Semi-Daily Journal

I think that they’re going to argue that the leak originated elsewhere, and that their discussion of it post facto wasn’t a “leak of classified information”.

The narrative that ties the most loose threads of this together is one where the White House *believes* they aren’t legally culpable for anything here. Whether they really aren’t or not is another matter. But I think the maximalist version with a high mucky-muck knowingly leaking the identity of a covert agent and a White House that is inactive or covers it up after the fact is increasingly less likely. What’s more likely is one part malevolence mixed with one part ignorance and one part incompetence, shaken to create a lot of confusion, and poured over ice and served with lots of rumor and a dash of bitters.
But no one would be more delighted than me at the sight of Rove frog-marched out of the White House. Miracles do happen. Well, okay, they don’t. But occasionally the virtuous are rewarded and the villainous punished. Maybe it will happen next week. We’re due.

Maybe this is just an administration attempt (like those many others catalogued by talkingpointsmemo) to turn the issue of "outing a CIA agent" into one of "leaking classified information"? I don't see why other cynical interpretations are necessary -- one seems quite sufficient.

Im with Anno. It's an attempt to control the ternms of the discourse, not to be technically correct.
The only way that being technically correct is useful is if it comes to light that, for example, Libby did do the deed (but that it somehow doesn't fall under that classification).

Were that to occur, the WH would be crucified. Remember that Bush's uranium statement in the SOTU was technically correct (but misleading as hell). I doubt they would make that mistake again.

Wu

Professor DeLong says, "But once McClellan issued flat denials on their behalf it really made people wonder."

The Bush White House is quite capable of lying. Check the Rove/Mosbacher case to see that Karl Rove, in particular, lies with the best of them.

But the Bush White House also tries to avoid getting caught. As you point out, the phrasing is getting extraordinarily lawyerly.

But it's not quite to the point of arguing about the meaning of the word 'is' or 'sex' yet, is it?

Wu - Actually, I think it's fairly clear that the uranium statement in SOTU wasn't "technically correct," as stating that the British "learned" something contains the implicit assertion that what they "learned" was true, and it wasn't in fact true.

I think this legalistic parsing sounds less like SOTU, and less like the Clinton sex/is quibbling, and more like certain reactions to campaign contribution accusations a few years ago. After all, there's "no controlling legal authority" that the leak of Plame's name constitutes a "leak of classified information," right? And we know how well such legalistic parsing (and phrasing) worked for Al Gore, who went on to win in 2000 and preside over eight years of growth, prosperity, peace, and reduction in the Federal debt ...
Oh wait, never mind.

One thing that I think is important in all of this that has been completely bypassed is the fact that the pro intelligence analysts are outraged at this WH over political intereference in the intelligence process. The WH brought intense pressure on the CIA to skew the intelligence to confirm their beliefs. The CIA bring charges against the WH is one of the ways the CIA is trying to even the score and regain control of the intelligence process. For the first time in the history of the CIA a group of recently retired professional intelligence officers actually organized to protest political inteference. Interestingly the only thing they wanted was for VP Chenney to resign.

What if Libby and/or Abrams obtained the information, though not authorized to have it, and furnished the information to a subordinate(s), who were also not authorized to have it.

If obtaining the information although unauthorized is not technically a 'leak', and one unauthorized invididual w/in the government giving the information to another, similarly unauthorized individual w/in the government is also not a 'leak', then neither Libby nor Abrams 'leaked'.

Except in the sense that they gave it to somebody for the unspoken purpose of leaking it, which would be far harder to prove (unless they're really, really stupid).

The continued, undeviating repetition of a carefully-worked out phrase does sound mighty fishy.

It would seem to have two or three objectives, one being the legalistic cover Marshall is talking about and another being discourse-directing.

But there is another element here, the double-dare directed at the press corps. These people live on leaks, though most are non-classified (presumably). Several of them know exactly who the leakers are and exactly who must have authorized the calls. Will anyone talk, even off the record for another reporter?

This little belly-bumping is a sneering, contemptuous use of press rules against the press. Someone in that crackerjack group is going to have to develop some backbone-- or at least sell the story to the National Inquirer.

If the administration - who have a hatred for unauthorized leaks of any sort - pushes the press hard enough, they may get one of the six or seven to go public. This benefits them, by raising the risk involved in leaking without authorization. They can THEN drop the hatchet on whoever the leaker is, and get credit for doing "the right thing".

Face it, we don't know what the WH Council knows, we don't know what he is passing on to Justice. All we know is what is being said officially, and what little gets leaked. (I'm sure the guys FBI has working on cases involving classified information are a rather close-mouthed lot.) More is going on behind the scenes than we know. A year from now this whole thing may reflect positively on the administration. Or it could be the first point on the indictment.

One problem with the blogosphere is that it is horrible at thinking long term. Bush is thinking November '04. We should keep that in mind when watching what is going on. There may be a "good" (politically) time for Bush to axe someone. If there is, that will be the time the axe falls. (Watch out for the week of Christmas/New Year's.) (Politically, Rove will hold on to positive actions for Bush until the critics have charged so far that he can see the whites of their eyes, so to speak. Then, boom.)

David Mercer says, "But it's [the White House] not quite to the point of arguing about the meaning of the word 'is' or 'sex' yet, is it?"

I thought the defense of the State of the Union was at exactly that level. On the 16 words, I'm willing to say that Bush was (like Clinton) technically not lying (others in the thread point out that it's impossible to "learn" something that isn't true).

However, *unlike* the rest of Bill Clinton's testimony in the Jones and Lewinsky matters, the rest of Bush's SoTU was a pack of lies.

And with the exposure of Valerie Plame, the Administration is well into Nixonian territory.

I think Keith (first post) has it right. They are building a case that the knowledge of who Plame was was already out there. When it gets down to it, they will contend at ALL the outside journalists brought up the subject and mentioned that Plame was a CIA agent first. Ergo, no leak of classified information.

Will Novak play along with that? Oh, you bet he will. Will the others? Nobody seems to be agressively pursuing them.

Can they get away with it?

I am reminded of Henry Kissinger's quip: "I never leak. I declassify."

I suspect they're defining "leak" as leading to publication. In which case only Novak's source "leaked." The others disclosed classified information, but since the reporters to whom it was disclosed didn't publish it, it wasn't "leaked."

The problem with the contention that it was already out there is the WaPo story of 9/29 which says one of the non-publishing reporters claims to have been contacted prior to Novak's story being published.

Oh. And unauthorized publication of classified information doesn't declassify it.

Alan says, "I think Keith (first post) has it right. They are building a case that the knowledge of who Plame was was already out there. When it gets down to it, they will contend at ALL the outside journalists brought up the subject and mentioned that Plame was a CIA agent first. Ergo, no leak of classified information."

This is at odds with Novak's initial account and would therefore be, presumably, one more lie.

So, yes, they're likely to say this.

The rest of the game is that the WaPo thinks their senior admin official gave them the names of the leakers, off the record. So, we compare WaPo hints with White House denials.

For instance, Dana Milbank has a piece that looks at the history of Novak's sources, and concludes that he is in tight with the neocons. He then mentions Hadley, Abrams, and Joseph of the NSC as part of the neocon crowd.

A fascinating piece - and why publish it if it is totally off-base?

OK, maybe the editor isn't telling Milbank, either. Maybe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53226-2003Oct6.html