My differences with the Akron Beacon Journal


From the April 13 editorial entitiled "Leaking from the Top"
Joseph Wilson proved an annoying presence to the Bush White House as the year 2003 unfolded. The former American diplomat had traveled to Niger a year earlier to assess allegations that Iraq had sought to buy uranium there. The Bush team had been pushing that version of events as part of its drumbeat for war. Wilson disagreed, calling the transaction 'highly doubtful' saying so publicly on the op-ed page of the NY Times.
No surprise that the White House would attempt to counter Wilson, even challenge his credibility by releasing classified information to reporters. That has long been the practice in Washington, often adding to the quality of the debate. Republicans and Democrats have operated in this way. Of course, part of the routine involves decrying such leaks, the president recently described as a 'a shameful act' the leaking of information about unauthorized domestic surveillance by the NSA.
The embarrassment is having your hypocrisy so plainly on view, especially with your approval rating hovering int eh troubling 30's. On Monday, the president explained to an audience that sharing the intelligence information 'was important for people to get a better sense for why I was saying what I was saying in my speeeches' about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. The White House did declassify an earlier National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in July 2003. Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor looking into the controversy, filed court papers last week asserting that the White House wasn't so benign in its purpose> He pointed to 'a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr Wilson.'
His source? Lewis Libby, the former chief of staff of Vice President Cheney, already indicted on perjury and obstruction charges in the case. Fitzgerald says Libby told the grand jury that the president approved Cheney's request that classified information be shared with the media> The Fitzgerald account adds that Libby let the word slip, telling two reporters, among other things, that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA (in a covert capacity).
In all this lurks the misguided criminalization of political acts. Still, imagine the Republican firestorm if Bill Clinton and friends had taken steps that resulted in the outing of an intelligence operative.
Evident, too, is the Bush practice of selectively deploying intelligence information. The White House paid attention to what it wanted to hear. It hyped the aluminum tubes. It oversold the shopping trip to Niger. On Wednesday, the Washington Post recounted the muddy intelligence concerning mobile 'biological laboratories' the president and others touted. This is old news, to a degree. it is also relevant today, a reminder about a rush to war and the lack of care in doing so. Saddam Hussein has been toppled. Yet disorder, division and violence afflict Iraq, and more than 2300 Americans have died.


My letter, surprisingly, printed in the April 25th edition.

All wet about the leak ( their title)

In your April 13 editorial headlined 'Leaking from the top', you wrote about Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation: 'In all this lurks the misguided criminalization of political acts.' Oops, your Fox News slip is showing.
So when the CIA petitioned the Justice Department to open an investigation into one of its own being outed, was that a political act? Was the CIA out to get the president? Was Justice also involved in 'misguided criminalization' by opening an investigation? And when was it, exactly, that perjury and obstruction became political acts?
It isn't 2003 any longer. Solid information has emerged over the past three years: that there were no WMD in Iraq, no uranium purchases, no aluminum tubes for nukes, no mobile labs, no connection with 9-11 or al-Qaeda.
A rush to war is not it, either. It was a fabrication for war, a pretense for war, and Wilson correctly pointed this out. The threat of this no-name ex-ambassador, understood clearly by Karl Rove, was that if voters came to realize the White House duplicity about Iraq before the 2004 election, Bush would be in trouble. Wilson had the duplicity goods. It was a coverup of lies and twisted information. Why else would the White House have retracted the 16 words from the State of the Union about uranium from Africa?
What you call muddy intelligence was muddied. It was cherry picked. Wilson pointed that out, and the White House went after him. This is all clear now to anyone who wants to know the truth. You say this is old news, but the Beacon Journal surely hasn't explained these facts in their proper narrative.
You quote Bush's words about his 2003 selective declassification but fail to raise the question: Why didn't he do this in a press conference? Wouldn't that have been the most effective, efficient and transparent way 'for people to get a better sense'instead of secretly, through Libby and others, and only then to a few reporters? No, the president is not being truthful about this either. He wanted Wilson quieted and his credibility smeared; most of all, he wanted other CIA personnel afraid to speak up. It was a 'shock and awe' moment.
You also fail to include Bush's comments made previously about wanting to find out who the leakers were so they could be dealt with in all this. Of course he already knew these answers, didn't he? No, instead, your editorial is saying to me the same thing that Fox News is saying: Nothing to see here, move along. It's just 'the misguided criminalization of political acts.' Everybody has done and will continue to do this stuff. No big deal.
Almost 2400 of our best are dead because of these political acts. By God, that's a big deal-and it sure as hell is a criminal act.