In a story headlined  "CIA: We said back in 1974 that Israel had nuclear weapons," the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on a 1974 Special National Intelligence Assesment, "Prospects for further proliferation of nuclear weapons," declassified in the week of Pres. Bush's trip to the Middle East, and barely one month after the public mention of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear programs.

Before getting to the contents of the SNIE below, it is important to understand the significance of this document.  A National Intelligence Estimate, or a Special NIE, represents the collective views not merely of the CIA, but of the entire intelligence community.  It is the executive branch's "party line" on the intelligence question being discussed, and it often (but not always, as we all now know) is the product of considerable discussion and debate.

After an unnecessary invasion of Mesopotamia had been ginned up through the most frank and shameless manipulation of foreign intelligence, the American public was more than a little ready for greater transparency in US intelligence agencies.

When nominated to head the CIA, Michael Hayden promised a new era of openness at the Agency, a promise he's maintained in public appearances, and one he occasionally delivered on. A new era of transparency is dawning, you might say.

So what is the news this week in glasnost?

Ahhh, it was a good week indeed. We learned from Mr. Secrecy himself, Dick Cheney, that the spirit of glasnost has seeped all the way to the top of the administration. A heart-felt yearning for transparency, it turns out, and nothing else, accounts for the publication of the Key Judgments of the Iranian NIE.

Cheney said the assessment was released because “there was a general belief that we all shared that it was important to put it out...

Cheney said that “especially in light of what happened with respect to Iraq and the NIE on weapons of destruction,” officials wanted to be “upfront with what we knew.” He said he agreed that was “the right call.”

But come to think of it, there was just one other reason for publishing the document:

...“there was a general belief that we all shared that it was important to put it out — that it was not likely to stay classified for long, anyway,” he said...

So you though[t] it might leak? “Everything leaks,” he said with a chuckle.

Hence the noble spirit of glasnost does have another, more cynical face. But fortunately for democratic society, since "everything leaks," by that logic everything that is controversial will have to be published. That makes it a very good week indeed for glasnost.

Steven Aftergood, however, kill-joy that he is, has some bad news about the march of progress.

The CIA has decided that it's too much work to keep declassifying documents at the current pace, and the Agency doesn't intend to allow other federal agencies to step in and help expedite things either.

The Central Intelligence Agency anticipates declining productivity in its declassification program, according to a newly disclosed declassification plan (pdf)...

In a previously unreported step that further limits disclosure, the CIA has devised a new loophole in the automatic declassification requirements of the executive order on classification policy.

In CIA's reading, a 25 year old document is not considered "historically valuable," and therefore subject to automatic declassification, unless and until it is no longer in use. But if the document is still in active use, the CIA says, it does not qualify as historically valuable for purposes of declassification no matter how historically significant it may be.

Well, that opens the way to a multitude of abuses, doesn't it?

But even a kill-joy like Steve couldn't find anything to complain about in the release of four new CIA histories of US clandestine services. These cover operations in Korea, Cuba, and Berlin as well as "The Evolution of Ground Paramilitary Activities" in the early 1950s.

Or to be more precise, Aftergood welcomed their release until, with a single day's research, he found conclusive evidence that the CIA Bungled the Declassification of Official Histories.

When the Central Intelligence Agency released several declassified histories of its clandestine services program this week, it seemed like a solid indication of progress towards opening up the historical record of U.S. intelligence.

But upon closer inspection of the newly released documents, the opposite appears to be closer to the truth. It turns out that CIA has engaged in pointless multiple reviews of the same document, and has even attempted to classify and to withhold information that had previously been declassified and disclosed.

For example, in its history of the Berlin Tunnel, "the CIA attempted to withhold portions of that report as classified even though they had previously been released."

Astonishingly, much of the text that was released in February [2007] is marked as classified in the July [2007] version!

The spirit of glasnost seeps upward only ever so slowly.

Washington Post has this story slated for Page 1 Friday:

The CIA will declassify hundreds of pages of long-secret records detailing some of the intelligence agency's worst illegal abuses -- the so-called "family jewels" documenting a quarter-century of overseas assassination attempts, domestic spying, kidnapping and infiltration of leftist groups from the 1950s to the 1970s, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said yesterday.

That should be some VERY interesting reading!
Linkage: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Ever since it was revealed (first by me and then by Murray Waas) that Libby had testified he was authorized to leak Plame's identity the NIE by Cheney and Bush, Cheney has claimed that he has the ability to declassify things at will. He did so on Brit Hume:

There's a remarkable detail from Waxman's hearing on Friday, relating to my favorite story of Libby's bogus NIE story. In short--the ranking Minority member, Tom Davis, reveals he knows--and fears--Libby's story about being authorized to leak the NIE by the President Vice President. Davis reveals that he has been prepared for this point--and has come ready to craft the record to protect Cheney.

The interchange starts when Congressman Paul Hodes asks James Knodell about the NIE. (On the CSPAN video, this starts at 2:35:55.)

Hodes: Do you agree with me Mr. Knodell that the NIE is a classified document?

Knodell: Pardon me?

Hodes: Do you agree with me that the National Intelligence Estimate, before it is declassified, is a classified document?

Okay I admit that this is a gratuitous Photoshop rerun... but I just tonight had a disturbing thought that I think this pretty well illustrates. Anyone not wishing to indulge in a little bit of thinking outside the box merging upon tinfoil hattery is excused...  ; )

On the way home from work tonight, I was assimilating what has seemed to be a gold mine of good news for our side with the leaking of this NIE which says that the war in Iraq has overall worsened our safety from future terrorist attacks and expanded the global jihad movement.  Pretty impressive stuff with the Post and both Times running with the story... and then, to boot, all of our Democratic leaders, seeming to find a voice and a backbone to call for the declassification of the intelligence estimate.  Perhaps I'm not alone out there, when I say that my wave of gratification was cut off tonight...

Three years ago, Bush in his State of the Union speech told the American Peope: "The Brittish government has learned that Saddam Hussein...attempted to purchase yellowcake Uranium..."

At the time, then-national security advisor Condi Rice explained that the wording of those 16 words was "technically accurate." Actually it turns out that was another of the Imelda Marcos wannable shoe fetishist remarkable lies on par with the Aug. 6 PDB was "historical."

Reading today's Washington Post editorial, I had to double check to see if they cropped the RNC logo off of the press release before publication. Throwing facts to the wind (including investigations by its own reporters) the editorial board calls the selective leaking of classified information as "a good leak" meant to counter Ambassador Wilson's "twisting of the truth." Indeed, the Washington Post is so proud and sure of the accuracy of these claims, it chose to publish them in an unsigned editorial (come on, Fred Hiatt, even Ben Domenech had the guts to put his name to his journalistic embarrassments).

I'd like to focus specifically on the first line of the piece:

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.

While the WaPo channels Scott McClellan, let me channel the facts.  President Bush did not selectively leak highly classified information to "set the record straight." He wielded his executive power in a partisan, pointed way with a singular purpose: to cover his ass, and to ensure a second term.

It is this simple fact that tends to get lost in the intricate discussions of the Plame scandal. If the President wanted to clear the air, he would have released the NIE in its entirety, to the entire press. Yet the selective leaking allowed Bush to cherry-pick the intelligence (again).  This time around, it wasn't done to mislead us into war, but to mislead the nation into believing the President was deserving of a second Bush term.

As Murray Waas detailed last month, the entire discrediting of Wilson and the subsequent cover-up were centered around the pivotal task of insulating the incumbent President:

Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that he had been personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration.

Which is why, of course, the Executive Branch engaged in a massive, covert campaign to silence Joe Wilson.  This is why only parts of the NIE were leaked to Judy Miller, so she could parrot away in the newspaper of record that the poor President was just the victim of a failed intelligence apparatus.  Never mind the rest of the NIE--the parts where the Energy Department and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research said the tubes were "intended for conventional weapons".  No, the goal here again was to fix the facts around the policy.  The goal was to represent those leaked parts of the NIE as the "key judgments" (even though they weren't) and to represent to Judy Miller that the rest of the document bolstered those fundamentally wrong claims that the uranium was for nuclear weapons. [UPDATE: Big thanks to Quicksilver for pointing out that the NIE still remains classified--only the "key judgments" were released to the public.]  The goal was to shield the President--the candidate--at all costs.

And this is why the President's actions are so revolting, so repulsive.  His abuse of power--and yes, selective leaking in this way is an abuse of power--wasn't  meant just to silence a war critic.  It was to meant to silence the American people, to assauge their doubts about his leadership, and to portray himself as a competent Commander-in-Chief worthy of re-election.

This President cannot help himself. He is a habitual manipulator, a serial cherry-picker of intelligence.  From pre-war to pre-election, his goal has been the personal interest, not the public interest. His legacy is one of a Leaker-in-Chief, selectively leaking us into war, and into a second Bush term.

There's the business end of a hockey stick, and the other end that's never supposed to come into play. It's increasingly clear that the White House has been playing rough politically with both ends of a big stick, it's authority to declassify, or to not declassify, documents. In fact, Bush&Co. have violated the Executive rules of declassification both going and coming. Even if it does not mean legal peril, the abuse of power looks very bad for the President.

Democrats have been saying this for years to no avail, but recent reports have suddenly brought the spotlight within range of the issue. If today's story in the LA Times is an indication, the abuse of declassification may finally become the talk of pundits. Not a moment too soon.

This diary is longer and maybe harder than your average hockey stick. My only excuse is that the subject merits it.

UPDATES at end.

A fascinating column on the recent bombs dropped in the Plame investigation by former Nixon attorney John Dean is at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/... which by the way is a good site for more authoritative legal analysis on current events issues.

Click through to read the article, but the gist is: Cheney had not authority to declassify in this instance, Bush has authority to declassify, but only through a specific procedure. I know Josh Marshall and others have made this point already, but Dean fleshes out the detail.

I probably should have just added this to the latest open thread, but I thought it was worthy of its own entry.

Thanks,

Dylan

George Bush is like a bank robber.

I have the "authority" to take money from my bank account. But I can't walk into the bank and reach into the till and grab a handful of bills. I have forms to fill out. I have to notify the bank I am taking the money so that they can do right by all the other customers. If I just walk into the bank and take money it is a crime. It is a crime against the bank, it is a crime against all the bank's customers, it is a crime against society.

George Bush has the "authority" to declassify information. But he needs to fillout forms too. He can't just reach into the national till of secret information and grab what he wants without telling the bank.
 

Crossposted to The Leiter Reports and For the Record

Was it legal for Bush to authorize Libby to leak bits of the Iraq National Intelligence Estimate? Here's an argument that it was: (1) Bush declassified the relevant bits of the NIE; (2) Bush did so legally; and since there's nothing illegal about authorizing someone to leak legally declassified information, Bush's act was legal.

But neither (1) nor (2) stands up to examination.

It appears that one of the GOP talking points on the domestic spying scandal is to denigrate and even ridicule Jay Rockefeller's and Nancy Pelosi's letters to the White House protesting the spying policy divulged to them in classified meetings.  This morning on NPR I heard GOP Representative Peter Hokestra claim that if Senator Rockefeller was really concerned about the domestic spying program revealed last week by the NYT, then he could have done more than write a letter.

Bullshit.  

Well, let me clarify that.  Rockefeller could have publicized the existence and actions of the program, but if he or any of the other members of Congress briefed on the program went public with their opposition, they would have been breaking the law.  To fail to acknowledge that anyone briefed on this program essentially had no way to oppose or publicize the existence of the program without breaking the law is bullshit.

As a member of the so-called "gang of four" which includes the top Republican and Democrat of the Senate and House intelligence committees, Rockefeller was one of four members of Congress who received those briefings. The group can be summoned to the White House on short notice to be advised on the most sensitive intelligence information or plans for covert operations. It is safe to assume that if the United States is, in fact, operating secret prisons overseas, these four know plenty about them.

But membership also has its burdens. The "gang" -- Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan and Democrats Rockefeller and Rep. Jane Harman of California -- is virtually gagged from discussing anything from meetings with anyone outside the group -- not even other senators, staffers or lawyers with security clearance on the intelligence committees. "You can't discuss it with anybody as long as you live," Rockefeller said Monday.

And for Rockefeller and Harmon, the senior Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence committees, respectively, membership can be even more problematic. If they want to object to anything the administration is doing, they're forbidden from doing so publicly.

That was the case with Rockefeller until Monday. He'd informed the administration he had concerns and was suspicious of the NSA program, but he had no recourse to stop it from going forward and he couldn't go public. "I wasn't going to say anything until the president starting talking about it so openly," he said.

In laying out his case for the NSA's domestic wire tapping on Saturday, Bush told the nation, "Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it." Questioned about whether executive power had run amok at Monday's presidential news conference, an irritated Bush replied, "We're talking to Congress all the time, and on this program, to suggest there's unchecked power is not listening to what I'm telling you. I'm telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program a dozen times."

Rockefeller was annoyed. "They're just saying we're all briefed and informed and they implied implicit consent and all the rest of that and it's totally untrue," he recounted outside the Senate chamber after Bush's news conference. He said the impression the administration was leaving was "totally phony."

According to the WaPo, "Rockefeller wrote obliquely of 'the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today.' Yesterday, after confirming with White House officials that the letter contains no classified information," he released the letter.  The fact that Pelosi has requested that her letter be declassified suggests that her's is probably not as vague as Rockefeller's, and contains more specific information that is currently still classified.

But the most important thing to remember is this: because of the laws and regulations governing national intelligence and Congressional oversight, Congressional critics of the domestic spying were legally prohibited from publicly voicing their opposition to the program.  How fitting that GOP shils, who themselves don't seem troubled by the fact that the administration isn't troubled by the fact that a CIA agent's cover was blown for political reasons, proffer Democrats' refusals to break intelligence and espionage laws as evidence that they weren't troubled by domestic spying on Americans.  

Nancy Pelosi yesterday announced that she had voiced "strong concerns" about the NSA program, both verbally and in a letter, and is asking that the correspondence be declassified and made public.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on her request to the director of National Intelligence to declassify a letter she wrote to the Bush Administration expressing concerns about the activities of the National Security Agency.

"When I learned that the National Security Agency had been authorized to conduct the activities that President Bush referred to in his December 17 radio address, I expressed my strong concerns in a classified letter to the Administration and later verbally.

"Today, in an effort to shed light on my concerns, I requested that the director of National Intelligence quickly declassify my letter and the Administration's response to it and make them both available to the public.

"The president must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people. That intelligence, however, must be produced in a manner consistent with our Constitution and our laws, and in a manner that reflects our values as a nation to protect the American people and our freedoms."

The ball seems squarely in the Bush court now. If the administration wants to contend that Democrats were fully briefed and approved of the warrantless surveillance, let's see this letter. The issue can be laid to rest with a simple declassification. Color me cynical, but I'm not holding my breath on this one. I'm laying bets that national security will be invoked to keep any objecting correspondence classified - and coloring Congressional reps as complicit, particularly Democratic ones.