Thought Theater

Bad Math & Leaks genre: Polispeak & Six Degrees of Speculation

Now that it is clear that the White House released (leaked?) information (classified?) to refute the claims of Ambassador Joe Wilson in the run up to the Iraq war, the President's usual apologists are rushing to provide the plausible explanation of the events. The Washington Post's Sunday editorial calls the Presidents actions "A Good Leak". The Post is not alone in attempting to parse words. Bill Kristol accuses Prosecutor Fitzgerald today of buying into the definition of "leak" that is preferred by the Presidents detractors. Think Progress has the video of Kristol here.

It's hard to imagine that the WaPo & Kristol actually think the public will accept these arguments. In his appearance, Kristol made the following remark:

“He (Fitzgerald) has bought the argument that there is something improper about the Bush administration responding to Joe Wilson’s charges."

Excuse me, but secretly leaking information cannot be equated with “responding". The explanation of the actions (leaking) after the fact cannot disguise the intentions of the actions (manipulation) at the moment that they occurred. Had the President wanted to respond in order to properly inform the American public about the classified information, then logically, why wouldn't he have simply done so directly? If the President feels the American public should hear important classified information, he can simply release the information in any number of straightforward ways through a press release from the White House or explained in a speech or through a news conference. Frankly, "a good leak" need not be a leak at all. Trying to explain why it was a leak is the task at hand.

Unfortunately, that can't be done logically because, at the time the leak occurred, the leaked information needed to be selective. Had they actually acknowledged the “declassification" openly at the time that they now assert it was declassified by the President, then the documents would have become immediately accessible to the press and the public. If that were to happen at the point in time when the issue was receiving scrutiny in the media, it may have minimized the intended smear of Wilson's assertions. The media would have reviewed the entire document and found information that would have conflicted with the administrations assessment and potentially given some added credibility to Wilson's assertions and accusations.

I would argue that the subsequent release of the document (I believe roughly ten days later) was also strategic. It gave the administration enough time to smear Wilson knowing full well that the flurry of media attention before the actual release of the document would provide the players a necessary window of opportunity to sufficiently cast doubt on Wilson's assertions. In retrospect, the plan to smear Wilson was quite effective given that no significant traction would be gained by those who, at the time, doubted much of the intelligence being provided and the necessity to invade Iraq.

Further, I might speculate that the repercussions of the release of Valerie Plames name may have been a poorly vetted or overlooked detail that resulted in an unintended consequence. Unfortunately for the administration, her exposure and the subsequent attempt to cover it up and reconstruct the events has led to an abundance of doubt as to the intended actions of the President and his operatives. The full degree of damage to this President, who has billed himself as a straight shooter, is yet to be determined.