And here’s what I asked: What part of dishonest, convoluted, and secretive (as I characterized them above) don’t you understand? A follow-up question would be: Do you think acting in a dishonest, convoluted, and secretive manner is ethical?
I’m not sure what you mean by “really about”. The perjury and obstruction charges resulted from the investigation of the Plame leak, yes. They certainly don’ make Libby look good, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that because he lied to the FBI that he was the leaker.
That’s certainly a possibility, and maybe even a good possibility. But you’re still making assumptions about the whole process when you really don’t know exactly what happened. And frankly, I expect someone like Libby to know what the rules are. He isn’t some teenage kid working as an intern-- he’s got a friggin’ law degree (from Columbia!), for God’s sake, and has been working in (or closely with) government for 25 years.
John:
Not “the,” necessarily, but surely “a”?
No, not “surely”. If it were “surely”, then “surely” he’d be charged with that crime.
And I should have said just because he allegedly lied to the FBI, since that hasn’t been proven yet.
I’m only guessing, but surely a likely possibility is that he leaked the information, but, given this administration’s penchant for declassifications on the fly, it couldn’t be proven that it was classified information.
Yep, and I already said that.
Unless our disagreement turns on the definition of the word “leak” is, then this is incorrect. Read the indictment and see the allegedly false statements for which he is specifically being charged.
Keep your insults to yourself. If it’s so obvious, describe the causal relationship between what was declassified and what you’re suggesting. The causal relationship, not the speculation that it’s possible. You won’t because you can’t.
I’ll try one more time. What unethical purpose was served by Bush acting in a “dishonest, convoluted and secretive manner”? Or is this one of those rare unethical activities that doesn’t actually have any bad effect?
The purpose was to take us to war with cherry picked intelligence, and the leaks were done to make the press run stories that facilitated the war in Iraq for starters.
In the Pit? Yup, definitely drugs.
Well gosh, you win. The only ones with the facts to maybe reconstruct the exact chain of events are in the administration, and they’ve been too busy obstructing Fitzgerald’s investigation to get it done.
Yes, gosh, I do win. I called you on your bullshit, and you had no answer. Hey, while you’re at it, why don’t you speculate that during the meeting where Libby shared the declassified information, he and the reporter conducted a Satanic ritual? I say they killed a baby, roasted him, and ate it. And the reason we can be pretty sure this happened is because nobody’s saying anything about it, the bastards.
You’ve got no proof that the leaks and Plame’s outing are unrelated, yet you’ve sure as hell’ve been trying to downplay any possibility of a connection.
How about you start to take an honest approach to this mystery, or at least wait until the investigation is complete before washing Bush and friends in the blood of Christ? Partisan wankery aside, It’d be to the benefit of the country to get to the bottom of this.
Really, since I don’t think I can be more clear, I’ll just quote what I posted previously:
You seem to be holding a Machiavellian position, in which the means to an end are inconsequential, and furthermore insisting on treating this incident as an isolated case. I cannot understand either viewpoint. If you want to examine the “bad effects” of policy, others have analyzed it better than I.
Oh, and John Mace, for closure’s sake: Would you agree that if filing a formal, publically available document that indicated specific information was declassified was required (in this case, the NIE), then Bush et al acted unethically? Possibly illegally?
Fitzgerald discusses the Plame outing situation on or about Sept. 29, 2003:
Read the rest here (pdf, Fitzgerald filing)
Is there anyone still obtuse enough to claim there’s no possibility of a connection between the leaks and the outing?
Of course there is. 
The unethical purpose was using Miller to propagate dubious findings to the public.
Did I get it right?
This is rich. I’m intellectually dishonest unless I disprove a negative. I’m dishonest because I don’t assume something currently unsupported by any evidence. This torture of logic is bad even for you.
You, who eagerly accept a causal relationship based on the fact that some “bad” things occurred after the declassification, are a shining beacon of honest intellectual debate, and not at all guilty of partisan wankery. Now I see. Thanks for clearing this up.
No, you didn’t. The question is why the alleged communication of declassified information to Miller was an unethical act by virtue of that selective means of communication. Even if one accepts your point as a given, that means that the Miller communication is the same as the broader declassification 10 days later–meaning, there’s no real specific and unique aspect of the exchange with Miller that makes it unethical, which is what was advanced and questioned in this thread.
There is, apparently, someone obtuse enough to think that the “possibility” of a connection means that we ought to all accept the existence of a causal link between two acts. Speaking of obtuse, did you read the first sentence of the cite you provided?
No, let me explain. I assert, based on current evidence, that the exchange with Miller served the same purpose that the broader communication served 10 days later. As a means of conveying that message, it is not inherently unethical unless it was intended to serve some unethical purpose. Hence my question. What immoral purpose did the White House hope this exchange would serve? I’m not at all arguing that any means is acceptable if good ends occur. I’m saying that means can’t be deemed unethical unless the architect of those means intentionally permitted some unethical purpose to be served through those means. So, what unethical purpose was served? What bad thing occurred? Was there anything particularly partisan about this exchange that did not exist 10 days later, something that makes the Miller exchange wrong, a wrong one could attribute to Bush? What?