I don’t know much about White House Counsel, Gregory Craig, who just resigned [or was let go]. So I have nothing to say about either Craig’s performance or his exit. But I do have something of a comment about some of the reports about his leaving. Washington blogger Steve Clemons and NPR’s Nina Totenberg see this as a hatchet job by Rahm Emanuel mediated by leaks [The Assassination of Greg Craig]. He mentions other leaks – notably General McChrystal’s report and Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry‘s, memo – both reporting opinions about Afghanistan. I don’t know whether these allegations are right either.
I don’t think "leaks" are a way to do business, but I don’t mind knowing what either McChrystal or Eikenberry think. I don’t notice President Obama being too worried about those things either. If Steve Clemons is right, that Rahm Emanuel is playing palace intrigue through leaks, shame on him, but it’s not of major concern to me. Rahm seems a little weasel-esque to me too. But it’s a far cry from the way leaks happened in the last Administration. For example, in September of 2002, the story of the Aluminum Tubes was leaked to Judith Miller. She wrote an article in the New York Times. Then Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, people involved in the leak, used Miller’s report in the Times as if it were independent evidence against Iraq in their television campaign for war. Joseph Wilson wrote an article critical of the Administration’s marching us to war in Iraq. Within not many days, his wife’s secret identity as a C.I.A. Agent was leaked to discredit him. Valerie Plame‘s career was sacrificed to protect the Administration’s lies.
Having a leaky White House is actually sort of okay with me. I’d rather know too much than too little. It was not the leaks themselves that were the problem with the Bush Administration. They used leaks specifically to pull one over on the American people. We invaded Iraq based on information that was weak even if it were true, which it wasn’t. But worse – this shaky information was "leaked" in such a way as to strengthen it. Had we been told everything that was known about the Niger Uranium story, the Aluminum Tubes, and the evidence for Al Qaeda’s ties to Iraq, we would never have gone to war. The Bush Administration used both secrecy and leaks to lie to us – to trick us.
McChrystal’s and Eikenberry’s positions on more troops for Afghanistan are diametrically opposed. So it’s not likely that the same person was responsible for both leaks — at least not if the intent was to promote that position.
It could be that it’s a way to put the opposing positions out for a trial balloon — which of course then has no hint of intrigue or manipulation. Just a way to gauge public reaction.
But it does seem that Craig got a bum rap.