Libby: Bush authorized the Plame leak

RealGun · Apr 6, 2006

Naively, I believed we would see a reduction of government, less spending, more honesty, a roll back of gun laws, none of which has happened.

You should not have expected the GOP to be guided entirely by the right wing. If they were, they would not have gotten elected.

seeker_two · Apr 6, 2006

Lone_Gunman said:
I, for one, will be doing my part in November of this year to redistribute the power in Washington. I will vote Democrat for the first time in my life. I don't support any of the Democrat agenda, but I believe the country would be better off in a political stalemate than allow either party too much control.

Now, let's not get crazy, here... :what:

There are other options....

Read my sig....

...and the Republi-cons will know where to find us when they want OUR vote...

RealGun · Apr 6, 2006

On balance, I don't think getting an entire new crew every few years could possibly leave us any worse off than we are now.

I am in favor of term limits for Congress. I am biased in favor of reupping a Republican President because it takes too much unproductive time to set up an administration. Things would have to appear pretty obviously bad for me to make an exception. I would also need an appealing alternative candidate who didn't represent "the enemy". I guess all that would have to be in the context of party primaries. I am not voting for a Democrat, no way, no how. Third party is out of the question too. Others are welcome to think differently. It's hard to effectively vote FOR your guns, but it is pretty easy to vote against them.

CAnnoneer · Apr 6, 2006

Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. Some are still stuck on denial.

Shadizar · Apr 6, 2006

The way I see it...

The President said, "If someone leaked this information they will be prosecuted to the extent of the law." (paraphrased)

At the time, he knew that the leak originated from himself. He will likely argue that the leak and the Valorie Plame issue are different. Smart. He can argue that he did not in fact leak her name. This may be true. I doubt it.

He has the authority to declasify information. That is not in doubt. To lie to the American people is another issue. That is not ok. With his knowledge, he did in fact lie. In our best interest? Maybe...not likely... Taken in the context of the issue though, I think he and his administration made a ruinous error.

I have considered myself a Republican for a long time (and still do to some extent). When you actually look at the original principals of the Republican Party you will notice that they are for individual rights and limited government. That to me does not represent the actions of the Republican Party today.

I challenge any supporter of the Bush admininstration to actually watch the Judiciary Committee sessions (on NSA wiretapping). I have (many, many hours), and am not convinced that this administration is looking out for our rights.

There is a difference from the Neo-Conservatives, and the Conservatives in this nation. This President is not looking out for Conservatives in my opinion. This latest revelation should wake some people up! I don't truly believe it will though.

-Shadizar

P.S. Credibility? Does the President have any?

c_yeager · Apr 7, 2006

Perhaps you should consider editing the title of this thread and your original post instead of allowing them to sit there with an obvious untruth that has your name attached to it. Being a moderator I'm sure you know how to do it.

Never mind Beren, I am amazed by how many people dont bother to rad past the first post. This is a neat experiment. Whats more intersting is that me making this post on page 2 probably wont even change that. I wanna see who else is all set to jump on the bandwagon without bothering to read more than 5 words of text.

Shadizar · Apr 7, 2006

Perhaps you should read the posts and not just look at the first post. No bandwagon here.

-Shadizar

Stand_Watie · Apr 7, 2006

lobotomyboy said:
From the CNN.com article:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm no fan of Miller's, but she testified that Libby told her about Plame's identity at the authorization of Bush, through Cheney. That's not what Libby is saying, but remember, the man is under indictment for lying under oath. We're supposed to believe him?

Your citation doesn't say that "Libby told her about Plame's identity at the authorization of Bush, through Cheney". Was that what you intended WRT to that statement are you referencing something other than the CNN article?

Lobotomy Boy · Apr 7, 2006

Miller, not Libby, said Libby leaked Plame's name at the behest of Bush. Libby said Bush authorized him to leak classified information, but not Plame's name. My point is that Libby is under indictment for lying and Miller is not; hence the smart money says it would be wise to believe the person who is not under indictment for lying.

Ultimately Bush probably didn't break any laws, since he has the power to declassify any information. He could broadcast tomorrow's troop movements on Al Jeezera if he wanted. Given his track record, if doing so might help him politically, he might just do that. Technically he didn't even lie, since he told reporters anyone who leaked classified information would be fired, and anytime he authorizes the leaking of information, he automatically declassifies it.

Techinically this may be truthful, but it is mendacious as hell and completely unacceptable. It's like basing your defense on what the definition of "is" is. Or arguing that one's competence depends on the difference between a levee being "breached" and a levee being "topped." Doesn't really matter--it's all mendacity. At least in Clinton's case the mendacity was only directed at his wife, the only person who had any business inquiring into her husband's sex life. In Bush's case the mendacity involves national security and taking responsibility for thousands of lives.

The American people are butt stupid, for the most part. I'll give you that. Just drive down a metropolitan freeway during rush hour if you doubt that statement. They can't comprehend such simple principles as "slower traffic keep right" or signalling a lane change. But these things are so huge they cannot fail but to comprehend them. At this point the incompetent, lying traitors running the executive branch have bunged the pooch so badly that even the slow-witted American public has had enough. A lot of good Republicans are going to get washed out of Congress in a wave of anti-Bush sentiment this fall, and about the only thing I can see to do about it right now is stock up on evil black rifles and high-capacity mags before the nit-wit moonbats the Democrats will run this fall get to Washington.

gc70 · Apr 7, 2006

by lobotomyboy
Miller, not Libby, said Libby leaked Plame's name at the behest of Bush. Libby said Bush authorized him to leak classified information, but not Plame's name.

Do you have a link to hard factual support for Miller's supposed statement, or are you playing wishful connect-the-dots?

longeyes · Apr 7, 2006

We've been cutting Bush slack for five years.

Is there anything left BUT slack at this point?

roo_ster · Apr 7, 2006

TX1911fan said:
It is completely within the President's discretion to declassify materials. It happens ALL the time...This is a complete non-issue.

Yup.

Lots of reasons to dislike GWB. This ain't one, unless you inflamed, itching, case of BDS can only be relieved by doing so.

Kim · Apr 7, 2006

Reading Comprehension is poor in this country. No where has it been proven Bush leaked or told someone to leak Plames name. He said he would take care of anyone who leaked her name not other material. Leaking by the government and others is how things work inside the Beltway. The government has just if not more ability to give out infomation however they want. The info was not a lie. This is not something that the Bush administration began to do it has been done probably since the founding of the country. If something is leaked that you like you say how wonderful that whisltleblower was and how great feedom of speech or the press is. If you do not like it you whine. Like many on this thread. But really people on this thread seem to be more informed than most people and even they get side swiped by their prejudice and the MSM reporting. Closed minds can not think straight or with reason.

CAnnoneer · Apr 7, 2006

If something is leaked that you like you say how wonderful that whisltleblower was and how great feedom of speech or the press is.

Certainly double standards have become all too common. However, we should make a distinction between leaking info on criminal activity and leaking info about national security.

We simply cannot compare Deep Throat to Libby, and expect to keep our credibility. The former did the country a great service at his own risk, the latter played bouncers in political dirty games meant to deceive the American people. The technique may be the same, but the intentions and results are quite different.

Deep Throat is a hero, Libby is a scumbag.

fallingblock · Apr 8, 2006

Uh, Lobotomy Boy....

"At least in Clinton's case the mendacity was only directed at his wife, the only person who had any business inquiring into her husband's sex life."
************************************************************

You're not really a student of Bill Clinton, are you?

"Bush-hatred" is an interesting phenomenon.

I voted for "Dubya" both times.

I believe he was a better choice than either of the others.

But, that said, I surely do wish we had better choices next time -

Sadly, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Stand_Watie · Apr 8, 2006

Do you have a link to hard factual support for Miller's supposed statement, or are you playing wishful connect-the-dots?

That was the question I was asking, albeit attempting to do it more diplomatically. Unfortunately my response was a repitition of the original assertion, rather than a source for the assertion.

Manedwolf · Apr 8, 2006

My opinion is that the trial needs to go forward. If the justice system can prove that someone, anyone, no matter WHO they are, leaked national security information on purpose, for political gain, they need to bring them up on the dusted-off-charge of High Treason. Period.

There are some things you Just Do Not Do.

Art Eatman · Apr 8, 2006

Re classification and de-classification of documents: The president can de-classify documents that HE has classified. Documents classified by others must either have the agreement of the classifying person, or be judged by some sort of review board.

Art

Silver Bullet · Apr 8, 2006

I, for one, will be doing my part in November of this year to redistribute the power in Washington. I will vote Democrat for the first time in my life.

You could vote Third Party, thus not soiling yourself with a vote for the gun-grabbers.

I don't support any of the Democrat agenda, but I believe the country would be better off in a political stalemate than allow either party too much control.

What political stalemate ? You have no guarantees that an election that puts a Dem in the White House wouldn't also put Dems in as majority of the Senate and Congress. Janet Reno or Chuckie Schumer or Diane Weinstein on the Supreme Court, anyone ?

Sergeant Bob · Apr 8, 2006

Valerie who?

Malone LaVeigh · Apr 8, 2006

TX1911fan:

The fact that Plame's name was in the declassified materials is irrelevant. She was not covert at the time, and had not been covert in the field in over 6 years, thereby not qualifying for protection anyway.

Do you have an unbiased source for this? Something other than Novak trying to cover his butt or partisan pundits?

I had heard the opposite. Of course it's going to be a while before we know the whole truth, but according to Wikipedia:

Little is known of Plame's professional career. While undercover, she had described herself as an "energy analyst" for the private company "Brewster Jennings & Associates," which the CIA later acknowledged was a front company for certain investigations

At his October 28, 2005, press conference, Special Counsel Fitzgerald noted:

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson attempted to clear up the confusion surrounding Plame's status in a column responding to Max Boot: "The law actually requires that a covered person 'served' overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby."[7] It was confirmed that she was a covert operative early in the investigation by acting intelligence officials, setting the matter to rest.

Nevertheless, court papers released in early 2006 showed that Fitzgerald did in fact conclude that Plame was a "covert" agent under the IIPA, though he did not seek charges on that count because he lacked proof that Libby was aware of her status.[10]

Valerie Plame Wilson was identified in the New York Times as a N.O.C. by Elisabeth Bumiller, who wrote (5 October 2003):

But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in non-conventional weapons who worked overseas, had "nonofficial cover," and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a NOC, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that NOCs have especially dangerous jobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

I'm not saying Wikipedia is the final word, but if true, this was an act of treason. It does appear to be a well-researched article with lots of references to primary sources.

Manedwolf · Apr 8, 2006

It's hard to effectively vote FOR your guns, but it is pretty easy to vote against them.

Bush said he was in support of the assault weapons ban renewal. Senator Russ Feingold (D) re-assesed his earlier views, said he thought it was "symbolic and ineffective and made people think we wanted to take their guns", and voted against it.

Generalizing and voting blindly by party is very, very, very dangerous. People can wear the wrong hat, and surprise you.

gc70 · Apr 8, 2006

I'm not saying Wikipedia is the final word, but if true, this was an act of treason.

Loose use of the word treason.

United States Constitution, Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

SIGarmed · Apr 8, 2006

Miller, not Libby, said Libby leaked Plame's name at the behest of Bush. Libby said Bush authorized him to leak classified information, but not Plame's name. My point is that Libby is under indictment for lying and Miller is not; hence the smart money says it would be wise to believe the person who is not under indictment for lying.

Ultimately Bush probably didn't break any laws, since he has the power to declassify any information. He could broadcast tomorrow's troop movements on Al Jeezera if he wanted. Given his track record, if doing so might help him politically, he might just do that. Technically he didn't even lie, since he told reporters anyone who leaked classified information would be fired, and anytime he authorizes the leaking of information, he automatically declassifies it.

Techinically this may be truthful, but it is mendacious as hell and completely unacceptable. It's like basing your defense on what the definition of "is" is. Or arguing that one's competence depends on the difference between a levee being "breached" and a levee being "topped." Doesn't really matter--it's all mendacity. At least in Clinton's case the mendacity was only directed at his wife, the only person who had any business inquiring into her husband's sex life. In Bush's case the mendacity involves national security and taking responsibility for thousands of lives.

The American people are butt stupid, for the most part. I'll give you that. Just drive down a metropolitan freeway during rush hour if you doubt that statement. They can't comprehend such simple principles as "slower traffic keep right" or signalling a lane change. But these things are so huge they cannot fail but to comprehend them. At this point the incompetent, lying traitors running the executive branch have bunged the pooch so badly that even the slow-witted American public has had enough. A lot of good Republicans are going to get washed out of Congress in a wave of anti-Bush sentiment this fall, and about the only thing I can see to do about it right now is stock up on evil black rifles and high-capacity mags before the nit-wit moonbats the Democrats will run this fall get to Washington.

Sorry I'm not buying it. You don't like Bush fine, but trying to turn a non issue into a major deal is pretty sad and very disingenuous if you ask me.

The general public knows better just like they did to elect Bush in the first place instead of Kerry.. You sound like you're jumping on the lets blame Bush bandwagon and it's pretty obvious.

The left and their minions would love to beleive that the American people have had enough of Bush. The truth is they've had enough of the liberal slant. That's why the alternative media has been such a hit.

CAnnoneer · Apr 8, 2006

The few weaknesses of our system of government become all too apparent when a bunch of corrupt incompetent senile liars are in charge.

Libby: Bush authorized the Plame leak

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Moderator In Memoriam

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads