Leaker-In-Chief

Yesterday Jane Harman (the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said exactly what needs to be said:

"If the disclosure is true, it's breathtaking. The President is revealed as the Leaker-in-Chief.

"Leaking classified information to the press when you want to get your side out or silence your critics is not appropriate.

"The reason we classify things is to protect our sources - those who risk their lives to give us secrets. Who knows how many sources were burned by giving Libby this 'license to leak'?

"If I had leaked the information, I'd be in jail. Why should the President be above the law?

"The President has the legal authority to declassify information, but there are normal channels for doing so. Telling an aide to leak classified information to the New York Times is not a normal channel. A normal declassification procedure would involve going back to the originating agency, such as the CIA, and then putting out a public, declassified version of the document.

"I am stunned that the President won't tell the full the Intelligence Committee about the NSA program because he's allegedly concerned about leaks, when it turns out that he is the Leaker-in-Chief."

The Right is trying to backtrack on this; make distinctions between good leaks and bad leaks; mention that the 2002 NIE was eventually declassified, so what's the big deal; claim executive privilege to declassify (when that's hardly the point); decide that as long as the leak was designed to discredit Joe Wilson, the ends justify the means; and so on. Greg Sargent does a tidy job of knocking down these rationalizations. But it's not even necessary to do so. If Libby is to be believed (and I offer that as a major IF, considering the guy's been indicted for lying to a grand jury), the President made a judgment that it's bad to leak classified information that makes his Presidency look bad, but perfectly fine to do so if it makes his Presidency look good. So the question is less one of legality than one of judgment, and those on the Right acting like rubes, confounded as to why this is a big story, are being intentionally obtuse. Plus, the White House is not denying the Fitzgerald court filing, and they're not challenging Libby's statement. Until they do, I'll have to assume it's true.

I find this to be historically bad judgment, and very demoralizing to efforts in the war on terror, actually. Let's not forget that Valerie Plame was investigating efforts by Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. The attendant leak and disclosure of the front company Brewster Jennings eliminated a major source of intelligence on Iran. This is the country we're planning on invading next, and having intelligence should that dastardly scenario come to pass is crucial.

We need a full investigation on this from a Congress that doesn't exist right now: one that actually commits oversight.