NY Times calls it 'a bad leak' while Post said 'good'

Ron Brynaert
Published: Saturday April 15, 2006

What the Washington Post editorial page called 'a good leak,' the New York Times calls 'bad,' RAW STORY has found.

"President Bush was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons," began the Post's editorial, "A Good Leak," last Sunday.

In contrast, Sunday's Times editorial, "A Bad Leak," begins with "President Bush says he declassified portions of the prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq because he "wanted people to see the truth" about Iraq's weapons programs and to understand why he kept accusing Saddam Hussein of stockpiling weapons that turned out not to exist."

"This would be a noble sentiment if it actually bore any relationship to Mr. Bush's actions in this case, or his overall record," continues the Times editorial.

Last week, the CBS Public Eye blog reported on the widespread "debunkage" of the Post editorial that went on in the blogosphere beginning shortly after it was published. Critics were upset that it almost completely conflicted with a front page Post article from the same day (A 'Concerted Effort' to Discredit Bush Critic).

"This morning, the Washington Post published an editorial — entitled “A Good Leak” — vigorously defending President Bush’s decision to authorize a leak of classified information as part of a political effort to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson," wrote Judd Legum at Think Progress. "Apparently, it isn’t a very strong case because, in order to make their point, the editors had to mangle the facts."

Among other things, liberal bloggers and media critics criticized the Post for claiming that "[a]fter more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson’s charge," when an April 5 filing (pdf link) by leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzerald noted that "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to “punish” Wilson."

According to Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell's column in tomorrow's Post, "The lead editorial and a front-page story last Sunday on the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby leak case left many Post readers confused."

But Howell revealed that the editorial last Sunday had been written two days prior to the front page article.

Even so, "Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt said it is unlikely that the story would have influenced the editorial," wrote Howell (Jane Hamsher at the firedoglake blog rips into Howell for being "staggeringly dishonest" in her latest column).

The Times editorial set for Sunday refers to another Washington Post article which was published on Wednesday to make its case that it was indeed "a bad leak." Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War by the Post's Jody Warrick revealed that President Bush declared that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq two days after intelligent officials were informed in a field report via a "secret fact-finding mission" that it wasn't true.

"About a month before, Mr. Bush rushed to announce that American forces had found evidence of a biological weapons program in Iraq — trailers that could have been used to make doomsday devices," the Times editorial states. "We now know, from a report in The Washington Post, that a Pentagon team actually on the ground in Iraq inspecting the trailers had concluded two days earlier that they were nothing of the kind."

Since the Times directly cited the Post in its editorial many readers (and especially liberal bloggers and media critics) are likely to assume that its title was deliberate.

"The Times editorial board tells the Post editorial board to kiss its ass," sums up blogger Atrios at Eschaton.

Further excerpts from the Times Sunday editorial:

#

Mr. Bush did not declassify the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq — in any accepted sense of that word — when he authorized I. Lewis Libby Jr., through Vice President Dick Cheney, to talk about it with reporters. He permitted a leak of cherry-picked portions of the report. The declassification came later.

And this president has never shown the slightest interest in disclosure, except when it suits his political purposes. He has run one of the most secretive administrations in American history, consistently withholding information and vital documents not just from the public, but also from Congress. Just the other day, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the House Judiciary Committee that the names of the lawyers who reviewed Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program were a state secret.

Obviously, we do not object to government officials talking to reporters about important matters that their bosses do not want discussed. It would be impossible to cover any administration, especially one so secretive as this, unless that happened. (Judith Miller, who then worked for The Times, was one of the reporters Mr. Libby chose for this leak, although she never wrote about it.) But the version of the facts that Mr. Libby was authorized to divulge was so distorted that it seems more like disinformation than any sincere attempt to inform the public.

....

This messy episode leaves more questions than answers, so it is imperative that two things happen soon. First, the federal prosecutor in the Libby case should release the transcripts of what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney said when he questioned them. And the Senate Intelligence Committee must report publicly on how Mr. Bush and his team used the flawed intelligence on Iraq. Senator Pat Roberts, the committee chairman, says the panel will meet this month to discuss three of the report's five sections. That's a step. And it has taken only two years to get this far.

#

FULL NYT EDITORIAL CAN BE READ AT THIS LINK

(The contrast between the two papers' editorials was noticed by a diarist at Daily Kos)