Did the Leaker-in-Chief Lie to Fitzgerald?

by georgia10
Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:16:03 AM PDT

On June 24, 2004, President George W. Bush was interviewed by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. For 70 minutes, Fitzgerald asked the President about the circumstances surrounding the leak of classified information.

What transpired during those 70 minutes, we don't know. But I presume that "did you leak the identity of Valerie Plame" wasn't the only question Fitzgerald asked of the President. Rather, for 70 minutes, the President was likely questioned about many facets of the scandal, including the NIE. Was he questioned about whether he authorized selective leaks? Was he questioned about whether he authorized leaks of the highly sensitive NIE? Given Fitzgerald's reputation for meticulous questioning, and given the length of the interview, whether the President authorized such disclosures was likely covered.

Even though the President was not under oath during those 70 minutes, he sill had an obligation not to make false statements. All of this, of course, presupposes that Libby is telling the truth when he claims Cheney said Bush authorized the leaks. But the latest revelation, coupled with the President's brazen insistence in public that leaks of classified information are anathema to his national security philosophy, makes such a question a legitimate one: what did the President represent to Fitzgerald, and is that consistent with the truth?

Whatever the answer, the legal fallout from this will, I anticipate, be minimal. The political fallout, on the other hand, looks to be astounding. As Firedoglake points out, the glaring question is "why"? Americans do not like the idea of leaking national security information to the press, (even if, as TPM points out, the administration doesn't consider it "leaking" if the President does it). And to authorize leaking that info to settle a vendetta? Well, such use of executive power smacks of a Nixonian breach of the public trust.

Americans deserve to know what the President did and why he did it. Any delay in an explanation only reinforces the belief that this Leaker-in-Chief is hiding from the American the full breadth of his mischievous acts.