A whole lotta leakin' going on. But instead of getting caught up in the US vs THEM partisan football cheerleading, it might be useful to consider the difference between Leaking and Whistleblowing.

But that wouldn't be much fun, so I'll save it for the end of this post. Cue Monday Night Football theme...

The wingnuts are afroth with glee about this leak: "CIA Leaker Mary O. McCarthy - Kerry Doner" [DCOW]. This particular Moran posts her home address, as a courtesy.

Not so much frothiness about this leak, though:

The allegations against Rice came as a federal judge granted a defense request to issue subpoenas sought by the defense for Rice and three other government officials in the trial of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. The two are former lobbyists with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who are charged with receiving and disclosing national defense information.

I don't think they will let you wear your Ferragamo's in Jail, Condi. There's more:

Libby's defense team admits leaking non-public court documents and information to the press.

And of course, we have the Leaker in Chief. As Talk Left puts it:

But, isn't the bigger issue why is it okay for Bush and Cheney to decide to instantaneously declassify portions of the NIE report so Libby could leak it to Miller...?

Check out the original sources (those are good, right, CD?) of what was leaked: This is Appendix F of the Australian Parliamentary Report "A comparison of the Key Judgements of the NIE Document as released in October 2002 and July 2003". Via Document Fiend eriposte at the LeftCoaster.

It's pretty cool. The portions of the NIE that were released in July 2003 (coinciding with Joe Wilson's article) are underlined, while the portions that were released in 2002 are not.

One portion that was declassified in 2003 is the bit about Saddam buying Uranium from Niger, which the WH would have leaked to counter Wilson's argument:

A foreign government service {Britain?} reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of “pure uranium” (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this
arrangement.

But what I think might have some people confused is that the NIE doesn't say anything about Valerie Plame Wilson.

The document that DOES talk about Valerie is the June 10, 2003 State Department office of Intelligence 'n Research (INR) memo. This document was declassified just this month in response to a FOIA request from the New York Sun. Also very cool. Via, of course, eriposte.

If I were able to organize my thoughts coherently, this should probably be a separate post. In the meantime, there's the excellent dKosopedia Plame Leak Timeline.

Back to the original topic. Are all leaks bad? Should all leakers be punished by the Law?

I would approach this from the perspective of the Public Interest. The Public Interest is served when a Whistleblower discloses classified information in order to reveal to the Public that the Government is lying or is engaging in illegal or morally questionable behavior.

On the other hand, the Public Interest is NOT served when the Government leaks classified information in order to discredit and intimidate Whistleblowers.

If the White House really was so concerned about plugging leaks, they would subject everyone on the staff (including the Preznit) to Polygraph tests like Porter Goss did at the CIA.