The most important thing is whether Scooter Libby’s actions were legal.

The Philadelphia Inquirer’s April 6 article about the Libby court papers pretty much follows the Democratic Party talking points – i.e. Bush leaked classified information.

The article states, "President Bush authorized Vice President Cheney's former top aide to divulge classified intelligence information to a reporter in an effort to defend Bush's decision to go war against Iraq, according to the aide's testimony in court papers made public yesterday."

Yet, on page 24 of the court papers, it unqualifiedly states, “he (Libby) understood that only three people – the President, the Vice President and defendant – knew that the key judgments of the NIE had been declassified.” (Emphasis added.)

The Inquirer also wrote, “An excerpt from court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak investigation: I. Lewis Libby "testified that the circumstances of his conversations with reporter [Judith] Miller – getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval – were unique in his recollection."

However, the Inquirer failed to report that, “(Libby) testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.” (Emphasis added.)

Libby also testified that, “this July 8th meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President’s authorization that it be disclosed.”

It is important to know whether this statement by Libby was something he said in response to a direct question, or was it something that he voluntarily said.  It makes a difference.

If he voluntarily said it, then this might indicate that his state of mind was such that at the time he was disclosing the information to the reporter he had apprehensions. If it were in response to a prosecuting attorney’s hostile interrogation, then it would indicate that the prosecutor was merely trying to create the impression with the jury that Libby had thought his actions illegal.

The fact is, whether Libby had prior experience in providing declassified information to reporters or did not have it is irrelevant. The only important thing is if Libby’s actions were legal. The impression the prosecutor is trying to create with the jury does not establish the legality of what occurred. It is purely a public relations ploy.

Of course, this is exactly what happened. The prosecutor’s ploy found its way to the willing mainstream liberal media.

The Inquirer also wrote, “The court papers said that a critical conversation with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003, occurred only after Cheney advised Libby "that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE."

What the Inquirer and the rest of the MSM are omitting is that information from the NIE – including the key judgments from the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate – were presented at a briefing, on July 18, 2003, ten days after Libby’s meeting with the reporter.

The Inquirer article continues, “The key judgments in the estimate, however, never mention the allegation that Iraq was shopping for uranium in Niger. The full NIE, far from rebutting Wilson's conclusion, revealed that State Department intelligence experts did not believe the allegation, either.”

It does not cite the source for “the full NIE.” However, the July 18, 2003, “BRIEFING ON WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ," which, as previously mentioned, contained the declassified 2002 NIE information, included the State Department’s alternate view. Compare what the State Department’s intelligence expert’s opinion is in this NIE report to what the Inquirer claims the "Full NIE" stated.

According to the declassified 2002 NIE excerpt presented July 18, 2003:

The  "State/INR Alternative View of Iraq's Nuclear Program" is that: The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities. The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment.

Now just exactly which word of the phrase, "believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities," doesn’t the Inquirer understand.

Place L’Affaire Libby in the liberal/Democrat/MSM Wishful Thinking folder. This folder is to be sent to the Dan Rather/Mary Mapes Journalism School, which will no doubt be established by Norman Lear and George Soros at some future date – and filed right next to:

– the National Guard Documents

– the Stolen 2000 Election claim

– Bush Knew About 9-11 in Advance

– Bush Let Saudis Fly When No One Else Could

– The Iraq War is for Enron and Halliburton to annex Iraqi oil fields

As well as all the other lunatic leftwing Democrat conspiracy theories.

As a footnote to this the April 9 Inquirer states the actions were legal – although hypocritical.

Yeah right.