Court Papers: Bush authorized classified information leak

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

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? ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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? ~:)

---

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

:dizzy2:

Just one more nail for his (proverbial) coffin.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

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

---

Probably by reading the article. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

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:

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

"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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haruchai

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haruchai

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

"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:

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haruchai

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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.

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/archi...ex.html#009767

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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.

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 .