Court Papers: Bush authorized classified information leak

[Hurin_Rules]

I'm almost speechless. Now perhaps we know, however, why Bush reneged on his promise to fire anyone involved with the leak: he would have had to fire himself.


Libby court papers: Cheney said Bush OK'd intelligence leak

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors that his boss said President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity. (Watch what the court document says Libby said about Bush -- 3:05)

But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Bush's political foes jumped on the revelation about Libby's testimony.

"The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put interests of his political party ahead of Americas security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said.

Libby's testimony also puts the president and the vice president in the awkward position of authorizing leaks -- a practice both men have long said they abhor, so much so that the administration has put in motion criminal investigations to hunt down leakers.

The most recent instance is the administration's launching of a probe into who disclosed to The New York Times the existence of the warrantless domestic surveillance program authorized by Bush shortly after the September 11 attacks.

The authorization involving intelligence information came as the Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the president and his aides had given for going to war.

Libby's participation in a critical conversation with Miller on July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate," the papers by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stated. The filing did not specify the "certain information."

"Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller -- getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval -- were unique in his recollection," the papers added.

Libby is asking for voluminous amounts of classified information from the government in order to defend himself against five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in the Plame affair.

He is accused of making false statements about how he learned of Plame's CIA employment and what he told reporters about it.

Her CIA status was publicly disclosed eight days after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

In 2002, Wilson had been dispatched to Africa by the CIA to check out intelligence that Iraq had an agreement to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger, and Wilson had concluded that there was no such arrangement.

Libby says he needs extensive classified files from the government to demonstrate that Plame's CIA connection was a peripheral matter that he never focused on, and that the role of Wilson's wife was a small piece in a building public controversy over the failure to find WMD in Iraq.

Fitzgerald said in the new court filing that Libby's requests for information go too far and the prosecutor cited Libby's own statements to investigators in an attempt to limit the amount of information the government must turn over to Cheney's former chief of staff for his criminal defense.

According to Miller's grand jury testimony, Libby told her about Plame's CIA status in the July 8, 2003 conversation that took place shortly after the White House aide -- according to the new court filing -- was authorized by Bush through Cheney to disclose sensitive intelligence about Iraq and WMD contained in a National Intelligence Estimate.

The court filing was first disclosed by The New York Sun.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Hurin_Rules]

Well come on people, not even some knee-jerk hostility from the far right or testimonials of shock from the loonie left?

What are these boards coming to? ~:)

[Redleg]

Well come on people, not even some knee-jerk hostility from the far right or testimonials of shock from the loonie left?

What are these boards coming to? ~:)

Give it some more time - I am sure you will get the statements that you are looking for.

:dizzy2:

[Kralizec]

Just one more nail for his (proverbial) coffin.

[solypsist]

hmmm..i wonder how the gop arsenal is going to spin this?

[Hurin_Rules]

hmmm..i wonder how the gop arsenal is going to spin this?

If Fox news is any indication, its niggle away at the details (i.e. If Bush did it, its probably not technically a crime), while avoiding at all costs the massive white elephant in the room (i.e. the fact that Bush pretended he knew nothing about this--essentially lying to the American people--all the while vehemently denouncing leakers as threats to national security):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190843,00.html

[Xiahou]

hmmm..i wonder how the gop arsenal is going to spin this?
Probably by reading the article. :rolleyes:

Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors that his boss said President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.
There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.
Oh look- the alleged leak in question had nothing to do with Valerie Plame. It pays to read past the headline.

I move this thread be closed for an innaccurate subject. ~;p

[Hurin_Rules]

Oh look- the alleged leak in question had nothing to do with Valerie Plame. It pays to read past the headline.

I move this thread be closed for an innaccurate subject. ~;p

Ah yes, the Fox approach. But you are actually incorrect in claiming 'the alleged leak in question had nothing to do with Valerie Plame'. The article does not say that. All the article said is that there is no evidence in the documents that just became available that the leaked intelligence included Plame's name. Moreover, the next think Libby did was talk to Judith Miller, and Miller was the first one to out Plame's covert identity. How exactly would you explain that? How did Miller get this classified information, if not during her well-known communication with Libby?

But I'll play along. Lets say that the intelligence Libby was ordered to leak had nothing to do with Plame. But like Foxnews, you're still not seeing the elephant. You don't find the fact that the president authorized the leaking of classified intelligence as political payback at all disturbing?

[Xiahou]

You don't find the fact that the president authorized the leaking of classified intelligence as political payback at all disturbing?There's certainly no evidence that this alledged "leak" had anything to do with political payback- that's a rather large assumption on your part.


Ah yes, the Fox approach. But you are actually incorrect in claiming 'the alleged leak in question had nothing to do with Valerie Plame'. The article does not say that. All the article said is that there is no evidence in the documents that just became available that the leaked intelligence included Plame's name.So your claim is that Valerie Plame's name and relation to Joe Wilson was in fact part of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq? I think not. As you say, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that, so that's some pretty unfounded speculation on your part.

As to the "leak" there is plenty of doubt as to whether this was a leak in the traditional sense. The president, as commander in chief is the person in charge of foreign intelligence and has the authority to declassify certain intel as he feels is necessary. For example, if you were trying to lay out your case for invading Iraq, you could release certain information from the NIE to show Americans what you're basing your decision on. :yes:

To summarize, there is no evidence suggesting this had anything to do with Valerie Plame. It's just another shining example of sloppy reporting.

[Spetulhu]

Ah yes, the Fox approach. But you are actually incorrect in claiming 'the alleged leak in question had nothing to do with Valerie Plame'. The article does not say that. All the article said is that there is no evidence in the documents that just became available that the leaked intelligence included Plame's name.

You don't need to say her name if you happen to mention her husband being married to a covert agent. In truth her name was never mentioned, yet she was outed. Simple. :idea2:

[Ronin]

soooo.....does this mean that Bush hates freedom too? :book:

[Tribesman]

To summarize, there is no evidence suggesting this had anything to do with Valerie Plame. It's just another shining example of sloppy reporting.

``Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversations with reporter Miller - getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval - were unique in his recollection. Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the vice president to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare 'on the record' statement, and to provide 'background' and 'deep background' statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson. During the conversations that followed on July 12, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson's employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time). Even if someone else in some other agency thought that the controversy about Mr. Wilson and/or his wife was a trifle, that person's state of mind would be irrelevant to the importance and focus defendant placed on the matter and the importance he attached to the surrounding conversations he was directed to engaged in by the vice president.''



Spin that then Xiahou , would you like some more transcripts from the hearing ?:laugh4:

[Redleg]

Spin that then Xiahou , would you like some more transcripts from the hearing ?:laugh4:

Yes, Indeed post some more of the court transcripts. Frankly the statement that you posted doesn't counter Xiahou statement, nor does it support his statement either.

It does show however that the news agencies are indeed spinning the information toward the biases of the reporters involved.

[Vladimir]

Executive orders are used to classify information and the chief executive can declassify information at will. There is still no indication that the administration intentionally 'outed' a known covert agent. I wish anti-Bush people could make up their minds. Either the President is an evil genius bent on global domination or a complete boob; please decide people.

[yesdachi]

In addition to the fact there is no connection to Valerie Plame, the President can at anytime de-classify information that he has classified (with the correct paperwork of course). So the classified information he allowed to be reveled was de-classified by him and allowed to be discussed it was not “leaked” just made to appear like it was leaked for whatever reason. There was no leak of classified information. The following quote is not true.

"The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put interests of his political party ahead of Americas security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said.
The part that urks me is that Bush made it seem like he didn’t know about it, essentially lying, and that’s not cool. :sad:

[yesdachi]

There is still no indication that the administration intentionally 'outed' a known covert agent.
I have recently heard on some radio talk show (can’t remember which) that Valerie Plame had not been a covert agent for 2 years prior to her supposed outing. I cant confirm, does anyone know anything about this?

[Ironside]

Either the President is an evil genius bent on global domination or a complete boob; please decide people.

Pfffft you're not getting it. ~:rolleyes:

The President is a complete boob, controlled by evil geniuses bent on global domination, or possibly simply only a complete boob. :idea2:

Were you got the idea that the President is supposed to be an evil genius bent on global domination I simply don't know. :inquisitive:

[Banquo's Ghost]

The part that urks me is that Bush made it seem like he didn’t know about it, essentially lying, and that’s not cool. :sad:

Can someone explain to me why one President is impeached for lying about a blow-job whereas a different President is not for lying about national security issues, weapons of mass destruction, and so forth?

~:confused:

[Lemur]

Can someone explain to me why one President is impeached for lying about a blow-job whereas a different President is not for lying about national security issues, weapons of mass destruction, and so forth?
IOKIYR, dude.

(It's okay if you're Republican.)

[edit]

"There's a lot of leaking in Washington, D.C. It's a town famous for it. This investigation in finding the truth, it will not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked — and this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth," - President George W. Bush, October 7, 2003. (http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2003_10_7.html)

[Vladimir]

Can someone explain to me why one President is impeached for lying about a blow-job whereas a different President is not for lying about national security issues, weapons of mass destruction, and so forth?

~:confused:

That one President was impeached for perjury. Your argument on "lying about sex" is what's called spin.

And as to Howard Dean's idiotic comment: How much classified information did his party give to the Chinese in the 90's? Hmmm?

[Xiahou]

Spin that then Xiahou , would you like some more transcripts from the hearing ?:laugh4:That's no transcript. It's more of the unattributed "evidence" and personal jibes that Ive come to expect from you. :wink:


"There's a lot of leaking in Washington, D.C. It's a town famous for it. This investigation in finding the truth, it will not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked — and this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth,"Apparently Bush was wrong since no one was ever charged for leaking anything. :shrug:

This news story (and by extension this thread) offers nothing at all relevant to the Plame matter and amounts to little more than an excuse to drag the "scandal" back into the media spotlight.

Honestly, when I saw the headline when I was reading up on some news I thought to myself Bush deserves what he gets if he lied after denying it so publicly and emphatically. But then, I actually read the article and realized that it had nothing to do with the Plame leak. :oops:

[Tribesman]

That's no transcript. It's more of the unattributed "evidence" and personal jibes that Ive come to expect from you.
Poor little xiahou , you don't like the words the prosecution used then .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[yesdachi]

Can someone explain to me why one President is impeached for lying about a blow-job whereas a different President is not for lying about national security issues, weapons of mass destruction, and so forth?

~:confused:
Politicians lie to “us” all the time but Clinton lied under oath (if you consider oral sex, “sex”) and that is the difference. I still don’t like being lied to but at least he didn’t have his hand on the bible when he did it. Additionally I don’t think Bush lied about WMD’s. but that is another story.

[Goofball]

Politicians lie to “us” all the time but Clinton lied under oath (if you consider oral sex, “sex”) and that is the difference. I still don’t like being lied to but at least he didn’t have his hand on the bible when he did it. Additionally I don’t think Bush lied about WMD’s. but that is another story.

Bunk.

I find it incomprehensible that anybody would find it worse for a President to lie about getting a round of hummer from a chubby intern than for a President to lie about serious issues of national security, just because the former happened to have his hand on a dusty old book full of fairy tales when lying about said hummer.

Bush's lies have resulted in an unnecessary war, the endangering of intelligence assets, thousands of American deaths, etc, etc, etc...

Clinton's lies resulted in Hilary being embarassed and Monica having her feelings hurt.

Do the math.

[rory_20_uk]

I'm afraid I disagree. To try someone under law, they have to break the law. Perjury is a crime regardless of the lie told. I too don't give one hoot what he gets up to, but evading is allowed, as is taking the 5th, but lying is not.

Clinton sad he didn't do something when it could be proved he did. Bush said there is something, when so far there isn't. Of course the absence of something is just further evidence of how far reaching the threat is as it's obviously so well hidden

In what way didn't bush lie about WMDs? I would have thought the way language changed from certainty to possibility to change of subject is tantamount to admitting one was wrong - especially as afterwards one should be more able to give proof, not less.

~:smoking:

[Goofball]

I'm afraid I disagree. To try someone under law, they have to break the law. Perjury is a crime regardless of the lie told. I too don't give one hoot what he gets up to, but evading is allowed, as is taking the 5th, but lying is not.

Who said anything about the law?

I made no judgement or statement about the legalities involved with the two Presidents' respective lies.

My comment had to do with the consequenses of their lies to the American people.

Bush's have by far had worse consequenses.


Clinton sad he didn't do something when it could be proved he did. Bush said there is something, when so far there isn't. Of course the absence of something is just further evidence of how far reaching the threat is as it's obviously so well hidden

In what way didn't bush lie about WMDs? I would have thought the way language changed from certainty to possibility to change of subject is tantamount to admitting one was wrong - especially as afterwards one should be more able to give proof, not less.


It is possible to misrepresent the truth without ever uttering a single statement that is in and of itself untrue.

It is my opinion (and yes, I know that there are many who do not share it) that Bush purposely made manipulative and selective use of intelligence assets in order to point congress and the American people in the direction he wanted to see them go: war with Iraq.

His doing so not only led to an unnecessary war (as far as it related to American security) that has led to the deaths of thousands of Americans, but also weaked the U.S. military's ability to go prosecute legitimate targets in the GWOT.

On the other hand, Clinton's lies really had no impact on the lives of the citizens Clinton was sworn to serve, other than to provide them with riveting entertainment on CNN for about 8 months or so.

[Xiahou]

That's no transcript. It's more of the unattributed "evidence" and personal jibes that Ive come to expect from you.
Poor little xiahou , you don't like the words the prosecution used then .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What a troll. When's the last time you've contributed anything meaningful to a debate anywhere in the backroom? Your routine is very tiresome :rolleyes:


Who said anything about the law?

I made no judgement or statement about the legalities involved with the two Presidents' respective lies.

My comment had to do with the consequenses of their lies to the American people.

Bush's have by far had worse consequenses.Ok, just for clarity- which "lies" are we talking about? The as of yet unsubstantiated ones relating to Plame or are we going back to the "lies" that were also reported by virtually every major intelligence agency on wmds again?

It's amazing to me that once the claims originally made in the thread are showed to be unsubstantiated (by the article linked in the original post no less), people immediately fall back to retreading the same old attacks against Bush that have been debate literally dozens of times already without so much as skipping a beat.

[solypsist]

If you're curious about the trial balloons that are being floated by the supporters of the president's actions see here:

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/04/index.html#009767

[yesdachi]

Bunk.

I find it incomprehensible that anybody would find it worse for a President to lie about getting a round of hummer from a chubby intern than for a President to lie about serious issues of national security, just because the former happened to have his hand on a dusty old book full of fairy tales when lying about said hummer.

Bush's lies have resulted in an unnecessary war, the endangering of intelligence assets, thousands of American deaths, etc, etc, etc...

Clinton's lies resulted in Hilary being embarassed and Monica having her feelings hurt.

Do the math.
I don’t think anyone has proven Bush has lied about any “serious issues of national security” and he certainly hasn’t lied under oath, Clinton did. And weather you call it a book of fairy tales or not it still represents the foundation of our judicial system, telling the truth when you swear to tell the whole truth so help you GOD. Clinton did and then he said “I did not have sex with that woman”, hello, lie. Until he said it under oath it was none of Americas business but the minute he did, it turned from a personal act of infidelity into perjury. A consequence of which is an entire generation of children knowing what oral sex is years before they should. Additionally, it turned the position of Pres of the US into a joke.

And lets not forget that Clinton went to war some 7 or 8 times including at least a couple of times (Kosovo, Somalia and in Afghanistan) that were clear breaches in international law, some probably to take heat off the stain. The movie Wag the Dog was even made with one of these wars (Kosovo I think) as a base for its story.

I think the war we are in is necessary (poorly executed but necessary), I question that he endangered any intelligence assets, but I do agree that he is responsible for thousands of American deaths however he is also responsible for hundreds of millions of American lives. I’ll do the math on that.
______

About WMD’s: Why is it so difficult to believe that given the fact that the entire world knew we were going to invade Iraq weeks before we did, that Iraq wouldn’t have known we were on our way and moved, sold or hidden the WMD’s. My guess is in Syria, like every other former Iraq official has confessed. I would guess they were transferred during the same time Iraq was sending “relief” to northern Syria after a dam busted.

If the police have “intelligence” that makes them believe the house on the corner is a crack house and plan a bust for next week, the media learns of it and reports on the upcoming crack house bust. The dealers watch the report and move their stash, the cops bust in and surprise, surprise no drugs. Are the police liars? Did they lie to the judge to get the warrant? Did Bush want to go to war? I think so. Did he lie? I don’t think so.

[Tribesman]

What a troll
Poor Xiahou doesn't like the fact that she didn't think that a statement from the prosecution was actually a statement from the prosecution , but was wrong .:oops:
When's the last time you've contributed anything meaningful to a debate anywhere in the backroom?
Oh I see , a statement from the prosecution dealing with the testimony of the defendant is meaningless , especially when it involves claims to release backround information on Wilson , information that turned out to be details of his wife .
Would you like some more meaningless contributions ?
How about examining the idea of retroactive declassification ? thats a new idea isn't it .
Or how about Cheneys role in declassification ? you do know what information the Vice-President is authorised to de-classify don't you .

[Xiahou]

I guess you missed the part where the same prosecutor said in the same filing (not a transcript) "the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President's Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor (Libby) had played in disclosing Ms. Wilson's CIA employment".

I guess that wasnt in the liberal blog that you nicked that from. :laugh4:

[Spetulhu]

I guess you missed the part where the same prosecutor said in the same filing (not a transcript) "the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President's Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor (Libby) had played in disclosing Ms. Wilson's CIA employment".

Yes? Why would he want the details as long as the result turns out right? Presidents (and other high-ups) frequently give orders that are carried out even if the prez doesn't know exactly who is doing it.

[Tribesman]

guess that wasnt in the liberal blog that you nicked that from
Poor xiahou , making assumptions , incorrect ones as usual .
There is lots of paperwork on this issue , and blogs , liberal or otherwise are not the best place to find them .
Can you guess where the best place to find information on occurances in the US govt. and judiciary are ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Xiahou]

Poor xiahou , making assumptions , incorrect ones as usual .
There is lots of paperwork on this issue , and blogs , liberal or otherwise are not the best place to find them .
Can you guess where the best place to find information on occurances in the US govt. and judiciary are ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:The excerpt I quoted came from the exact same court filing that your earlier quote did, so Im not sure why you're talking about "lots of paperwork on this issue". :dizzy2:

Edit: Btw, if you read the filing (which is all about the discovery process), it really doesnt seem like the prosecutor has much of a case against Libby. He's trying to prove that Libby heard Plame was a CIA agent and Wilson's wife and that Libby didnt hear it from another reporter. Good luck proving that one- remember the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show guilt, not the defense to show inocence.

Regardless of what Libby actually did, I bet he walks.

[Tribesman]

The excerpt I quoted came from the exact same court filing that your earlier quote did, so Im not sure why you're talking about "lots of paperwork on this issue".
Because you assume that I read liberal blogs for information xiahou, which just shows that once again you are wrong .
edit btw Libby screwed up when he was lying , he claimed he never discussed things when it is on record that he discussed them , he claimed that he learnt those things at meetings that didn't happen till after he is on record discusing them , which doesn't really matter anyway as it is established that he learnt of them a month earlier , and not from a reporter .
So perhaps you should follow the paperwork instead of getting your info from blogs .

[Redleg]

I am becoming amused. :laugh4:

[Xiahou]

Because you assume that I read liberal blogs for information xiahou, which just shows that once again you are wrong .I only assumed you spoonfed that excerpt from a blog, since you clearly didnt make even a cursory reading of the document on your own- or else you would've noticed that the prosecutor goes out of his way to say the President had no knowledge of Libby's disclosures about Plame. :wink:

Or you could've even read the article posted in the beginning of the thread that said the exact same thing of the filing you've excerpted.
There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.Even the author of the article realized that. Yet, you still try to claim there's evidence in the filing that Bush authorized the Plame leak- absolutely no one believes that. Maybe you need to work on your critical reading skills.:laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Yet, you still try to claim there's evidence in the filing that Bush authorized the Plame leak- absolutely no one believes that. Maybe you need to work on your critical reading skills.
Perhaps you had better read what I wrote before you spout rubbish xiahou :idea2:
As it does appear that your head is so stuck in the sand that not only do you incorrectly assume where people get their information from you also incorrectly assume that they say things that they don't .
Is it a lack of the cognitive functions or just arrogance ?

[Xiahou]

Yet, you still try to claim there's evidence in the filing that Bush authorized the Plame leak- absolutely no one believes that. Maybe you need to work on your critical reading skills.
Perhaps you had better read what I wrote before you spout rubbish xiahou :idea2:
As it does appear that your head is so stuck in the sand that not only do you incorrectly assume where people get their information from you also incorrectly assume that they say things that they don't .
Is it a lack of the cognitive functions or just arrogance ?
You're just comical... Ok let's look at what you wrote :dizzy:.

To summarize, there is no evidence suggesting this had anything to do with Valerie Plame. It's just another shining example of sloppy reporting.

``Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversations with reporter Miller - getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval - were unique in his recollection. Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the vice president to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare 'on the record' statement, and to provide 'background' and 'deep background' statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson. During the conversations that followed on July 12, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson's employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time). Even if someone else in some other agency thought that the controversy about Mr. Wilson and/or his wife was a trifle, that person's state of mind would be irrelevant to the importance and focus defendant placed on the matter and the importance he attached to the surrounding conversations he was directed to engaged in by the vice president.''



Spin that then Xiahou , would you like some more transcripts from the hearing ?:laugh4:
So, you're trying to now claim that you didnt post that as "proof" that refuted what I said? Maybe you should read what you wrote- you're the one that seems to be forgetting. :stupido2:

[Redleg]

I like the nice edit of the topic title from what Hurin initially posted.

It seems.

Court Papers: Bush authorized Plame leak

became


Court Papers: Bush authorized classified information leak

I wonder why this edit was done - is someone embrassed about jumping on a band wagon that failed to roll?

[PanzerJaeger]

The title should be "MSM spews more anti-Bush propaganda"

[Tribesman]

So, you're trying to now claim that you didnt post that as "proof" that refuted what I said? Maybe you should read what you wrote- you're the one that seems to be forgetting.
Once again a lack of cognitive skills on your part , either you cannot read , which cannot be the case , or you do not understand what words mean .
Compare ....To summarize, there is no evidence suggesting this had anything to do with Valerie Plame.
with.....Yet, you still try to claim there's evidence in the filing that Bush authorized the Plame leak
Now try and relate the second to any of my posts :idea2:
See its another you also incorrectly assume that they say things that they don't .

Do you get it yet ?
Its quite simple .
You cannot claim that this has nothing to do with Plame , when the person involved talked about Plame .
When authorising the spreading of de-classified backround information you should be very specific that only de-classified backround information is spread .
Plames' status was not de-classified was it . The leaker was informed of Plame by tha VP (though he claimed he forgot about that ) .
So what you have is serious incompetance in the administration , nothing new there .
The only faults linked to Bush were failing to ensure that the information leaked was only the information that was authorised to be leaked , denying or not knowing that the source spreading the de-classified information was also the source of the classified information , and as a seperate issue , the de-classification of information for poltical ends rather than on grounds of national security or public interest .

[rory_20_uk]

PJ, for you silence is golden. If you've nothing to add, just try to read and not type, OK?

~:smoking:

[Xiahou]

So, you're trying to now claim that you didnt post that as "proof" that refuted what I said? Maybe you should read what you wrote- you're the one that seems to be forgetting.
Once again a lack of cognitive skills on your part , either you cannot read , which cannot be the case , or you do not understand what words mean .
Compare ....To summarize, there is no evidence suggesting this had anything to do with Valerie Plame.
with.....Yet, you still try to claim there's evidence in the filing that Bush authorized the Plame leak
Now try and relate the second to any of my posts :idea2:
See its another you also incorrectly assume that they say things that they don't .

Do you get it yet ?
Its quite simple .
You cannot claim that this has nothing to do with Plame , when the person involved talked about Plame .
When authorising the spreading of de-classified backround information you should be very specific that only de-classified backround information is spread .
Plames' status was not de-classified was it . The leaker was informed of Plame by tha VP (though he claimed he forgot about that ) .
So what you have is serious incompetance in the administration , nothing new there .
The only faults linked to Bush were failing to ensure that the information leaked was only the information that was authorised to be leaked , denying or not knowing that the source spreading the de-classified information was also the source of the classified information , and as a seperate issue , the de-classification of information for poltical ends rather than on grounds of national security or public interest .
:laugh4: I dont even think you understand what you're saying anymore. Your attempts to backpeddle have left your position so incoherent that it's barely worth responding to anymore. You do get some points, however, for working in your obligatory personal attacks early on in the post though. :yes:

Let sort this out... your argument in your original post (quoted in my last post) was really that Bush, while not authorizing the leak of Plame's identity is guilty of incompetence for not knowing that Libby was going to (allegedly) leak her identity on his own accord? I guess you'll have to forgive everyone for not reading all of that into what amounted to a 1- sentence jab at me following an unsourced quote. I mean, you can see where people might get the idea that you were actually trying to refute what you quoted me on rather than actually agreeing with me that the leak cited didnt involve Plame, right? :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Your attempts to backpeddle have left your position so incoherent that it's barely worth responding to anymore.
And once again your level of incomprehension is astounding .

I mean, you can see where people might get the idea that you were actually trying to refute what you quoted me on rather than actually agreeing with me that the leak cited didnt involve Plame, right?
And that is where you don't get it at all , the leak did involve Plame , but it shouldn't have . And in case you didn't notice , that is what this is all about , how it was released , and why it was lied about .
You do know that the charges relate to lying about the information and obstructing the investigation into the release of information don't you .
Then again considering your apparent lack of comprehension maybe you don't .

[Redleg]

I have become even more amused.

Not only do we have an edit to correct the title of the thread

But we now have the typical ad hominem attacks concerning the subject.

All rather amusing.

Edit:

TribesmanThen again considering your apparent lack of comprehension maybe you don't .

So how does this apply to the arguement about the Libby's actions and the possiblity that Bush authorized classified information to be given to the public.

[Tribesman]

So how does this apply to the arguement about the Libby's actions and the possiblity that Bush authorized classified information to be given to the public.
Which arguement ? Bush did authorise classified information to be released , it is called declassifying .
The problem is that the person who was authorised to pass on that information also passed on information that was not declassified , the source of that still classified information was the V.P.
It is a sign of the incompetance surrounding the White House over the whole issue of Iraq and the intelligence .
If you authorise someone to release information then you must ensure that either they only have the information that they are authorised to release(too late for that as Libby had already got the information that wasn't to be released) or that they know that only the specifically authorised information is to be released .
That is the failing , and that is why XiahousTo summarize, there is no evidence suggesting this had anything to do with Valerie Plame.
is bollox , the person who was authorised to leak information leaked information about Plame .

[Hurin_Rules]

Here's a pretty good summary of the affair from Newsweek. Perhaps it will allow us to move beyond wallowing in the minutae of the case and address the real and obvious issue here: that the president appears to have used selective declassification of sensitive information for political purposes, to have mislead the American people that he knew nothing about this, and that his officials appear to have lied to the American people.


The Leaker in Chief?
Is he a CEO who stays above the fray? Or did he give the go-ahead to strike back at critics over prewar intel? A presidential mystery.

By Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas
Newsweek
April 17, 2006 issue - George W. Bush likes to be seen as a man who dwells above the pettiness of political warfare. He has said he doesn't read the newspapers and shrugs off media criticism as carping of the chattering classes. Especially since 9/11, he has said that he looks to a higher power for guidance. He once threatened to stop sharing information with Capitol Hill if lawmakers didn't put a stop to leaking. "There are too many leaks of classified information," he told reporters in September 2003, "and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is."


Last week a video clip of Bush making that statement became cable-TV wallpaper.

Bush, it appeared, was not above the old leaking game after all. The president who, as a younger man, once played the role of loyalty enforcer in his father's White House had not forgotten how to play hardball. According to a filing from the prosecutor in the Valerie Plame leak investigation, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, who has been indicted for lying in the case, told a grand jury that President Bush specifically authorized him to leak from an intelligence document on WMD in Iraq. The leak, according to Libby's testimony, was intended to rebut the allegations of an administration critic, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was disputing administration claims that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had been trying to buy uranium from the African country of Niger.

Democrats jumped on the news, calling Bush a hypocrite. Republicans on Capitol Hill worried that the attacks on Bush's integrity would further sink his poll ratings and hurt the GOP in November. "Leaker in chief is something that could stick," said a senior GOP aide, who declined to be named for fear of angering the president. The White House has not denied the central thrust of Libby's claim. But by late last weekend, the White House was scrambling to distance Bush from the leak, putting out the word that the president had not been involved in tactical decisions—like who should leak, or picking which reporter to leak to. The White House may just be spinning—or the reaction could portend a rift between Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who seemed to be giving Libby his marching orders.

Legally, Bush did nothing wrong. The president can declassify a document any time he wants. Indeed, a sanitized version of the document in question—a National Intelligence Estimate compiled by the CIA and other agencies—was formally declassified and made public only 10 days after some of its contents were leaked by Libby to New York Times reporter Judith Miller in July 2003. But the administration was unquestionably playing games with reporters, whether or not the president was directly involved.

For instance, on July 11, seven days before key portions of the NIE were released, reporters badgered the then national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice to allow them to see some of the NIE, which had been used by the administration to make the case for war with Congress. "We don't want to try to get into kind of selective declassification," said Rice, though she added, "We're looking at what can be made available."

What Rice did not say was that just a few days before, Libby, who was Cheney's chief of staff and national-security adviser, had been doing some highly selective leaking to Miller over breakfast at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington. (A spokesman for Rice said she had no comment because of the ongoing investigation.) Miller later wrote in The New York Times that Libby appeared "agitated" about an article Ambassador Wilson had published two days earlier on the Times's op-ed page. Wilson had disputed one of the more sensational claims made in Bush's State of the Union address in January—that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium from Africa for its nuclear-weapons program. Wilson wrote that, as a former diplomat with African experience, he had been asked by the CIA to travel to Niger to check out the claim, and found no evidence to support it.


At his meeting with Miller, Libby asked to be identified only as a "former Hill staffer"—a position he had not held for several years. Libby proceeded to rip into Wilson as a minor figure whose report about African uranium had never been seen by the White House. He went on to tell Miller that a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate had "firmly concluded that Iraq was seeking uranium." He also made a passing reference to Wilson's wife, who was working at the time on WMD at the CIA. At one point, wrote Miller in her notes (later subpoenaed by the prosecutor in the leak investigation), Libby seemed to be "reading from a piece of paper he pulled from his pocket."

It is not clear how much Libby might have been freelancing and how much he was working under orders. According to the filing by the prosecutor, Libby told the grand jury that he had been authorized by Cheney to disclose the "key judgments" of the NIE. Libby further testified that Cheney told him he had "consulted" with Bush. A lawyer familiar with the investigation, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, told NEWSWEEK that the "president declassified the information and authorized and directed the vice president to get it out." But Bush "didn't get into how it would be done. He was not involved in selecting Scooter Libby or Judy Miller." Bush made the decision to put out the NIE material in late June, when the press was beginning to raise questions about the WMD but before Wilson published his op-ed piece. (Bush once harrumphed that he would fire whoever had outed Plame. No one is accusing Bush of leaking Plame's name, but he started the ball rolling that ended up with her exposure.)

Judging from Miller's account of her breakfast with Libby, the vice president's man went well beyond the "key judgments" of the NIE. The reference that Saddam was prospecting in Africa for uranium was inserted in the NIE's back pages, along with a dissent from intelligence analysts at the State Department who were "highly dubious" about the report. A former U.S. intelligence official who declined to speak for the record due to the sensitivity of the matter told news-week that the NIE staff, writing under strict time pressures, adopted a "kitchen sink" approach, throwing in all sorts of reports that had not been fully vetted.

The dissenting opinions were included in the declassified NIE released to the press on July 18, 2003. But Libby said nothing about them to Miller when he was leaking to her on July 8. Cheney's role in this operation remains murky, as does the precise role played by Bush (both men were questioned by the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald—Bush at the White House, Cheney at an unknown location—but not under oath). The filing by Fitzgerald ties Cheney more directly to Libby's leak than any evidence so far. It says Libby testified that after Wilson's op-ed appeared on July 6, Cheney questioned whether Wilson's trip to Africa was legitimate, or "whether it was a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife," Valerie Plame, a CIA operative then working in the agency's counterproliferation division of the directorate of operations.

Libby has been charged with lying to a grand jury and to the Feds about when and from whom he learned Plame's identity. The theory was that Libby was trying to intimidate or get back at Wilson by exposing his wife's undercover role. Libby has argued all along that he was so preoccupied with important national-security matters, he barely noticed that Wilson's wife was involved, and later forgot that he had mentioned anything about her to reporters when he was questioned by investigators in the leak probe. To defend himself, Libby may now want to call both Cheney and Bush as witnesses at his trial. That is not likely to endear him to the president—the one man who has the power not only to declassify secrets but also to pardon convicted felons.

© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12228726/site/newsweek/

[Xiahou]

That is the failing , and that is why XiahousTo summarize, there is no evidence suggesting this had anything to do with Valerie Plame.
is bollox , the person who was authorised to leak information leaked information about Plame .
Stop spinning already... the original topic was "Court Papers: Bush authorized Plame leak". The alleged "leak" that Bush authorized in no way involved Plame- end of story. No bollux in there my friend, you're just spinning- you've changed what you supposedly meant in your post now numerous times. You're embarrassing yourself and Im tired of helping you do it- so troll on dear friend...

Here, I'll help you get started- just fill in with some ad hominems of your choosing:

"Poor, Xiahou _______________________ :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: "

[Tribesman]

you've changed what you supposedly meant in your post now numerous times.
Once again you show no comprehension whatsoever , that is what happens when you make wrong assumptions and keep following wrong assumptions Xiahou .
To summarize, there is no evidence suggesting this had anything to do with Valerie Plame.

Are you blind or just a rabid republican spin machine , you cannot claim that it doesn't have anything to do with Valerie Plane .
The alleged "leak" that Bush authorized in no way involved Plame- end of story
What "alledged" leak ? are you somehow trying to say that Libby was not authorised to release information ?
And since the person who "allegedly" :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: was authorised to release information released information about Plame then how do you claim that the leak had nothing to do with Plame .
It is an incompetant ballsup , and that is being very generous .

[Redleg]

So how does this apply to the arguement about the Libby's actions and the possiblity that Bush authorized classified information to be given to the public.
Which arguement ?

The one to which the question was asked.




Bush did authorise classified information to be released , it is called declassifying .

Its done all the time to fit the political purpose of the president. Bush in not unique in doing this process to fit the political ends that they wish to pursue.



The problem is that the person who was authorised to pass on that information also passed on information that was not declassified , the source of that still classified information was the V.P.

That is what the proceedings are all about. However again the statements being repeated by the media - are not in complete context of what is being stated in the testimony. The headline of the article posted is case in point. The orginial title of this thread is even more so.

The title of the posted article. Libby court papers: Cheney said Bush OK'd intelligence leak

Orginial title of thread Court Papers: Bush authorized Plame leak

When you read into the article and do a little research a truer picture becomes availiable - which is different then what both titles would suggest.




It is a sign of the incompetance surrounding the White House over the whole issue of Iraq and the intelligence .

Its more then just that.



If you authorise someone to release information then you must ensure that either they only have the information that they are authorised to release(too late for that as Libby had already got the information that wasn't to be released) or that they know that only the specifically authorised information is to be released .

You are only partly correct in my opinion. There is more to it then what you are attempting to present here. Personal accountablity and responsibilities still apply. This is one of the many things about this particlur story having so many angles that it is hard for one to remain focused on the core issue.



That is the failing , and that is why XiahousTo summarize, there is no evidence suggesting this had anything to do with Valerie Plame.
is bollox , the person who was authorised to leak information leaked information about Plame .

The initial news article contained so much spin that it was amusing to read, just like most of what followed in the discussion between you and Xiahou. I don't mind the spin its rather amusing - but resorting to ad hominem arguements defeats your initial arguement on its face.

[Hurin_Rules]

Yes, yes, the initial title of the thread was misleading, and has since been amended. Can we all move past this now to the salient and deeply troubling significance of the actual issue at hand?

Why didn't Bush and Cheney et al. simply come clean with this information when it first hit? Why did Bush suggest he knew nothing about it and not simply say, yes, we authorized the leaking of classified information? Why did his officials say that the information had been declassified only ten days after this, and not before? Why was the intelligence selectively leaked? Why did Bush allow this investigation to continue if he could have cleared it up immediately?

It also seems that even this intelligence that was leaked selectively was manipulated for political means:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/washington/09leak.html?hp&ex=1144641600&en=bc85efcb03b580b2&ei=5094&partner=homepage



Any explanations for any of this murky business? If there was nothing at all suspicious here, why didn't the president clear this up years ago?

[Hurin_Rules]

Looks like even Republican senators think it is high time for an explanation from the White House:


Specter: White House needs to explain leak
Former diplomat says administration engaging in disinformation

Sunday, April 9, 2006 Posted: 1814 GMT (0214 HKT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A top Senate Republican called on President Bush on Sunday to tell Americans why the White House leaked intelligence to bolster the case for the Iraq war in 2003.

The remarks by Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the judiciary committee, came as former U.S. ambassador Joe Wilson, whose complaints about the war sparked the dispute, said it is time for the administration "to come clean."

A new wave of controversy over leaking began last week when prosecutors released court documents in which a former aide to Dick Cheney testified that the vice president told him in 2003 that President Bush approved the release of information in a classified intelligence report.

On Friday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the president declassified information for release, which he has the authority to do.

Democratic critics of the administration have said the president approved leaking sensitive intelligence for political reasons, despite repeated public pronouncements that he would punish anyone in the administration found to have leaked classified information.

In the court papers, Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wrote "multiple" White House officials tried to "discredit, punish, or seek revenge against" a critic of the Iraq war -- a reference to Wilson, who had publicly questioned Bush's assertion in a State of the Union address that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapons program.

The administration later acknowledged that U.S. intelligence did not back up the assertion, and that it should not have been included in the president's speech.

Some U.S. intelligence at the time bolstered Wilson's position that the uranium claim was not supported by evidence. But the information that the Bush administration released, selected from the classified National Intelligence Estimate, supported the administration's stance.

"I think that it is necessary for the president and the vice president to tell the American people exactly what happened," Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, told "Fox News Sunday."

"I'm not about to condemn or criticize anybody, but I do say that there's been enough of a showing here with what's been filed of record in court that the president of the United States owes a specific explanation to the American people."

He added, "The president may be entirely in the clear, and it may turn out that he had the authority to make the disclosures which were made, but that it was not the right way to go about it, because we ought not to have leaks in government. We ought not to have them."

Wilson, on ABC's "This Week," said the administration's actions had furthered a "disinformation campaign."

"Indeed, it seems to me it is long past time for the White House to come clean on all of this," he said.

Wilson: White House twisted intelligence
The documents released by prosecutors last week contained an assertion by Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, that Bush approved -- through the vice president -- the release of some information in a classified National Intelligence Estimate in 2003.

"Several months before the State of the Union address, the White House and the Senate were advised, don't use this information [on Niger]; it is baseless," said Wilson.

"If you then use the information, you are twisting intelligence to support political decisions that have already been made," Wilson said. "And in July, when you selectively leak pieces of the national intelligence estimate, and when you attribute pieces in the body to key judgments, you are furthering that disinformation campaign. That's what Mr. Libby did."

The White House has not challenged the facts in the court documents, but McClellan said the administration acted in the best interest of Americans.

"Because of the public debate that was going on and some of the wild accusations that were flying around at the time, we felt it was very much in the public interest that what information could be declassified be declassified, and that's exactly what we did," McClellan told reporters Friday.

The court documents show that Bush approved the release on July 8, 2003 -- 10 days before McClellan told reporters "this information was just, as of today, officially declassified."

"There has to be a detailed explanation precisely as to what Vice President Cheney did, what the president said to him, and an explanation from the president as to what he said so that it can be evaluated," said Specter.

The CIA leak investigation centers around the question of who leaked the name of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, then a covert CIA operative. The former ambassador calls the move retribution against him.

Libby is charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to FBI agents investigating the exposure. His trial likely will begin in January.

The court documents released this week do not suggest Bush approved the leaking of the agent's identity.

Wilson, in the interview Sunday, did not accuse Bush of having done so. He called on Bush and Cheney to "release the transcripts of their testimony to the prosecutor."

He added, "I'm not going to sit here and accuse the president of the United States of -- of any committed -- betraying the national security of the country.

"But at the end of the day, if you're going to say, get the information out, that basically means declassify the National Intelligence Estimate. Not selective pieces of this that support decisions that you've made, even though they are not grounded in fact, and that's what Mr. Libby did."

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/09/whitehouse.leak/index.html

[Xiahou]

Any explanations for any of this murky business? If there was nothing at all suspicious here, why didn't the president clear this up years ago?Cleared what up exactly? The information was declassified years ago and handed to the press without so much as a peep about it until just last week when they picked it up again from a court filing and tried to spin the hell out of it to make it look like something it wasnt. Why didnt the press 'clear this up' years ago when they were given the information if it was the agregious leak that they're now trumping it up to be?

Or were you going back down the 'manipulated intelligence' path? Go back and look up the Senate Intelligence comittee report- it said Wilson's public statements in the media were almost totally contrary to what he reported privately. The report that he made back to the government actually reinforced the idea the Saddam was shopping for uranium according to the findings. Wilson has left himself with very little credibility.

[Redleg]

Yes, yes, the initial title of the thread was misleading, and has since been amended. Can we all move past this now to the salient and deeply troubling significance of the actual issue at hand?

Why, when the troubling significance of the actual issue at hand continues to be spun by many different agencies, people, and yes even the media.

[Pindar]

I've been amusing myself with the gah gaggle and hadn't really read through this thread. Does this remind any of the "NSA wiretapping" ballyhoo?

[Tribesman]

Does this remind any of the "NSA wiretapping" ballyhoo?
Yes , as it is another example of something being authorised , and then carried out in an authorised manner .

[Redleg]

Does this remind any of the "NSA wiretapping" ballyhoo?
Yes , as it is another example of something being authorised , and then carried out in an authorised manner .

And your forgetting several other factors. :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Xiahou]

I've been amusing myself with the gah gaggle and hadn't really read through this thread. Does this remind any of the "NSA wiretapping" ballyhoo?
In that the media's trying to sex it up into something it's not? Yes.

[PanzerJaeger]

PJ, for you silence is golden. If you've nothing to add, just try to read and not type, OK?

~:smoking:


You might want to consider enhancing the value of your own contributions before lecturing others on the subject.

[Pindar]

In that the media's trying to sex it up into something it's not? Yes.

Yes, that is what I was thinking. One of the problems with the Fever Swamp is their myopia. The GOP has potentially massive problems as the Mid-Term Elections approach, but too many on the opposite side of the aisle get caught up with the black helicopter crowd and fail to see their opportunity. In many ways the Demos are their own worst enemies.

[solypsist]

A senior administration official confirmed for the first time on Sunday that President Bush had ordered the declassification of parts of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq in an effort to rebut critics who said the administration had exaggerated the nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein. ... Confirmation that Mr. Bush ordered the declassification was published late Saturday by The Associated Press, which quoted "an attorney knowledgeable about the case." Once it appeared, the administration official was willing to confirm its details. [...] But the official said that Mr. Bush did not designate Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., or anyone else, to release the information to reporters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/washington/10leak.html?ex=1302321600&en=a822dffc46e8662d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

It Doesn't matter who carried it out. It matters who ordered it.

Let's not get caught up in the spin. Bush ordered the dissemination of the information - he told Cheney to get it done. Case closed.

If mafia boss John Gotti ordered a hit and told his second in command to take care of it would Gotti be off the hook for the hit? NO.

And that is the same scenario we have here. Bush is responsible for 'The Order'.

I'm waiting for the White House to flat out say "You and what army?" any day now?

[Redleg]

A senior administration official confirmed for the first time on Sunday that President Bush had ordered the declassification of parts of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq in an effort to rebut critics who said the administration had exaggerated the nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein. ... Confirmation that Mr. Bush ordered the declassification was published late Saturday by The Associated Press, which quoted "an attorney knowledgeable about the case." Once it appeared, the administration official was willing to confirm its details. [...] But the official said that Mr. Bush did not designate Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., or anyone else, to release the information to reporters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/washington/10leak.html?ex=1302321600&en=a822dffc46e8662d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss



I wonder if you and some others actually understand exactly what this means. It seems that many are getting carried away with the spin from both sides of the isle - to the point that they do not wish to understand what the above statement actually entails to the facts of the situation.



It Doesn't matter who carried it out. It matters who ordered it.

Your correct it does matter who ordered it, it also matters about how the information is being spun. De-classification of intelligence information by the President is not a criminal act, nor is it a violation of his office. Presidents of the past have also declassified intelligence information to get their political desires accomplished. They also caught heat for doing such, but it does not make it criminal act, nor does it make for grounds for impeachment.



Let's not get caught up in the spin. Bush ordered the dissemination of the information - he told Cheney to get it done. Case closed.


Again you are correct - but not in the matter in which you are attempting in your following statements. You are in violation of getting caught up in the spin versus paying attention to the facts. Again find where it is against the law for the President to order the dissemination of classified intelligence information if he orders it to be de-classified?

There is a lot of spin going on by both sides. Several key issues are being lumped together to attempt to make blanket statements about the whole. The orginial title of the thread is the case in point.

Information about Plame could violate the law. Dessemination of recently declassified intelligence information does not necessary violate the law if it was within the purview of the President to declassify that information.



If mafia boss John Gotti ordered a hit and told his second in command to take care of it would Gotti be off the hook for the hit? NO.

Bad anology - your attempting to lump to different scenerios and facts into the same general catergory.



And that is the same scenario we have here. Bush is responsible for 'The Order'.

Bush is responsible for authorizing the declassifcation and release of previous classified intelligence information concerning Iraq. That is correct. The spin of that information to help convince the people about the necessity for going to War with Iraq, is also his responsiblity. The Spin placed upon the story by the media is not his responsiblity, but the responsiblity of the individuals who are spinning the information to make their particalur political point.

It is up to you to decipher the information and the spin of both the politicians and the media to bring about your own conclusion.

[Krasturak]

Well come on people, not even some knee-jerk hostility from the far right or testimonials of shock from the loonie left?

What are these boards coming to? ~:)

This stuff has been so obvious for so long, its not worth commenting on it.