Liberals always want it both ways - and all three ways if they can get away with it

So which is it? Did Bush lie about justification for the war OR did Bush leak information that supported justification of the war? Half of the time we are being beset with the catch-phrase "Bush lied people died". Now during Libby's testimony it is "revealed" that Bush authorized "leaking" of classified information and that is why he discussed Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.

Apparently, CNN was quick to point out that Bush authorized naming Valerie Plame. Unfortunately for CNN, they broke the story before they got the facts. According to NewsMax:

In fact, the so-called leak authorized by Bush had nothing to do with Plame - but instead covered Iraq war intelligence that was mostly already in the public domain.

CNN eventually realized its error and issued an on-air correction, forcing liberals coast-to-coast to cancel their planned impeachment parties.

I guess CNN was not happy with the amount of egg they got on their face. Later Bill Schneider, long time Democrat water carrier, claims the administration is hypocritical and looks foolish. According to NewsBusters, Schneider said:

"Well, the White House doesn't really want to get into a discussion of this issue. For one thing, it makes the President look a little, well, shall we say, hypocritical?...It was not a crime for the President to do that because, as the attorney in the White House said, anything he authorizes is instantly declassified. But it does make the President look a little foolish and deceptive, because this leak was authorized, again, according to Mr. Libby, to discredit a political critic of the administration. It was authorized for political reasons, and that’s a little bit embarrassing."

Schneider goes on to state:

"...Because if they did start to debate the issue of, when is a leak not a leak, then they’re going to be sounding very much like the debate, that you may remember, over ‘it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.’"

I think I know who is embarrassing himself. First, they state that Bush authorized the "leak" - their word. A leak by definition is the distribution of classified or secretive material by someone who does not have the legal or ethical right to do so. Where the president has inherent power to authorize declassification of the material in question, there is no leak. This is simply the release of information in a manner of their choosing. So by willfully choosing to use the word "leak" CNN sets up a straw man to argue against. Liberals are always so quick to criticize conservatives for bringing up Bill Clinton, yet here is Bill Schneider refering to Clinton's debate over the word "is". Where this information is authorized and the word "leak" is restricted to the arena of unauthorized, Bill Schneider is the one who ends up being hypocritical and embarrassed.

As for the distribution of information. Liberals and their friends in the media act as if management of war support is somehow inherently wrong or shady. I am a project manager and project management often requires communication of information in order to retain support for a project. It may require reiteration of the project justification, distribution of new information, clarification of information. Sometimes we need to review expected benefits. Even when benefits are what was projected, if costs exceed that, we may need to review benefits to see if there are other benefits we can declare. None of these actions are shady, unethical or wrong. They are management requirements in an environment that easily loses interest or support at the slightest obstacle.

Somehow, critics of the war seem to think that after the war starts only their side should be heard. They want to paint management of war support as dishonest, unethical or lies. It is the President's and his administration's job to manage war support, yet that is frowned upon. We know who the hypocrites and embarrasments are and it is not this administration.