Financial Times Editorial - Bush and Iraq leaks
Bush and Iraq leaks
Published: April 11 2006 03:00 | Last updated: April 11 2006 03:00. Copyright by The Financial Times
The revelation that George W. Bush approved the leak of classified information about Iraq's chimerical nuclear programme is unlikely to snowball into another Watergate. Mr Bush's contention that anything the president says (or leaks) is declassification by other means - and therefore legal - might just be tenable. Yet it is hardly credible.
Mr Bush approved the selective leak in July 2003 of a portion of the US National Intelligence Estimate in an attempt to discredit allegations he had misused intelligence to bolster the case for invading Iraq. The leak was exposed last week in documents submitted by the prosecution in the trial of Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, who is accused of lying about another leak in which the name of a serving CIA officer was disclosed. The officer, Valerie Plame, is married to Joseph Wilson, who had been sent in 2002 to Niger to ascertain whether Saddam Hussein had sought to buy uranium. Mr Wilson found no evidence of a secret Iraqi nuclear programme. His decision to publicise this in July 2003 - three months after the invasion - coincided with growing awareness that the US was unlikely to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Mr Bush is hardly the first US president to leak classified information for short-term political gain. So we cannot - like inspector Renault in Casablanca - profess to being "shocked, shocked" to learn that in the Wilson case Mr Bush was not motivated by the desire to further America's national interest.
However, Mr Bush has staked his public persona on being a plain-speaking kind of guy. "Whether you agree with me or not, you know where I stand," he told the electorate in 2004. The public, less than half of which now describe Mr Bush as "honest" in opinion polls, is aware of the fact the president recently launched a campaign to stop the culture of leaking in Washington. Officials in numerous departments have taken polygraphs in the hunt to find who was behind numerous leaks, including the administration's decision to conduct wire-taps without informing the courts.
Mr Bush will probably shrug off opposition charges of hypocrisy. But the outlook would alter drastically if the Democrats gained control of one or both houses of Congress at elections in November. Should that happen, it is a sure bet Democrats would use their subpoena powers to get officials to testify about the alleged misuse of intelligence in the build-up to war. On Sunday Arlen Specter, a senior Republican senator, called on Mr Bush to come clean about the leaks. One way Mr Bush could respond while also pre-empting a Democratic backlash would be to call on the Senate to resume its inquiry into the manipulation of intelligence before the war. The inquiry was shelved in 2004 because of fears it might hinder Mr Bush's re-election. Now would be a good time for the Senate to resume its work.
Published: April 11 2006 03:00 | Last updated: April 11 2006 03:00. Copyright by The Financial Times
The revelation that George W. Bush approved the leak of classified information about Iraq's chimerical nuclear programme is unlikely to snowball into another Watergate. Mr Bush's contention that anything the president says (or leaks) is declassification by other means - and therefore legal - might just be tenable. Yet it is hardly credible.
Mr Bush approved the selective leak in July 2003 of a portion of the US National Intelligence Estimate in an attempt to discredit allegations he had misused intelligence to bolster the case for invading Iraq. The leak was exposed last week in documents submitted by the prosecution in the trial of Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, who is accused of lying about another leak in which the name of a serving CIA officer was disclosed. The officer, Valerie Plame, is married to Joseph Wilson, who had been sent in 2002 to Niger to ascertain whether Saddam Hussein had sought to buy uranium. Mr Wilson found no evidence of a secret Iraqi nuclear programme. His decision to publicise this in July 2003 - three months after the invasion - coincided with growing awareness that the US was unlikely to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Mr Bush is hardly the first US president to leak classified information for short-term political gain. So we cannot - like inspector Renault in Casablanca - profess to being "shocked, shocked" to learn that in the Wilson case Mr Bush was not motivated by the desire to further America's national interest.
However, Mr Bush has staked his public persona on being a plain-speaking kind of guy. "Whether you agree with me or not, you know where I stand," he told the electorate in 2004. The public, less than half of which now describe Mr Bush as "honest" in opinion polls, is aware of the fact the president recently launched a campaign to stop the culture of leaking in Washington. Officials in numerous departments have taken polygraphs in the hunt to find who was behind numerous leaks, including the administration's decision to conduct wire-taps without informing the courts.
Mr Bush will probably shrug off opposition charges of hypocrisy. But the outlook would alter drastically if the Democrats gained control of one or both houses of Congress at elections in November. Should that happen, it is a sure bet Democrats would use their subpoena powers to get officials to testify about the alleged misuse of intelligence in the build-up to war. On Sunday Arlen Specter, a senior Republican senator, called on Mr Bush to come clean about the leaks. One way Mr Bush could respond while also pre-empting a Democratic backlash would be to call on the Senate to resume its inquiry into the manipulation of intelligence before the war. The inquiry was shelved in 2004 because of fears it might hinder Mr Bush's re-election. Now would be a good time for the Senate to resume its work.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 7:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home