April 7, 2006
Disturbing revelations or liberal media blather?
Here are three different articles on information in the court papers recently filed by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in "U.S. v. I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby" : Fox News , Washington Post , FindLaw (I was unable to get a story from the Wall Street Journal - they either didn't cover it or my non-subscriber status prevented me from finding it.)
I'm interested to hear the group's take on this. Is the whole leak investigation story much ado about nothing, or is there something to be concerned about here?
Current Events
Posted by LatteSipper at April 7, 2006 12:43 PM
The Wall Street Journal (remember, the news pages are as liberal as any, only the Editorial Page is right wing) has the headline "Libby Trial to Spotlight Bush Tactics" and the lede says "...signaling Mr. Libby's coming criminal trial threatens to renew questions about the invasion of Iraq and the White House's dealings with detractors."
I'll see if either of our token Democrats want to play, but the President has the power to declassify classified information. Public opinion is important and it seems that sacrificing some secrecy for support is valid. If I believed that he did it only to harm an opponent, I would be displeased, but the White House was countering a lie made by Wilson.
Got to go for the AP Headline for succinctness: "Bush Approved Leaks"
The Wall Street Journal (remember, the news pages are as liberal as any, only the Editorial Page is right wing) has the headline "Libby Trial to Spotlight Bush Tactics" and the lede says "...signaling Mr. Libby's coming criminal trial threatens to renew questions about the invasion of Iraq and the White House's dealings with detractors."
I'll see if either of our token Democrats want to play, but the President has the power to declassify classified information. Public opinion is important and it seems that sacrificing some secrecy for support is valid. If I believed that he did it only to harm an opponent, I would be displeased, but the White House was countering a lie made by Wilson.
Got to go for the AP Headline for succinctness: "Bush Approved Leaks"
Posted by: jk at April 7, 2006 1:42 PMOne of the many criticisms that might actually have merit is that the classified information was not actually declassified. It was "leaked" and then kept in its confidential status.
Can't say whether this is actually how it went down but if it did, why?
(This is about as much investigation as I have been willing to devote to this massively overhyped story.)
Posted by: johngalt at April 7, 2006 2:36 PMIt's too insider baseball for anyone to care. Including me.
Austin Bay had a pretty good take.
http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1025
"The sudden press flap over Scooter Libby’s alleged “revelation” that President Bush declassified intelligence information related to Iraq is silly but all too predictable. The entire flap relies on mixing terms and “misunderstanding by innuendo” — a technique of demagoguery, not journalism. The flap is yet more evidence that the national press is more interested in playing “gotcha” with the Bush Administration than reporting the news."
Posted by: AlexC at April 7, 2006 3:00 PMHard to argue with Glenn's assessment at Instapundit. Professor Reynols says:
"My take: The latest 'Bush leaked' story -- which doesn't hold up very well when you look at the actual story -- is basically a 'spoiling attack' by the NYT and other media who fear subpoenas in the Libby case. As with all their efforts on this front, it's likely to backfire. The more they say that leaks are bad, even as they rely on politically motivated leaks from insiders for their bread and butter , the more vulnerable they become. That's why the Plame affair has been more damaging for them, long-term, than for Bush. Bush will be leaving in a couple of years, but the Times and other media will be living with the world they've created, and I predict that their position in this regard will be no better if a Democrat is elected in 2008."
Posted by: jk at April 8, 2006 1:02 PM | What do you think? [4]