What's in a leak?

Is it still a leak if the president does the leaking? This seems to be the question many are asking in light of recent testimony from I. Lewis Libby, in which he indicated that President Bush declassified information to give to a New York Times reporter. Libby, in case you don't recall, used to be the vice president's chief of staff before the FBI arrested him on charges of perjury. Libby states that Bush declassified part of a classified report in July 2003 that described Saddam Hussein's alleged connections to al-Qaida in order to bolster his case for war.\nAs a result, many have cried foul, labeling Bush's leak in contradiction with his normally tough stance against leakers. On Oct. 9, 2001, Bush declared that "(w)e can't have leaks of classified information." About the motivations of those dirty, self-serving leakers, Bush guessed that leakers did what they did "either to make you feel good, and/or to make themselves feel good." And of course, Bush has used the same number as many presidents before him: "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information."\nDespite his tough talk against leakers, Bush has remained unsurprisingly silent about the latest revelations. His administration has \nsuggested that it wasn't really a leak, since the president declassified it before giving it out. And despite all the rumbling from the rabble, most have correctly avoided describing Bush's actions as illegal. \nHis leak was fully legal, and he believed it to be in the best interest of this country. After all, the president can decide what's classified and what isn't, so it makes sense that he can leak whatever he feels like. There have been leaks as long as there have been secrets, and leaks are a tool that administrations need to release sensitive information without formally holding a press conference. \nThink about it: Let's say a friend of yours has confided in you a terrible secret that he feels suicidal. Fearing for his safety, but not wishing to break his trust, you anonymously inform someone who can directly help him. Most people would probably support that leak. \nMy concern with Bush's action, however, has nothing to do with whether the leak was positive or legal. It has everything to do with his style of governing. When someone else leaks information, in the name of national security or anything else, they are self-promoters, incompetents or traitors. When the president does it, the administration doesn't even call it a leak. Rather than acknowledging any sort of benefit from leaks, the Bush approach is simply to deny that it was a leak at all.\nBush has made this disturbing mentality a common problem in his administration's activity. To make sure that we don't torture, let's redefine what torture means. To make sure that Iraq's not having a civil war, let's not call it a civil war. To make sure that we never leak, let's just say it wasn't a leak. \nSplitting hairs with the language demonstrates a lazy dishonesty about the facts at hand. Weren't Republicans crying foul when Slick Willy Clinton tried to redefine the word "is"? If it was a leak, call it a leak. A leak might be justifiable, but sacrificing honesty for the sake of saving face is not. The president's tough talk has come back to bite him, and it should cost him dearly.