OK, I think I have this worked out in my head:
Government officials who cherry-pick the summary portion of an intelligence report and release only the elements that support one political position: heroic whistle-blowers.
Government officials who declassify the entire summary to counter the partisan allegations and attacks based on the prior, partial leak: opportunists and crass political manipulators.
Government officials who demand that the entire report — even the parts that reveal “sources and methods” — be released, in addition to the summary: noble leaders.
Government officials who say that the summary is sufficient, that it was written by the same people who put together the entire document, and people on both sides agree that the summary is a fair representation of the details outlined within the body of the report: secret-mongering, conspiratorial villains.
And I’m still waiting for the same people who demanded Karl Rove be “frog-marched” — or worse — over his greatly-overhyped involvement in the Valerie Plame non-scandal to express the same level of outrage over Richard Armitage, who actually DID the things they accused Rove of doing. And for the same worthies to demand such sanctions against whoever did such a hatchet job on leaking the portions of the NIE summary that supported their political agenda, while omitting the balancing portions.
I’m waiting, but I’m not holding my breath.
(I’d like to thank the Boston Globe editorial board for my recent re-education, who showed me the path to true enlightenment here and here. Note in the second piece, Mr. Rovner mentions that the recent stir was roused by the leaking of selected portions of the summary, but saves all his condemnation for President Bush for trying to counter the damage by releasing the entire summary. Apparently Mr. Rovner would have been content with the original, slanted portions only being made public,and has no problem with the people who chose to “cherry-pick” the parts of a highly-classified document to be released.)