Depends on the meaning of "shameful"

Remember all the holier than thou lectures by W about the "shameful" act of leaking classified information? More than once W has lectured the press about the "shameful" act of leaking classified information that helps the enemy. He has even summoned newspaper editors to The White House to prevent the publication of stories that revealed nothing useful to any enemy but rather that W had ordered illegal wiretapping of Americans. Should it be to anyone's surprise that President George "it's a shameful act" Bush himself is said to have authorized leaking parts of the National Intelligence Estimate to, wait for it, The New York Times? With this bunch of hypocrites I believe anything at this point.

From the New York Sun, "A former White House aide under indictment for obstructing a leak probe, I. Lewis Libby, testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush, according to a new court filing from the special prosecutor in the case.

The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule. However, the new disclosure could be awkward for the president because it places him, for the first time, directly in a chain of events that led to a meeting where prosecutors contend the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was provided to a reporter." (hat tip: Talkingpoints).

So I guess it's going to depend on the meaning of "shameful" and we already know Bush has a history of not knowing what it means. Maybe the new phrase is something like, "Leak details of my illegal wiretapping of Americans, shame, shame on you. Leak the NIE to New York Times reporters, not so shameful for me."