophisticated pun, btw) seriously.</p>
<p>I agree on the clumsy part - PR was never a strength of this administration, but the other explanation from those who know how the media works inside the beltway is that the best way to get the story out is to give a scoop to a major newspaper like the NY Times. If they think they have an exclusive on it, they may give it front page attention and thereby assuring that it will be picked up by every TV network and newspaper in the country. If they don’t have a scoop, it could well be buried on page 17.</p>
<p>Well, it wasn’t broadly and publicly disclosed. It was to a select individual for the purpose of influencing policy and to undermine the statements of another individual who had become a major nuisance. The material leaked–like the original justification for the invasion–was cherry picked, excluding those parts of the NIE that were inconvenient to the argument at hand and moreover were already being discredited in other parts of the administration.</p>
<p>But all is sunny and fine in Bushworld.</p>
<p>There oughta be a song, on the model of “It’s A Small, Small World…”, just for this ridiculous excuse of an administration.</p>
<p>“W” stated that such leaks would not be tolerated. That he would find the source and that person would be fired. I guess all these months he’s been looking for himself. Since I can’t believe the guy can even look at himself in the mirror any longer, it is no surprise he couldn’t identify himself as the culprit. Kinda like O.J. looking for that elusive murderer.</p>
<p>Illegal? immoral? unethical? All things are possible in the Alice in Wonderland world of the Bush Administration, where “the buck” stops nowhere. No accountability, no responsibility and on to Iran…</p>
<p>bullwinkle, for you to make such a post was initially amazing to me after all that is known and discussed above about what was “leaked” and what was not. But, then the amazement wore off and I realized that it was just status quo behavior for the left to ignore reality and continue to pound on issues with no factual basis.</p>
<p>In the latest tempest, W also said something to the effect that it’s not a leak if it’s in the public interest. I think it’s in the public interest to know fully how intelligence was used (the relevant investigations have been sidelined), use of extraordinary rendition, conditions and usages at Abu Gharib and Guantanamo, and the scope of warrantless domestic spying. </p>
<p>Actually, the NIE was available broadly and publically disclosed. Want the link to the official version of it? I’ve seen lots of discussion of it including substantial quotes since July, 2003.</p>
<p>BTW, there’s this little secret you apparently haven’t been told. There are two parts of the document, the summary and the detailed report. While the summary just contains the conclusion, the detailed report includes all those dissenting opinions that you believe discredited the consensus. </p>
<p>They’re all there, TheDad, both sides of the arguments that waged within the CIA and between the CIA and the State Department, it’s just that when all sides of the question were weighed, the consensus was the consensus. That doesn’t keep the typical naysayers from saying I told you so, but perfect hindsight doesn’t count as “discrediting” either.</p>
<p>Of course, anyone who’s ever participated in any major, complex decision knows there are always naysayers in any and people with 20/20 hindsight. And you know what they say about intelligence during war.</p>
<p>Still, you could have read the NIE any time you wanted to since the 19th of July, 2003, just a couple of weeks after Libby gave some of the information to Miller in that scoop.</p>
<p>And it’s not a leak when it’s approved by definition.</p>
<p>Retroactive approval, who said this isn’t a creative administration.</p>
<p>There is a legal process for declassification, until a document is declassified it is …classified. The process had not been complete so…the President authorized a leak of a classified material. When materials are declassified they are declassified to everyone, not just to the favored few. This smells worse than last weeks fish, but it is a convient life boat for the Bush faithful to cling to.</p>
<p>This President knows a lot about classification, he has kept the Nixon tapes where Nixon describes Bush senior’s abilities…classified beyond the norm.</p>
<p>I still think there is more to the fact of who they “gave the scoop to” ie in this case, the NYT and Judith Miller. I think they knew she wouldn’t write a story…rather, it was an implied threat to Joe Wilson who wrote an article for the Times “What I didn’t find in Africa” … they knew exactly what they were doing…</p>
<p>To the best of my knowledge, we have NO proof that Bush truly did authorize the release of this NIE document…when they are saying he did… this could all be revisionist history to match the timeline after the fact…how will we ever know?</p>
<p>Today, I heard that Cheney is the pit bull who wants to go after Iran… more than Rumsfeld… I think Cheney cooked up the entire “leak” or “scoop” thing with Libby and got Bush to say retroactively that it was disclosed…frightening…</p>
<p>Strick, your argument falls on deaf ears because it is the same old argument - Wilson is an incompetent liar, Bush always tells the truth but is somehow misrepresented in the media, Valerie Plame was not a CIA agent and Dems are NNN’s who follow the party line and don’t think for themselves. The last one has absolutely nothing to do with the whole matter but draws fire, allowing Bush supporters to peddle their spin in the guise of seemingly articulate political discussion. It’s wearing thin.</p>
<p>One of these scandals is going to stick - maybe not this year or next - eventually when checks and balances are restored the truth will come out. </p>
<p>Yes, I made up my mind that Bush is untrustworthy long ago - by reading and observing - not by following the party line. You don’t need a “party line” to tell you that Bush is incompetent, immature, unintelligent, inarticulate, untruthful,etc.etc. Talk about your nattering nabob. All you have to do is listen to him speak and observe his actions and policies. The only reason he is President again is because too many people listened to your “party line” of Fear and Greed (that along with the Swift Boat Liars.)</p>
<p>Yeah, complete with documentation that satisfied a Federal prosecutor and a Federal judge. Very impressive. Not that it mattered. Bush can short cut the declassification process pretty much at will. </p>
<p>Still, let’s consider the SAT question the NY Times reporters and editors wouldn’t be able to answer:</p>
<p>It’s a film noir classic plot. The District Attorney promises a reporter a scoop, that he’ll be allowed to publish his story before his competition is gets the information.</p>
<p>In “All the President’s Men” the mysterious “Deep Throat” gives Woodward and Berstein a leak, information the President is desperately trying to keep secret.</p>
<p>Here the President authorizes an aide to disclose information to a NY Times reporter just a few days before it is made available to everyone else. Is this disclosure:</p>
<p>1) a leak
2) a scoop
3) We’re the NY Times and since we make the news, we can call it anything we want.</p>
<p>There still remains no doubt that this story wouldn’t have legs if the Times had use the accurate headline: Aide Says Bush Authorized Him to Give Times Reporter a Scoop.</p>
<p>lizschup, don’t worry, I recognize the signs. The reason this falls on deaf ears is that your mind is made up (primarily based on lies, I’m afraid) and you’re not open to any of the facts. As for Wilson, well, the Iraq Commission Report lays it all out. And there are good reasons that the Kerry Campaign fired him and the very liberal New Republic published that quote wishing he were a Republican I offered above.</p>