Apr 24, 2006
"No, what grates against both reason and common sense is that the White House did not deny it. The effect of this was to provoke a storm on Capitol Hill, and a round of rejoicing over at the Libby Defense Trust, the ad hoc group set up to defend the War Party's indicted martyr. After railing against leaks and flatly declaring the president would fire leakers, one and all, a soon-to-be-replaced Scott McClellan haplessly declared:
'Declassifying information and providing it to the public when it is in the public interest is one thing. But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious, and there's a distinction.'
To prosecutor Fitzgerald, and for those of us who don't live in the Bizarro World alternate universe inhabited by this administration, this is a distinction without a difference."
"While the AIPAC case revolves around a future war – intelligence about Iran – and the Libby case is focused on intelligence leading up to our invasion of Iraq, they are both legal fronts in the same fight. If we look at these two cases as the efforts of the body politic to throw off the influence of an alien element – a viral intrusion that so disordered the policymaking apparatus that it became unhinged enough to invade Iraq and contemplate striking Iran – then we have some idea of the importance of the outcomes." [more]
Justin is a tad link happy, but always an intense and interesting read.