Of course there is a double standard, one established by the law and hte COnstitution.

On the one hand, the President and certain other executive branch officials have the authority to classify and declassify certain information based upon its sensitivity. Information may, from time to time, be declassified and let out to the press in a variety of ways to give the American people a fuller picture of what is going on -- and to counter falsehoods put forth by those who would misrepresent the actions and policies of the government.

Then there are unauthorized, illegal leaks. Those almost invariably harm national security -- especially when done in a manner designed to harm the ability of the president to conduct legal policy initiatives or to undermine his legitimate authority.

So I found this piece in today's Washington Post, which published the seditious stories of Dana Priest based upon the illegal leaks of Mary McCarthy, to be particularly interesting.

Key Democratic legislators yesterday joined Republicans in saying they do not condone the alleged leaking of classified information that led to last week's firing of a veteran CIA officer. But they questioned whether a double standard exists that lets the White House give reporters secretly declassified information for political purposes.

"I don't know this woman, and I do not condone leaks of classified information," said Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, referring to the firing of Mary McCarthy.

Harman added that "while leaks are wrong, I think it is totally wrong for our president in secret to selectively declassify certain information and empower people in his White House to leak it to favored reporters so that they can discredit political enemies," she said on Fox News Sunday.

Harman was referring to White House staff members disclosing the classified identity of CIA case officer Valerie Plame in 2003.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) echoed Harman, saying, "A CIA agent has an obligation to uphold the law, and clearly leaking is against the law. And nobody should leak." But he added: "If you're leaking to tell the truth, Americans are going to look at that, at least mitigate or think about what are the consequences that you . . . put on that person."

Well, Rep. Harman, let's spell this one out. The President authorized the release of truthful information in order to counter false claims made by those political opponents. In the case of Joe Wilson, for example, the release of information proved him to be a liar many times over -- a position confirmed by multiple investigations. is it your contention that the President should allow false claims made for partisan political purposes to remain unchallenged and that he should thereby allow the American people to remain misinformed? If so, does this not do harm to the very fabric of the American system?

And Sen. Kerry, thank you for once again proving your unfitness for the office you sought in 2004 and plan to seek in 2008. You would clearly allow unauthorized leaking to run rampant if unelected governemnt employees differ with the policies of the elected leaders of the United States. In short, America would not be secure under a Kerry presidency.

And all this ignores the fact that recent investigations have shown Dana Priest's story on "secret prisons" to be false -- so there cannot even be a claim made that this was a case of "leaking to tell the truth."

I guess, when it comes down to it, we have a different double standard at work on the Democrat side of the aisle, one that really ignores questions of truth and legality -- anti-Bush leaks good, pro-Bush leaks bad.

Posted by: Greg at 10:46 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 624 words, total size 4 kb.