Writing in the San Jose Mercury News, Warren P. Strobel and Ron Hutcheson inform us that the revelation that Scooter Libby testified that President Bush authorized the "leak" of "classified information" "fits a pattern of selective leaks of secret intelligence to further the administration's political agenda".
The entire tone is disapproving and implies that this allowance of certain leaks, while clamping down on unauthorized leaks is somehow sordid.
Then comes this:
But secret information that supports their policies, particularly about the Iraq war, has surfaced everywhere from the U.N. Security Council to major newspapers and magazines. Much of the information that the administration leaked or declassified, however, has proved to be incomplete, exaggerated, incorrect or fabricated. (Note, the article never provides evidence that this statement is true, it's just kind of tossed out there for atmosphere).
I am in awe of the High Journalistic Standards™ on display by these two writers.
News Flash! The sky is blue! The Pope has revealed that he is Roman Catholic! Bears have been found to, well, you get the picture.
Politicians selectively leak information to reporters to impart spin on a story. The information tends to support whatever spin the person providing the information wants to impart and they don't always release information that would negate the spin. In other words, business as usual in Washington. I doubt there is one single politician in Washington who has not provided "leaks". Sometimes they leak classified information, too. Reporters rely on these leaks because otherwise they'd have to actually dig some of this stuff up on their own.
Why is this hit piece being published at all? Oh, answered myself there, didn't I.
UPDATE: To clarify this sentence: (Note, the article never provides evidence that this statement is true, it's just kind of tossed out there for atmosphere). The article provides some incidents where information turned out later to have been incorrect, as a commenter points out. However, this sentence by the authors: "Much of the information that the administration leaked or declassified, however, has proved to be incomplete, exaggerated, incorrect or fabricated." is a subjective judgment and is not quantified or supported objectively within the article. Hopefully, that makes my point more clear.