by D. Cupples | In an unprecedented move, the White House wisely chose to refrain from knee-jerk denying the unfolding story about the CIA's (perhaps illegal) destruction of video tapes containing the (perhaps illegal) interrogation of detainees. "I'm going to reserve judgment until I find out the full facts," said President Bush.
Meanwhile, anonymous Administration officials privy to classified information are steadily leaking statements to the media that give the impression that White House and CIA officials advised against the tapes' destruction -- thus, their hands were clean. The Washington Post reports:
"Bush's remarks came as sources disclosed that another government lawyer argued strongly against destroying the tapes. Scott Muller, who was appointed CIA general counsel in 2002, was the agency's top legal expert when White House officials were receiving initial briefings about the existence of the tapes, and he opposed their destruction until his departure in late 2004, two officials familiar with the discussions said yesterday.
"CIA Director Michael V. Hayden told lawmakers privately last week that three White House lawyers also urged the agency to be "cautious" about destroying the tapes, said sources familiar with the classified testimony. Another source said that a fourth White House lawyer, Bush's friend Harriet E. Miers, followed up with similar advice in 2005." (Washington Post)
That's right: multiple anonymous sources have told the press about private testimony (i.e., "classified"). Aren't there laws against leaking classified information (without permission from higher-ups)?
More importantly, if these sources have no trouble blowing off their duty to keep government secrets, how credible is the information they share with the press? The press, itself, should be questioning this -- instead of continuing to report stories based on anonymous leaks.
Ironically, the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate whether ex-CIA officer John Kirakou "illegally disclosed classified information in describing the capture and waterboarding" of a detainee.
The message to current and former Administration officials seems to be this: if you leak classified information that protects the Administration's image, you're okay. If not, we'll set the pit bulls loose -- and attach slivers of raw beef raw to your clothes.
Memeorandum has other bloggers' commentary: The Daily Dish and TIME
*BN-Politics used the photograph(s) in this post under a Creative Commons license that allows commercial use and sharing. Before copying the photo(s), follow the link to the owner's page and consult the licensing terms. Photo owners do NOT necessarily endorse views expressed in this post.
Related BN-Politics Posts:
* Torture House & Mass Graves Found: Who Owned them?
* White House Demands Headline Change but Doesn't Dispute Story
* Official: Some White House Staffers Wanted Torture Tapes Destroyed
* Judge Stands up to Administration re: Torture Tapes
* Mukasey's Bizarre Reason for Refusing to Share Info w/Congress
* Bush Demands Freedom to Torture, Retired Generals Disagree
* CIA Lawyers Authorized Destruction of Tapes? The Plot Thickens
* CIA Destroyed Evidence of Torture Sessions
Comments