Maybe Bush Didn't Authorize the Leak
Yesterday it was revealed that Scooter Libby testified before the grand jury that he was specifically authorized by President Bush to leak portions of the National Intelligence Estimate to reporter Judy Miller in 2003. Everyone--and that includes Bush's defenders--seems to be taking this testimony at face value, which is a little surprising given that Libby is currently being prosecuted for lying, in rather spectacular fashion, in the course of this very same testimony. Isn't a little more skepticism is order?
As I mentioned yesterday, Libby's story doesn't make a whole lot of sense. He claims that--when asked by the Vice President to discuss the NIE with Miller--he advised against it because of the classified nature of the document. Only later, after Cheney informed him that the President had specifically authorized him to discuss the document and Libby had confirmed with David Addington that such authorization amounted to declassification, did Libby go ahead and discuss the NIE with Miller. Libby claims these circumstances were "unique in his recollection."
This sure doesn't sound like the same Scooter Libby who, according to Murray Waas, leaked all sorts of classified information at Cheney's behest during the leadup to the Iraq invasion. Why was Libby suddenly so cautious? Why was Cheney's authorization, by itself, suddenly not good enough for him? And why the need to consult Addington?
Isn't it possible that Libby leaked the NIE to Miller based solely on Cheney's instructions--as he had done numerous times in the past with other classified material--and this story is yet another lie intended to protect his boss, the Vice President?
This is, of course, pure speculation, but in light of Libby's history of "faulty memory," why is everyone so quick to assume that Libby's story about the NIE is accurate?
But, you protest, if Bush didn't authorize the NIE leak, why hasn't anyone from the White House denied it? Why did they send Scott McClellan out there today to offer up weak talking points about the difference between good and bad leaks?
Well, it could be because Bush did in fact authorize the leak. That's what everyone is assuming. But, then again, suppose Libby is lying about how these events went down. Would it be in the President's political interest to publicly call Libby out on that lie? Doing so would not only throw Libby under the bus, but perhaps the Vice President as well. If the President did not authorize this leak, then the NIE was not "declassified" when Libby discussed it with Miller. If Cheney instructed him to have that conversation, that instruction may have been illegal. Libby (and perhaps Cheney as well) would also be implicated in the fabrication of this cover story, assuming that's what it is.
In light of all that, it would not make sense for the White House to refute Libby's testimony, even if it is in fact untrue. Doing so would potentially implicate the Vice President in wrongdoing and would make things much worse for Libby, which I'm sure the White House is afraid of doing for fear Libby will flip and start cooperating with Fitzgerald's investigation.
Then again, Libby could be telling the truth in this instance. After reading the latest court filings, it's not even clear to me what Fitzgerald believes. Until we know more, though, we should keep in mind that this story comes directly from the testimony of someone who has been charged with multiple counts of perjury. Some skepticism is warranted.
As I mentioned yesterday, Libby's story doesn't make a whole lot of sense. He claims that--when asked by the Vice President to discuss the NIE with Miller--he advised against it because of the classified nature of the document. Only later, after Cheney informed him that the President had specifically authorized him to discuss the document and Libby had confirmed with David Addington that such authorization amounted to declassification, did Libby go ahead and discuss the NIE with Miller. Libby claims these circumstances were "unique in his recollection."
This sure doesn't sound like the same Scooter Libby who, according to Murray Waas, leaked all sorts of classified information at Cheney's behest during the leadup to the Iraq invasion. Why was Libby suddenly so cautious? Why was Cheney's authorization, by itself, suddenly not good enough for him? And why the need to consult Addington?
Isn't it possible that Libby leaked the NIE to Miller based solely on Cheney's instructions--as he had done numerous times in the past with other classified material--and this story is yet another lie intended to protect his boss, the Vice President?
This is, of course, pure speculation, but in light of Libby's history of "faulty memory," why is everyone so quick to assume that Libby's story about the NIE is accurate?
But, you protest, if Bush didn't authorize the NIE leak, why hasn't anyone from the White House denied it? Why did they send Scott McClellan out there today to offer up weak talking points about the difference between good and bad leaks?
Well, it could be because Bush did in fact authorize the leak. That's what everyone is assuming. But, then again, suppose Libby is lying about how these events went down. Would it be in the President's political interest to publicly call Libby out on that lie? Doing so would not only throw Libby under the bus, but perhaps the Vice President as well. If the President did not authorize this leak, then the NIE was not "declassified" when Libby discussed it with Miller. If Cheney instructed him to have that conversation, that instruction may have been illegal. Libby (and perhaps Cheney as well) would also be implicated in the fabrication of this cover story, assuming that's what it is.
In light of all that, it would not make sense for the White House to refute Libby's testimony, even if it is in fact untrue. Doing so would potentially implicate the Vice President in wrongdoing and would make things much worse for Libby, which I'm sure the White House is afraid of doing for fear Libby will flip and start cooperating with Fitzgerald's investigation.
Then again, Libby could be telling the truth in this instance. After reading the latest court filings, it's not even clear to me what Fitzgerald believes. Until we know more, though, we should keep in mind that this story comes directly from the testimony of someone who has been charged with multiple counts of perjury. Some skepticism is warranted.
posted by A.L. at 11:30 PM
2 Comments:
Why would Libby drop a dime on his "get out of jail free card"? He needs Chimp's goodwill until he gets that pardon.
The document was officially declassified what, 10 days later?
So why the the hurry to get it out ahead to Judy, especially since I'm still stumped as to what she did with the infor, didn't write a story. Why not hurry the process along to officially declassify, put it out there in full view. Did they choose Judy so that she'd get it into the cocktail crowd, that she'd fall for the Libby cherry picked version verbatim. And the rest of the MSM what did they do with the declassified document 10 days later, not much. Also, to put the testimony into a time context. When Libby testified I'm sure he didn't yet comprehend fully that the lies were beginning to knot together to form a noose. He still believed they were good lies, ahhh the power of arrogance.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home