April 7 (Bloomberg) -- A former aide's testimony that President George W. Bush approved selective leaks of classified information to rebut Iraq war critics has triggered new criticism of Bush on an issue that already has weakened him politically.

While Bush doesn't face legal jeopardy from the statements of I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, as outlined in court documents filed in the Central Intelligence Agency leak investigation, Democrats and other critics quickly seized on the testimony as evidence that Bush hasn't told the public the full truth.

``The American people deserve the truth,'' Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, said at a news conference yesterday at the Capitol. ``At the very least President Bush and Vice President Cheney should fully inform the American people of any role in allowing classified information to be leaked.''

Even some Republicans said they were concerned about the effect of the new disclosures.

``Those that believe this is a huge story now have a reason to believe it is an even huger story,'' said David Frum, a former speechwriter for the president.

The testimony of Libby, former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, marks the first time that Bush has been directly linked to leaks of classified information intended to counter critics of the war. The information came from a 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, most of which later proved to be inaccurate.

Investigation

Those events eventually led to public disclosure of the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame in July 2003, which is the subject of special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation. There is no suggestion in Fitzgerald's court filing that Bush authorized or directed the leak of her name.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan and Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said they would have no comment on the court filing, citing the continuing investigation.

Libby was indicted in October on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to FBI agents investigating the Plame case. He has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial. No one has been charged with disclosing Plame's identity and Fitzgerald's investigation is still under way.

In addition to renewing questions about the war, the disclosure has prompted criticism that Bush has been inconsistent or even hypocritical in his repeated statements assailing the leaking of classified information.

``Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies and endangers our country,'' Bush said in December after the New York Times disclosed the administration's secret program of eavesdropping on telephone calls and e-mails. Previously he called disclosure of Plame's name a ``serious charge.''

Asking for Explanations

``The president's position seems clear: documents that embarrass the administration must remain classified, while documents that they can use to smear their opponents are fair game,'' said Senator Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat.

Schumer, a New York Democrat, said he sent letters today to Bush and Cheney demanding ``a quick and clear explanation'' of Libby's testimony.

``The president has said that he'd fire anyone who leaked this kind of information; now it appears that he authorized leaks just like this in the first place,'' Schumer said.

With declining public approval ratings, Bush will have a tougher time deflecting such criticism than he did when Fitzgerald's investigation got underway in December 2003 or when Libby was indicted, according to Stu Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, a non-partisan newsletter on politics published in Washington.

Public Approval

``Bush likely can argue he did nothing wrong, but he is not where he was a year and a half ago in the public's eye,'' Rothenberg said. ``When you are at 38 percent job approval and answering questions on a scandal associated with a war that is the main reason for your declining popularity, you're not in a very good place.''

The administration is likely to focus its defense on the legal issues, said Joe Lockhart, who was White House press secretary when President Bill Clinton faced impeachment by the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives.

A 1995 executive order, signed by Clinton and later modified by Bush, authorizes the president and vice president latitude to declassify or classify information.

Still, Lockhart said, ``If Libby is telling the truth, you can have the best spin doctors in the world and you're still dead in the water. There is no way to square this circle.''

Start of the Case

The leak case has its origins in the publication of Plame's name in a syndicated column written by Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. That column focused on how Plame had recommended that her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, travel to Africa in 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear weapons material in Niger. It cited two unnamed ``senior administration officials'' as the source of the information.

A week earlier, Wilson wrote an essay in the New York Times that said the administration had ``twisted'' the intelligence surrounding Iraq's attempts to get nuclear material in Africa. Iraq's alleged attempts to stockpile weapons of mass destruction was Bush's main justification for going to war. Wilson's article was one of the first from a former government official to question a key piece of intelligence that formed the administration's rationale.

The administration undertook an effort to undermine and rebut Wilson's argument, according to Fitzgerald's filing. It said some of the 12,300 pages of classified and unclassified documents already turned over to Libby's defense team ``could be characterized as reflecting a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson.''

`Right to Know'

``It is really time for the president and the vice president to come clean on this matter,'' Wilson said in an interview yesterday. ``The American public has a right to know what the president and vice president knew, when they knew it, and what they now intend to do about it.''

Part of the effort to quell criticism of the war involved leaking to reporters information from the National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, according to Libby's testimony as outlined in the court documents.

One of those journalists was then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who met with Libby on July 8, 2003, according to the prosecutor's filing.

Libby ``testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was `pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the vice president thought it was `very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out,'' Fitzgerald wrote in the document.

Fitzgerald wrote that Libby also sought the legal advice of Cheney's counsel, David Addington, who concluded that Bush's permission to disclose information from the NIE ``amounted to the declassification of the document.'' Addington became Cheney's chief of staff when Libby resigned after his indictment.

To contact the reporter on this story: Richard Keil in Washington at dkeil@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: April 7, 2006 00:06 EDT