He Lies

by digby

What does it mean? Ask Mr CW:

SCHNEIDER: I think is it very damaging for the president to be seen here to have come out after his political enemies by authorizing — no crime — by authorizing the leak of classified information from the National Intelligence Estimate.

Again, we don’t know what classified information that was, it’s only described in the special prosecutor’s report as certain information, key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate, relevant portions that were aimed at discrediting the published views of Ambassador Wilson, who criticized the administration’s intelligence-gathering efforts.

He was out to get his political enemy, to discredit Joe Wilson. And he did it by authorizing intelligence information to be leaked. I think most Americans would say that’s a very dangerous and very foolish thing to do.

WHITFIELD: So, the old issue of legality was a topic of conversation, or at least exchange, on Capitol Hill with U.S. Attorney General Gonzales and New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler.

Let’s listen in to what they had to say.

SCHNEIDER: OK.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D), NEW YORK: So he could do it for political reasons and that would be — and no one can second-guess that if he wanted to?

ALBERTO GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: This president could make the decision to declassify information based upon national security reasons. NADLER: He could do it for political reasons if he wanted to and no one could second guess that because he’s the commander in chief, right?

GONZALES: The president is going to make the determination as to what’s in the best interest of the country.

NADLER: Yes, he might, but he could — I’m asking you a theoretical question about the authority of the president, not necessarily this president. A president could declassify something for political reasons and no one has the authority to second-guess him because he’s the commander in chief, that’s what you’re saying?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: So, Bill, if the president’s approval ratings were in the toilet before, now you can almost expect that they’re going to drop even some more. And what does a president do? I mean, is he essentially a lame-duck president?

SCHNEIDER: Well, look, his approval ratings have dropped for any number of reasons. I think where this does him damage is, on the one issue, the one characteristic that has always been his strong suit, Americans have for the most part considered Bush to be honest and trustworthy. That is really the thing that got him elected, at least by the electoral college, in the year 2000.

In January 2001, when he first took office, 64 percent of Americans thought he was honest and trustworthy. President Clinton’s ratings was down in the 20s. That contrast was very important for President Bush. But now, questions — or serious questions are being raised, is he really honest and trustworthy? Does he level with the American people?

You just heard the congressman say he was leaking political — sensitive intelligence information apparently for political reasons, political reasons, not national security reasons. And that, I think, is going to be very difficult to explain.

Yes it is. This is not an honest administration and the idea of trusting that they are limiting their illegal national security activity only to “terrorists” is ludicrous, whether it’s the NSA spying, Guantanamo, war profiteering or anything else. They lied about the evidence for the Iraq war, for crying out loud (although as this excellent article examines, the press is still unwilling to properly connect the dots.)

President Bush may be the most dishonest president in history, as I believe — or he may be no more dishonest than most presidents, as others believe. But I think we can all agree that the country should not have to depend upon the president’s reputation for personal honesty as to whether they are allowed to break the law.

The NSA wiretapping scandal turns on exactly this issue. Everyone agrees that the government should be able to wiretap terrorists and terrorist sympathizers in the US. But we should not accept that the president or the people who report to him can make the determination as to who those people are without any oversight. There is a long history of other presidents using their power for political purposes and this one is no exception.

George W. Bush cannot be given a free pass on this. If the Democrats win the congress in the fall, we must insist that they ignore the pundits like that brownnosing GOP sycophant Chris Matthews and call these people to account for their actions. The GOP has been pushing this vision of the all-powerful executive for decades, from watergate to Iran Contra to this, and the Democrats have failed to put the stake into its heart. They have to put a stop to it once and for all.

.