But seriously, no other comment? Perhaps the GOP should change its mascot to an ostrich.

Let him continue getting hummers from interns while bucking perjury charges?

Funny, but Armitage said that he didn’t realise he had leaked classified information when he told Novak that Plame worked at the CIA. And last I checked, Deputy Secretary of State is still a member of the administration.

Libby was probably the guy to tell Armitage, and he certainly was the guy that told Miller. Last I checked, both “Chief of Staff for the VP” and “Assistant to the VP on National Security Affairs” (!!!) are positions in the administration. So don’t tell me that this wasn’t an administration leak.

I am not being morally relativistic, but many posters on this thread are, including Karen, Jonathan and OS. I don’t think there is any moral difference between a staffer endangering national security for political gain and the president of the US doing the same thing. And just to be absolutely clear: in both cases, it would be reprehensible, and the severity of the leak should determine the punishment. Arguing that it’s legal when the president does it is a desperate attempt to avoid the question: what do we do with a president whose actions (even though they are legal) make clear he puts politics over national security?

——–

TR, OS, the declassified NIE showed that the article was correct: US intelligence analysts say that the Jihad in Iraq is one of “the four underlying factors that are fueling the spread of terrorism” (quote from your favorite - Fox News). That’s not bad for 3 years of work, considering most of the other causes have been going on for decades if not centuries. The context didn’t change the message. That is why the title of the Slate article was “Can Bush read?” (http://www.slate.com/id/2150435/entry/0/fr/rss/). The NIE is unambiguous in stating that after 5 years of Bush’s “War on Terror” jihadists are increasing in number and geographic spread. The same cannot be said of our military resources, our reputation or our allies.

———

And you keep ignoring the fact that a leak is only a rumour, and a suspect one at that. The declassified report is much more than a rumour. Additionally, the declassified report contains much more information than was leaked. In particular, it offers great detail on what the US intelligence community sees as the weak points of the enemy, and how the US might try to exploit those. That’s valuable military information, leaked on the order of the President in order to “fight” a rumour. Again I ask you, what do we do with a President that puts politics over national security?

The President actually declassified enough of the NIE to place into context the paragraph reported on by the NYT. I have absolute certainty that the exact “part” leaked is known. People who work with classified material know exactly what is classified and how it is to be treated. Your moral relativistic view does not exonerate the wrong that was done. My perception is that the leak was timed to be detrimental to the GOP, especially considering the “exact” info leaked - that US actions in Iraq were fostering an increase in insurgent activities. Amazing that that out-of-context piece of information seems to align with the Democrat’s postulation that we are losing in Iraq – that we are causing more terrorism vs. curtailing it.

I think this leaker being investigated and possibly prosecuted would be much more appropriate than Rove being prosecuted after the fact is known that Armitage is the Plame name leaker. But that wouldn’t be as satisfying to the liberal desire for GOP blood, would it?

I don’t propose we do anything to Bill Clinton, who let OBL get away, how many times?

The president declassified enough of the NIE to corroborate all of the article’s assessments. I don’t think anyone knows what part was actually leaked, since no one other than the journalist would have had access to it. And that is a crucial aspect of the case: there is a huge difference between declassification and leaking. A leak is always a say-so, a rumour, and a suspicious one at that. When Bush declassified the NIE, he made it a fact. Big diff. Lot worse, too.

And OS, I clearly stated over and over that I have no issue with the law being applied. Perhaps the leaker should go to jail, just as “turd blossom” should (what’s holding that up, anyway?). I am just saying that if the leaker endangered national security for political gain, so did Bush. I’m happy to agree that they both did, and that the leaker, in addition, violated the law.

So what do yo propose we do with a president that puts political gain over national security?

Some documented examples, please.

”What I disagree with is the characterisation that those leaks endanger national security in this case.”

Anything that aids the enemy, say in recruitment, or propaganda, or undermines the ability of the President to prosecute the war against our self-declared enemy is endangering our national security.

”Either the president agreed that they were not a danger to the national security when he declassified them, or he did the very same thing the leaker did.”

I believe the President declassified other parts of the NIE, not the part leaked, even post fact. Once classified information is leaked, declassification is immaterial.

”His actions are legal, mine are not…”

Had you stopped there you would have been correct. No matter how you justify in your mind the illegal leaking of classified information – it still violates the law. When the NSA wiretap issue was hot, you lefties were foaming at the mouth about “the law is the law,” even though the interpretation by the left was faulty; now the law doesn’t really matter. Your hyprocrisy is prominently showing.

For a refresher on classified information read this post.

Jonathan, let’s go with your analogy. I rob the bank and fund my party. The president then goes and nationalises the bank, takes the money and gives it to his party. His actions are legal, mine are not, but both are wrong. Just because it’s legal for the president to endanger national security, does NOT mean that it is any less disgusting.

The law is simple: IF a document contains information officially designated as “classified”, then it can only be DE-classified by certain people…i.e. the President.

It doesn’t matter if the classifed information is de-classified by a Democratic staffer, the janitor, a Republican housewife, or whomever…it’s freakin’ illegal, dude! Just because the president comes in after the fact and officially DE-classifies intel does not UNDO the crime!

Here’s an analogy I bet even YOU can figure out, if you try really hard:

Let’s say you rob a bank. Then, hours later, you are overcome with guilt and fear of incarceration should you get caught. You sneak into the bank under cover of night and put every last penny back that you stole.

Guess what? The law says you are guilty of robbing a bank! Just because you put the money back doesn’t UN-rob the bank! You can argue that you “didn’t do anything wrong, because all the money has been returned and no one got hurt”, but it doesn’t change the fact that a crime was committed.

Got it?

Even if the classified document had the name of Howard Stern’s dog, anyone who leaked the dog’s name to the press is in violation of federal law, regardless of the harm involved. Now get past your partisan sniping and respect our freakin’ laws!