It's a festival of leaks

A few lefty blogs are getting their shorts in a bunch about another leak-based story breaking in the National Journal. Reporter Murray Waas is forwarding details from leaked testimony of Bush's 2004 appearance in front of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald in the Plame leak case:

President Bush told the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case that he directed Vice President Dick Cheney to personally lead an effort to counter allegations made by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV that his administration had misrepresented intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq, according to people familiar with the president's statement.

Of course Waas' sources are secret, but unless it was a strategic leak by the administration for some reason, common sense says it came from Fitzgerald's staff. The circle of knowledge can't be that large.

As to the story itself, it doesn't live up to the sensational headlines. Sure, Bush had probably directed Cheney to "get it out" that a lying democrat operative with ties to the Kerry campaign was attempting to run a backdoor political hit job on them. It's hardly criminal to defend against tomfoolery of that sort. The criminal liability would arrive from ordering someone to reveal Plame's status, and according to Waas that didn't happen. In other words, there is no story here.

As to leaking, I'm not totally against it. Sometimes people feel they're doing their patriotic duty, even if misguided. But I get the feeling much of the recent leaking falls more into the category of political opportunism, score-settling, and feather-nesting, not only by the leakers but by editors/publishers receiving the info. That doesn't mix well with national security.