The New York Times wins the battle of describing the leak. The Washington Post displayed their turn to the right in a recent editorial entitled A Good Leak. They argued that the Bush administration’s declassification of material on Iraq represented a good leak as it made his position clear. Needless to say, this was met by considerable criticism.
The New York Times explains why this was A Bad Leak, noting that rather than releasing meaningful information, “He permitted a leak of cherry-picked portions of the report.” They refute the Washington Posts arguments by noting, “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.”
They complain that “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 fits the pattern of Mr. Bush’s original sales pitch on the Iraq war — hyping the intelligence that bolstered his case and suppressing the intelligence that undercut it.”