In a hearing held by Senate and House Democrats examining the implications of exposing Valerie Plame's identity, the former intelligence officers said Bush's silence has hampered efforts to recruit informants to help the United States fight the war on terror. Federal law forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer.
"I wouldn't be here this morning if President Bush had done the one thing required of him as commander in chief _ protect and defend the Constitution," said Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst. "The minute that Valerie Plame's identity was outed, he should have delivered a strict and strong message to his employees."
The Constitution? I thought this debate involved the meaning of a 1982 law so ambiguously worded that in all the time it's existed, there's been only one successful prosecution.
As to the Constitution, while I don't know it verbatim, I think I can pretty confidently state that there's nothing in it about presidential duties towards employees who've been "outed" (regardless of what they've been outed for). Nor is there anything in there about the CIA, secrecy in government, how to handle confidentiality, how to deal with leaks.
Which isn't to say that I'm pleased with the Bush record on protecting and defending the Constitution. On that account, by signing the horrendous McCain-Feingold act (an act which will live in infamy) the president violated his oath of office, as did the members of Congress who voted for it.
But the outing of employees -- no matter who does it or under what circumstances -- was simply not on the mind of the framers. How can this ex-CIA employee sit there with a straight face and maintain otherwise? As to what should be done about this, I'm wondering whether maybe the federal government should consider requiring CIA analysts to take an elementary course in civics. Should we go so far as making them read the Constitution itself? Or is that asking too much?
But despite Mr. Johnson's apparent ignorance, in the interest of fairness I think it's worth looking at the merits of his demand that "the minute that Valerie Plame's identity was outed, [President Bush] should have delivered a strict and strong message to his employees."
This "strict and strong message" standard on outings might not be in the Constitution, but how did Bush measure up to it at the time of the outing?
Via the Reynolds and Maguire Wayback Machine, it is now possible to return in time to what Bush actually said in September of 2003 (with this quote from the New York Times):
White House statements on this issue, dating back over the two years of the Wilson case, have varied. On Sept. 30, 2003, Mr. Bush used language akin of what he said on Monday. "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," he said then. "And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
At other moments, though, Mr. Bush's language has been less precise. In Sea Island, Ga. in June 2004, Mr. Bush was asked whether he would fire anyone who was involved in leaking Ms. Wilson's name - which might or might not violate the law, depending on the circumstances. Without hesitation, Mr. Bush said yes.
If you don't think "taken care of" has an ominous enough ring to it, here's a contemporaneous CBS report:
"I don't know of anyone in my administration who has leaked," Mr. Bush told reporters in Chicago. But, he added, "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing."
The president added, "There's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. We've had leaks from the executive branch and leaks from the legislative branch. I want to know who the leakers are."
I don't know whether Bush's 2003 words are to be considered enough of a "strict and strong message" by ex-CIA agents, but what standard they proposing? There's an ongoing investigation, and whether the complicated 1982 law was in fact violated remains to be determined. What would these disgruntled ex-CIA employees have Bush do? Appoint a new team of plumbers to ferret out the leakers? That's exactly what happened when Richard Nixon went ballistic over leaks within his administration. (Nothing in the Constitution about plumbers, either....)
With analysts like Johnson, no wonder there are problems with the CIA. I'm wondering whether Mark Steyn might be onto the real issue:
"But in the real world there's only one scandal in this whole wretched business -- that the CIA, as part of its institutional obstruction of the administration, set up a pathetic 'fact-finding mission' that would be considered a joke by any serious intelligence agency and compounded it by sending, at the behest of his wife, a shrill politically motivated poseur who, for the sake of 15 minutes' celebrity on the cable gabfest circuit, misled the nation about what he found. . . . What we have here is, in effect, the old standby plot of lame Hollywood conspiracy thrillers: rogue elements within the CIA attempting to destabilize the elected government."
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
