Yeah, you, Pete Yost. I know you guys in the Washington press corps are leak happy, but here's a free clue, for future stories of this nature: if the president authorizes it, it's not a "leak."

[Update a few minutes later]

Apparently the original version of this story claimed that the president authorized the "leak" of Valerie Plame's name (a little wishful thinking, huh, guys?). That one has been changed to this one, which is still wrong in its terminology of "leak." I'll keep a screenshot to see if it changes again.

does he have to declass-ify (your comment filter banned the correct spelling) it first? i dont actually know, but it seems like there must be a more official and formal way of leaking things. especially when the cia was actively trying to keep her status a secret.

He can declassify it on his own authority, and there's zero evidence that the CIA was trying to keep her identity a secret. If they were, they weren't trying very hard. Also, the article doesn't say that her identity was what the president authorized Libby to disclose. Keep grasping at those straws, though...

no, you misunderstand me. yes, the president obviously has the authority to declassify things, but my question was, is any secret the president (or whomever, assuming they have the authority to declassify things) says automatically declassified? it seems likely to me that it is not, and some sort of process is needed. and if the cia wasnt trying to keep her status secret, why'd they ask for the investigation?

As the executive his personal statements can serve the same purpose as an "executive order" which is really just a written form of an order. All orders and authorizations made by the President no matter the method of conveiance (spelling?) be it written, verbal or jumping up and down pointing to joe wilson while making a "breaking" motion with his hands is a lawful order, as long as it is within the authority of the president.

The only purpose for the written form is for clear acknowledgement of an order, with the intent of it being standing. If it is of immediate necessity semaphore would be just as lawful.

If CIA was "actively trying to keep her status a secret" they failed miserably, before the "leak". There were literally dozens of non-CIA, non-"need to know" people who knew what she did for a living.

such as?

Uh, you mean other than her very-not-CIA-employee neighbors and other casual acquaintances?

andrea mitchell.

I think it's worth paying attention to the rationale the president has cited again and again when he has condemned leaks. He has not argued that leaks are wrong because they're a technical violation of the law, but because releasing classified information for political or bureacratic gain hurts national security.

Now we see that the president himself releases classified (up to that minute) documents for his own political purposes. This story isn't getting attention because the president broke the law -- it's getting attention because it shows him to be an obvious hypocrite. He talks a big story on national security, but his own top priority is his political interest.

That's the environment he's created at the White House. If the president thought it was okay to de-classify previously secret national security documents and selectively release them to favored journalists in order to win a political battle, then it's no stretch to think that his aides might take similar shortcuts.

Okay then, Rockefeller, Durbin, Kerry, The Sainted Wilson himself, the judges of the FISC. The list is endless. If your problem is hypocrisy(spelling?) then it is hypocritical to focus on only one persons hypocricy.

The truth is that this is prolly the leakiest administration in a long time, if not ever, and it isn't a lack of discipline on their part, it is the willingness of the beurocratic subset to usurp the authority of the "arrogant" ELECTED administration.

But if you want to say it's wrong for bush to hate leaks, while he himself (the only person with absolute authority to release whatever info he wants) releases info to correct information contained within the original "leaks"(which is also called espionage) thats fine. So, that said, wheres your outrage about others? Others who have done DAMAGE to the nation, rather than protecting politcal and policy concerns of the established ELECTED government?

Oh, To Rand. I love having a dude who speaks the way you do about the space stuff you do, title a politcal post with "Yo, Idiot."

Gives me a giggle.

when i said "such as?" i suppose i was asking for sources, because i have heard this claim before(ie andrew napalitano's absurd claim that wilson went around introducing his wife as "my cia wife"), and i have seen it debunked before. her neighbors didnt know she worked for the cia, i dunno about andrea mitchell, but i strongly doubt it. why wouldnt these people be testifying in front of the grand jury?

wicked pinto- "(the only person [bush] with absolute authority to release whatever info he wants)"
actually, that used to be true, but now cheney has that authority too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13292). and also, what was the original "espionage" you're referring to? wilson's op-ed? the rest of your comment is too vague to really address.

"leaking" is actually espionage.

Just because the interests are not foreign doesn't mean it isn't espionage.

As for the hypocrisy question, I think thats rather clear.

Go ahead and feel that this is a "symptom" that "raises questions." Thats fine. I disagree completely, but it's fine for you to feel that way, that doesn't offend me. What does is that if those questions are answered it would require information to be declassed or "leaked." So . . . where does that leave the discussion? Too much politics in this whole thing, and it's the left playing it hardest, THAT pisses me off.

which leak are you referring to? and im not sure what you mean when you talk about questions and symptoms.

as to who's being more political here, i would like to remind you of the rough timeline: bush asserts saddam hussein is seeking yellow-cake uranium from niger, which he knew was highly questionable (people inside his administration got the speech changed to say "british intelligence has learned..." as a compromise), 6 months passes and joe wilson decides to point out that the president was willfully misleading, the administration takes offense and ruins the career of his wife and probably many others who worked with her (as well as harming whatever work on nuclear proliferation she was working on), a blatantly vindictive action, the cia protests and asks for an investigation, and the left says "the administration shouldnt be allowed to commit treason for political gain". the claim that the administration was merely "correcting misinformation" by leaking valerie wilson's status is bullshit. the claim in this regard that ive heard is that wilson claimed cheney sent him to niger, when what wilson said is that cheney's office made the original request to the cia (which is true), and even if conservatives were right in this regard, why did they need to bring valerie wilson into it? i dont see how you can get more political than destroying the career of the wife of an enemy for purely vindictive reasons.

which leak are you referring to? and im not sure what you mean when you talk about questions and symptoms. you have to read the whole thing and read/watch the coverage.

as to who's being more political here, i would like to remind you of the rough timeline: bush asserts saddam hussein is seeking yellow-cake uranium from niger,

False, He was seeking materials from Africa. Re-read your OBVIOUSLY not so INFAMOUS 16 words. It was Nuclear Materials from Africa, not "Yellow Cake from Niger"

which he knew was highly questionable (people inside his administration got the speech changed to say "british intelligence has learned..." as a compromise),

It was not a compromise, it was a co-validation SUPPORTED by Wilsons triple ninja methods of tea drinking and pudd jerking in Niger. You know the whole "two source" method the media lies about?

6 months passes and joe wilson decides to point out that the president was willfully misleading,

based on recent comments, Wilson was pissy because his superior knowledge wasn't being recognized by the MSM the way it should be, only Kristoff gave him credence, because kristoff knew that Wilsons wife wouldn't let her husband lie about National secrets.

the administration takes offense and ruins the career of his wife and probably many others who worked with her (as well as harming whatever work on nuclear proliferation she was working on), a blatantly vindictive action,

Actually she worked in WMD proliferation, which is largely Nuke, true, however. . .If you drive into langley, you are a langly proffessional, you aren't covert, You just proved the lie of the situation.

the cia protests and asks for an investigation,

To cover their own asses since the Administration was actually looking at more than one investigation at the time, the Beuracracy likely chose the most damaging investigation to the administration, and the administration went for it, like a bunch of suckers.

and the left says "the administration shouldnt be allowed to commit treason for political gain". the claim that the administration was merely "correcting misinformation" by leaking valerie wilson's status is bullshit.

NO! evidence, NONE! You say "I doubt if andrea mitchell knew" but she ADMITTED that she did. Valerie Plame (she never took her husbands name until the book contract was signed) was known by Mitchell by her own admission, and Plame is a NOONE anyways, Outing Plame, is like outing every 2881 in the MC, or every 0231, 0211 or whatever, they are important, but not irreplaceable.

the claim in this regard that ive heard is that wilson claimed cheney sent him to niger, when what wilson said is that cheney's office made the original request to the cia (which is true), and even if conservatives were right in this regard, why did they need to bring valerie wilson into it? i dont see how you can get more political than destroying the career of the wife of an enemy for purely vindictive reasons.

Okay, this is the ONLY part that has a degree of nuance. Wilson said "The vice presidents office" true, but he also said "the Vice president read his report" when Wilson never filed a report. Wilson was Married to the broad who sent him to Niger, and he himself tried to sell himself as a super secret ninja samurai warrior of truth while sipping tea, and when that didn't sell, he had to give name to the story, specificaly his own. Wilson, in effect FORCED the administration to respond in some way. And the ONLY facts we know about THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the declassifaction of 2 NIE documents that scooter with his press contacts was allowed to discuss.

Wilson? the ninja? leaked. Wilson the second? created a situation that allowed a leak thanks to her grandstanding husband (grounds for firing) Wilson the second ADMITTED on the SECOND FRIGGEN DATE that she was CIA, proving she isn't ninja in anyway but an incompetant blowhard who used "I'm CIA" as an aphrodesiac. Stupid bitch, and stupid F. The wilsons are incompetent and grandstanders. The Administration was correction a FALSE statement by Wilson the "author" that he proved all pre-war intelligence false.

I don't know, a DELIBERATE lie on the part of the Wilsons, or a CORRECTIVE truth on the part of the Administration?

The scales are weighing, I THINK! since ALL the weight sides with the friggen PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED friggen STATES of AMERICA!

THATS the argument.

you need to read wilson's "what i didn't find in africa" again (assuming youve read it at all). its a very cautious article, it merely raises questions, and he never says he "proved all pre-war intelligence false", he never goes beyond what he has knowledge of. also, within this article (which is what the outing of plame was supposed to refute, somehow) wilson never says cheney read a report he wrote, instead he says, "Though I did not file a written report..."
and within all that text you put down you never explain what wilson's "deliberate lie" was.

the reason i doubt andrea mitchell knew her status is that if she did, she would be testifying.

"It was not a compromise, it was a co-validation SUPPORTED by Wilsons triple ninja methods of tea drinking and pudd jerking in Niger."
this would be true if bush had said "US and British intelligence have learned...", but i dont think he does. he puts the responsibility for the untruth on the british, to make it slightly more defensible ("how was i to know the british were wrong?").

and, yes, plame was still covert. she was working at a desk, as you imply, but to qualify for that status you just need to have worked overseas covertly within the last five years, which she had (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/)

you've made it abundantly clear you dont like joe wilson. fine, im sure you have your reasons, i dont really care. its not a justification for the outing of a noc cia agent (which is treason). its blatant partisan vindictiveness.

The key issue is it shows how disingenous Bush and Cheney are.
They leak information to friendly reporters, then cite their leaks
to justify their policies. When questions are asked they deny
all knowledge of leaks and claim they are investigating.
This will hurt Bush's popularity numbers, and when those
numbers fall below 30, "Mary, bar the door"

It is not possible for Bush or Cheney to "leak" information. A leak is, by definition, an unauthorized disclosure. Nice try, though.

if its a not a leak, it almost is, seeing as it was only "declassified" for a couple people (judith miller and whomever else).

it was only "declassified" for a couple people (judith miller and whomever else).

Meaning essentially anyone, since they were free to publish it.