Newsweek has an interesting interview with J. William Leonard, until recently director of the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) in the National Archives, and his conflicts with the Vice President's office over the classification of government documents.
The veteran National Archives official challenged claims by the Office of Vice President (OVP) to be exempt from federal rules governing classified information. His efforts touched off a firestorm—and a counter-strike by Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, who tried to wipe out Leonard's job. (Addington did not respond to requests for comment on the subject.)
Now, Leonard is quitting as director of the Archives' Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO)—the unit that monitors the handling of government secrets. He tells NEWSWEEK that his fight with Cheney's office was a "contributing" factor in his decision to retire after 34 years of government service.
Apparently part of the dispute results from the Vice President's contention that he is not part of the executive, but part of the legislature.
Cheney evidently decided (and the Bush White House let him have his way) that it's more important for him to operate completely independently than it is to make sure that his office safeguards the security of classified information. And the White House agreed, giving Cheney's people carte blanche to do whatever they wanted, no matter what the cost to national security.
This is the sort of thing that ought to make even dedicated right-wingers realize that what they have in Cheney is a megalomaniac willing to put the nation's security at risk in order to protect his own power. (And Bush backed him up on it, as always.)
Maybe he's quitting before Hillary can fire him, and prosecute him a la the Travel Office just for grins.
Hard to think of the chief of archives being more careful than Cheney. It may be constitutionally doubtful, but as a practical matter, I'd think Cheney would be a better bet.
Cheney isn't "careful" with classified information. Cheney proved in the Plame affair that he doesn't give a damn about classified information when it can be disseminated to punish a political opponent.
And that's the whole point here. It goes beyond Cheney-- though he is a particularly evil character. You don't want ANY political actor in charge of ensuring compliance with the classification rules, because then the rules will not be applied neutrally and only anti-administration leaks will ever get punished.
Try harder.
See if you can recall a guy named Armitage.
The rest of the spew has been debunked so thoroughly that it's not worth a single pixel rehashing it.
You can't avoid that, because all classification is by authority of the president. The president by definition cannot leak, and nor can anyone he authorises. The president is perfectly entitled to give carte blanche authority to read and disclose classified material to Cheney, or to Nancy Pelosi, or to me. Or any limited subset of such authority.
And no one's called him "Sandy Burglar" yet either. Things are really slipping around here.
And no one's called him "Sandy Burglar" yet either. Things are really slipping around here.
Don't despair. In an adjacent thread, you can find folks arguing that opponents of torture intentionally want to see lots of Americans killed.
If it's bad when Bush, Cheney, and assorted other minions of Satan do it, it's bad when Clinton does it.
Those who complain about one and not both are not arguing from principle, but from partisanship.
The implication of outraged principle is false.
That having been said, what, exactly, classified docs has Cheney been leaking, stealing, destroying?
At this point it looks as if it's Clinton Did It--without a "Too" available.
I think the important retirement to keep in mind is Cheney's own, in less than 13 months...
Richard, stop changing the subject. The facts are that Cheney instructed his staff to leak ALL SORTS OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION about Joe Wilson, not just Plame's name. Further, the fact that Plame's name-- AND ONLY PLAME'S NAME-- was leaked first by Armitage did not declassify it, and Cheney's staff, at his direction, continued to leak it over and over again in a campaign to smear Wilson.
That is what actually happened. Just because the right wing talking points say "Armitage Armitage Armitage" doesn't mean you have to spew them.
That isn't true. Congress can, if it wishes, legislate regarding a classification scheme, and the President is bound to laws relating to classification unless and until he declassifies.
Thus, if the President leaks information but does not declassify it, he violates the law.
Information doesn't become declassified merely by being leaked. Indeed, even publicly known, famous information can still be classified. For instance, the fact that we waterboarded prisoners is classified, and the governemnt is apparently taking action against a former CIA agent for giving a public interview about it, even though the waterboarding has been confirmed to the press via leaks numerous times over.
No frogmarching.
Humoungous disappointment.
Her IDENTITY was classified. One's identity consists of the facts necessary to know who a person is.
In other words, suppose I were a CIA agent with a cover. My name is Dilan Esper. I may use my real name in my dealings with the public-- indeed, if I did not, I would have a problem if people who knew me recognized me. However, the public won't know that I am a CIA agent. Instead, they will think that I am working for some other governmental agency, or some business.
Now, in that circumstance, my IDENTITY is classified. In other words, the name "Dilan Esper" is not classified. But the FACT that Dilan Esper works for the CIA is.
The fact that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA was classified. Disclosure of that fact by Armitage did not declassify it. Cheney and his subordinates decided to knowingly leak that classified information-- ALONG WITH OTHER CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AS WELL, such as information regarding Wilson's trip to Niger.
Whatever you say about such conduct, the idea that Cheney can be held up as someone who can be trusted with classified information is a classic demonstration that some conservatives really will say that black is white if it will help the cause.
Armitage outed a non-covert CIA employee by, apparently, accident. Bush couldn't be reached through Armitage, so the left had to be satisfied with various queries from media to the WH trying to confirm something or other and, in a matter of dueling memories, Libby lost in a trial about who said what to whom about a non-covert agent whose name was already out.
First of all, let's start with the big lie. Plame WAS covert. The CIA says it. Patrick Fitzgerald says it. Plame herself says it. Sources in the CIA confirmed it to the media. She had a non-official cover and also traveled on behalf of the CIA undercover several times during 2002 and 2003.
Second, it doesn't matter that it was "already out". Right now, the CIA is investigating the dissemination of information regarding waterboarding, despite that waterboarding is just about the most open secret the government has. Why? Because leaks don't declassify information.
Third, while Armitage leaked the information by accident, Cheney through his subordinates then leaked the information again DELIBERATELY to SIX different reporters, plus leaked OTHER related classified information.
Fourth, there was no "dueling memories". Judith Miller and Matt Cooper kept notes of her conversations with Libby; those contemporaneous notes contradicted Libby's perjured testimony. Their recollections on the witness stand were consistent. Tim Russert also had consistent recollections. Anyone who claims that Libby wasn't lying is either taking too much LSD, is a postmodernist who believes there is no objective truth, or will simply say anything to champion the conservative cause.
What ACTUALLY happened is Libby lied under oath figuring that the reporters would never be forced to testify. Then, having been caught, he got the President to commute his sentence. And note, even the President says he is guilty-- there was no pardon.
And if Libby got prosecuted for not recalling he'd said something about hearing it, too, shouldn't there be some evidence someplace that could help Fitz.
Who, btw, didn't bother to prosecute anybody for the outing.
All we needed to know about Wilson's trip to Niger was in the NYT op-ed written by Wilson.
And if you folks are as principled as you claim--obviously falsely--to be, you'd be roaring for Armitage's head. "Accident" my sweet Aunt Fanny. Might have been an accident, but would that cut any ice with you if that had been Libby's excuse?
There are people who know better than that Cheney et al outed a covert agent. You are among them. There are people who can be fooled about it. I'm not among them.
Kitchen = the business of publishing lies that are damaging to those with knowledge of the (classified) truth
Heat = Leaks of relevant and accurate classified information by those who were damaged by your lies
This doesn't justify the leaks, but if my understanding of the story is correct (ie, Wilson's editorial wasn't accurate), he's colossaly stupid and a bit of a whiner.
3 responses:
1. The CIA-- which ought to know-- says she is covert. The special prosecutor says she is covert. If you are going to wind conspiracy theories around, you need better evidence than simply the lack of a prosecution.
2. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act not only requires a covert agent but a knowing violation. Armitage, the first leaker, didn't knowingly violate the act. The prosecutor apparently decided that it would be difficult to go after the subsequent leakers given that Armitage leaked first.
3. One reason for the lack of other prosecutions was Scooter Libby's perjury. He concealed whatever knowledge he had about Cheney's involvement, among other people.
One reason why a prosecutor brings a perjury charge is because he thinks the perjurer prevented him from getting the big fish.
This doesn't justify the leaks, but if my understanding of the story is correct (ie, Wilson's editorial wasn't accurate), he's colossaly stupid and a bit of a whiner.
Wilson got the main thing RIGHT, not wrong, i.e., there was no purchase of uranium from Niger. And the bigger story was that the Administration put out a lot of BS intelligence to lie our way into Iraq.
Wilson's op-ed could be read to imply that he was sent by the Vice President's office. It isn't the ONLY reading, but it is one, and that was a relatively minor mistake if it was a mistake.
But I reject this idea that this has any connection, even in a can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen way, with going after Wilson's WIFE. Especially since she was working on WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ISSUES and therefore these guys proved they were willing to compromise a CIA agent working on very important matters to the security of this country in order to settle a political score with the agent's husband.
In any point, let's remember what the main point here is. Anyone who thinks Cheney is a responsible steward of classified information is crazy.
When was a purchase claimed?
And we all believe Armitage when he said it was an accident. I mean, public officials never lie. I can imagine how easily Libby's excuse of "accident" would have been accepted around here.
Mikey: The purchase was never claimed. What you're looking at is an attempt to slide a revision past you. They keep trying.
I believe, last I heard, the CIA hasn't provided evidence that Plame was covert in the IIPA sense. They were still working on it. Could be classified classifications. Some are calling for her pension records to be released, since, ex CIA types have said, her five years' foreign assignments would be there, along with dates.
In any event, the whole thing was dissected far more thoroughly and dispassionately and into far smaller bits at Just One Minute (crank up the "he's a Bushco hack" macro). Their conclusion, which arrives with no spittle attached, is that Libby probably fibbed but that it amounted to nothing but Fitz's attempt to get something for his/our money, as it had no effect. In addition, there are a number of reporters whose statements are suspicious. Not going to go over it all, but if you want to see something done right, look at McGuire.
In the state of the union address, our President falsely claimed that Iraq sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, which he attributed to British intelligence. Wilson had gone down and found out that wasn't true.
Libby had a pretty tiny fib to Fitz. All that money and expertise and, bupkus. After Libby got his lie outed, the lie was out there. The truth was out there. Fitz could have pursued it. If he hadn't had the truth, he couldn't have proved Libby lied when he said he forgot something. He had to know what Libby was supposed to have said. Why not use that?
If Libby had told the truth, it would have given Fitzgerald cause to depose Cheney under oath. By lying, Libby deliberately obstructed the investigation.
And as noted above, he clearly and deliberately lied. To believe otherwise, you have to believe that contemporaneous notes and the independent recollections of several reporters were all wrong.
I believe, last I heard, the CIA hasn't provided evidence that Plame was covert in the IIPA sense. They were still working on it. Could be classified classifications. Some are calling for her pension records to be released, since, ex CIA types have said, her five years' foreign assignments would be there, along with dates.
That's silly. There's no prosecution right now. When there was a prosecution, the CIA filed a certification with the Court under oath that she was covert. And the CIA has released records showing she traveled under cover to several different countries in 2002 and 2003.
Conservatives have NO evidence that she wasn't covert. This is an old right-wing game. When someone has movement conservatives dead to rights, they try to shift the burden of proof. If Plame were actually not covert, it would be really easy to establish. Just find someone without a clearance who knew that Plame was employed by the CIA. Conservatives have found no such person, because this isn't a real argument. It is just a BS talking point that they put out knowing that their followers will believe anything they say.
Their conclusion, which arrives with no spittle attached, is that Libby probably fibbed but that it amounted to nothing but Fitz's attempt to get something for his/our money, as it had no effect.
Lying to ensure the Vice President isn't implicated in the intentional compromise of important classified information for partisan political reasons is NOT a minor "fib".
Which did Wilson find out wasn't true--the seeking that was claimed, or the purchase that was not claimed?
It really seems like Wilson was trying to slip one by us--he made a big deal about not finding evidence of something that was never asserted in the first place.
It's possible for the mere fact of her employment at the CIA to be unclassified, but any connection between her and any covered identities she used would certainly be classified.