Open Up, Mr. President

Discussion Policy

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

This leads to a devastating but now inescapable conclusion: You distrusted not only the media but the public at large, which, unlike yourself, does rely on publicly available information that is carried in the media.

Two examples you could have handled differently:

After Wilson's slanted account of his mission to Niger provoked a small hubbub over your 16-word reference to Iraq's seeking uranium, Britain reiterated repeatedly to the United States that it stood by its reporting on that topic -- which was not based in any way on the much-ballyhooed forgeries from Italy. Telling the public that there was an independent stream of intelligence, with all the problems and counterattacks it would have triggered from the opposition leakers, would have been better for you than aides' taking it on themselves to plant stealthy suggestions of nepotism at the CIA.

Case two: On Oct. 6, the Wall Street Journal's intrepid Carla Anne Robbins reported that a State Department options paper on Iran would be discussed at the White House that day. Apparent fury over the "leak" caused the meeting to be canceled. Bureaucratic enemies were trying to tie your hands by airing options, it was believed.

Oy. Hold the meeting. Hear the arguments. Decide. And let the public know what you are doing. That, too, is your job.

jimhoagland@washpost.com