From Firedoglake today: The American public may have a short attention span about certain stories in the news - tending to go for the more sensational over the intricate detail sorts. But they understand one thing very clearly: liars and hypocrites make for a good storyline. Especially when the liar or hypocrite has previously wagged his finger at them on television and proclaimed that he deplores that thing which, ultimately, we find out he has in truth done. And so we come to George Bush. Leaks are bad. Shading the truth is horrible. I'm a gonna "restore honor and integrity to the White House" kind of guy. ...unless, of course, my political self is roasting on a public perception spit, in which case I will selectively release only that previously classified information that makes me look good -- while I keep all information which calls my judgment into question conveniently classified. (It's good to be the King, isn't it George -- until you get caught, that is.) We've arrived in a completely amazing place, deep through the looking glass where the President can brazenly accuse people who perform the public service of Whistle-blowing an Illegal Surveillance Program as "Leakers", yet do an amazing about face when releasing classified information in order to debunk the TRUTH - and claim that isn't a "Leak". Oh, really? First there is the fact that the President didn't follow standard declassification procedure when he authorized Libby to talk to Judith Miller about the NIE. I worked in a secure environment under to perview of the DOD for 12 years. From that experience I know that all classifed documents are clearly Marked as such, and that any changes in classification require that these documentes either be re-marked, or destroyed and re-created with the new classificaiton - yet there is no indication that this took place an July 10th when Scooter talked to Judy. Scott McClennan was asked about this. Q Back when the NIE was released on July 18, 2003, you were asked that day when that had been actually declassified. And you said in that gaggle that it had been declassified that day. And if that's the case, then when the information was passed on to the reporter 10 days earlier, then it was still classified at that time. MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you're referring -- a couple of things. First of all, it was publicly released that day, so that's when a portion of the National Intelligence Estimate that we were making available to the public was released. The second part of your question is referring to an ongoing legal proceeding, and referring to a filing in that legal proceeding. We have had a policy in place, going back to the October time period of 2003, that we are not going to comment on an ongoing investigation or an ongoing legal proceeding. That policy remains unchanged.
Of course, Scotty ducked the question - but his answer is revealing in that he links it to the "ongoing investigation" and that means that persons involved in sharing that information, and violating standard classification procedure just might include the President and Vice President. So it remains an open question as to whether the information given to Judy was technically still classified or not, and the Presidents Press Secretary has not denied that it was. Then there is the fact that the information itself was quite suspect. From the NYTimes. WASHINGTON, April 8 -- President Bush's apparent order authorizing a senior White House official to reveal to a reporter previously classified intelligence about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain uranium came as the information was already being discredited by several other officials in the administration, interviews and documents from the time show. A review of the records and interviews conducted during and after the crucial period in June and July of 2003 also show that what the aide, I. Lewis Libby Jr., said he was authorized to portray as a "key judgment" by intelligence officers had in fact been given much less prominence in the most important assessment of Iraq's weapons capability. Mr. Libby said he drew on that report, the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, when he spoke with the reporter. However, the conclusions about Mr. Hussein's search for uranium appear to have been buried deeper in the report in part because of doubts about their reliability. In short, in that NIE the INR had questioned the legitimacy of Niger documents, and suspected they might be forgeries. There were also doubts from the Energy Dept. about the intended use of the Aliminum Tubes that Iraq had purchased. Did Libby release this? Hell, no. The truth remained classified while Libby (illegaly) released the same set of lies that most of Congress had seen. Senator Bob Graham saw more than most, and he was troubled by what he saw. At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE. Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE. There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked. So even if Hussein had the weapons the NIE stated that he would only use them in self-defense, and what did we do? We attacked him. Did Libby share this with Judy? Hell, no. According to Scotty, this is what he did. But let's go back to the time period that you're talking about, because I think it's important for the public to know or recall that time period. There was a lot of debate going on about the pre-war intelligence that was used in the lead up to the decision to go into Iraq and remove a brutal tyrant from his position of power. There were irresponsible and unfounded accusations being made against the administration, suggesting that we had manipulated or misused that intelligence. That was flat-out false. The National Intelligence Estimate was a document that was provided to members of Congress. It is the collective judgment of the intelligence community. And because of the public debate that was going on and some of the wild accusations that were flying around at the time, we felt it was very much in the public interest that what information could be declassified, be declassified. And that's exactly what we did. Uh huh... Now, let's look at the "leakers" that the President has railed against - people like Russel Tice. Former NSA intelligence agent Russell Tice condemns reports that the Agency has been engaged in eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without court warrants. Tice has volunteered to testify before Congress about illegal black ops programs at the NSA. Tice said, "The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state. ... AMY GOODMAN: Russell Tice, you have worked for the National Security Agency. Can you talk about your response to the revelations that the Times, you know, revealed in -- perhaps late, knowing the story well before the election, yet revealing it a few weeks ago -- the revelation of the wiretapping of American citizens? RUSSELL TICE: Well, as far as an intelligence officer, especially a SIGINT officer at N.S.A., we're taught from very early on in our careers that you just do not do this. This is probably the number one commandment of the SIGINT Ten Commandments as a SIGINT officer. You will not spy on Americans. It is drilled into our head over and over and over again in security briefings, at least twice a year, where you ultimately have to sign a paper that says you have gotten the briefing. Everyone at N.S.A. who's a SIGINT officer knows that you do not do this. Ultimately, so do the leaders of N.S.A., and apparently the leaders of N.S.A. have decided that they were just going to go against the tenets of something that's a gospel to a SIGINT officer. ... AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think of the news that the National Security Agency spying on American citizens without a court order and foreign nationals is now sharing this information with other agencies like, well, the other agency you worked for, the Defense Intelligence Agency? RUSSELL TICE: Intelligence officers work with one another all the time. As an analyst, you might have a problem. Everybody gets together. It's just common sense to find out what everybody knows, you know, come to a consensus as to what the answer is. It's sort of like a puzzle, you know, chunks of the puzzle. And maybe you have a few chunks as a SIGINT officer, and the C.I.A. has a few chunks in their arena and D.I.A. has a few elements of it, and everybody gets together and does a little mind meld to try to figure out what's going on. So it's not unusual for the intelligence community to share information. But when we're talking about information on the American public, which is a violation of the FISA law, then I think it's even something more to be concerned about.
So people like Russel Tice have come forward and tried to end violations of FISA, yet what has the Administration had to say about them? Q The purpose of releasing portions of this clearly had a political implication for the administration. There is a debate going on, and you wanted to counter that debate. And, yet, you're criticizing Democrats, saying that they are engaging in crass politics for saying that they're -- that this was leaking. How do you not see that there was a -- MR. McCLELLAN: For the reasons I stated. That's a very good question. Let's talk about the distinction. There is a difference between leaking classified information that could compromise sources and methods, which could be harmful to our nation's security. The terrorist surveillance program is a prime example. There was an unauthorized disclosure of this vital program that is helping to prevent attacks and save American lives. This is a program that is aimed at intercepting international communications involving known al Qaeda members or suspected al Qaeda affiliates. And it is vital to our nation's interest. General Hayden, the number-two man in our intelligence community, said its disclosure is harmful to our nation's security. So there is a clear distinction here. Democrats refuse to recognize that distinction. That is engaging in crass politics. Let me get this straight, disclosing that the Administartion is failing it's Constitutional Duty and Legal Requirements under FISA to obtain Warrants - even three days after they begin eavesdropping - is bad. But perpetuating lies about non-existence weapons in order to justify an unprovoked war - is good. Welcome to bizarro world people. I know we've been here for a while now, but sometimes looking back at exactly where we are is simply startling. And it looks like our first exit of this insane highway will be in November 2006. Maybe. Vyan | 
No comments:
Post a Comment