Libby says Bush authorized leaks

[Larry]

Uh, Chief,

You may have more information than I do, but I haven't seen any claims that Bush domehow damaged the nation with these leaks, or even a list of exactly what was leaked. (Hint: This is a suggection to provide some backup for your claims.)

Me, I'm more with Jumbo, here.

Yeah, it's entirely possible that what he did was perfectly legal and completely within his authority. (Although I'll still point out: Authority to decalssify does not equal authority to leak.)

What I'm ticked about is the way that everybody just takes for granted the President's authority to declassify matetrial based simply on how the material will affect him politically.

Just as "declassify" <> "leak",

"legal" <> "doesn't stink"

[gstahl]

Again, in order for information to have been "leaked" in this context, the information would have to be classified. It was, in effect, declassified by the President through his explicit authorization to disclose it; therefore, a "leak" did not occur.

Cool, then he must have felt the need to not tell anyone and swear that they will find and punish the folks who did leak this info. Hmmmm, well if he did declassify the information (which i still do not believe is accomplished by simply telling someone to leak it) then why not just say so in the first place. Wouldn't you say he is guilty of at least wasting a whole bunch of tax payer money investigating something which he could have clarified immediately?

Long ago he swore he would bring honor to the white house. I just can't see how this is at all acting above reproach or bringing honor to anything. Can anyone?

While someone may argue semantics that technically he do not break the law (which is still not clear as there maybe a specific legal procedure in place to declassify documents) and was not lying (which again may or may not be true depending on analysis of the previous legal matter and when he said what), he absolutely WAS deciving the public that elected him. Be honest, one would not want their kids to use his tactics to avoid be fully truthful.

[ChiefBigMeat]

Post story about the implications of the leak:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer

It's a very serious matter. In fact, the CIA demanded a full scale investigation be instigated. For whatever reason, Neo-CONvicts like to pretend this information was on par with middle-school kissing gossip.

[Redskins Diehard]

www.cia.gov. They are taking applications for all you classification experts out there. Clearly some of the foremost experts in the intelligence community are right here on this board...Maybe the agency should start advertising here!!

[twa]

Yeah Chief I am patiently waiting to see why Fitzgerald won't release the results of that investigation. ...Also why no one has been charged :doh:

[Crazyhorse1]

Uh, Chief,

You may have more information than I do, but I haven't seen any claims that Bush domehow damaged the nation with these leaks, or even a list of exactly what was leaked. (Hint: This is a suggection to provide some backup for your claims.)

Me, I'm more with Jumbo, here.

Yeah, it's entirely possible that what he did was perfectly legal and completely within his authority. (Although I'll still point out: Authority to decalssify does not equal authority to leak.)

What I'm ticked about is the way that everybody just takes for granted the President's authority to declassify matetrial based simply on how the material will affect him politically.

Just as "declassify" <> "leak",

"legal" <> "doesn't stink"

I'm not currently prepared to back up Chief's claim that the U.S. was damaged by the leak but do assert that I have in the time read CIA reports of the damage done and find the Chief's claim not only true, but temperate. Massive damage was done, years of work was lost, and may agents were exposed to extreme danger as a result of the leak/-- all totally true. Chief is correct.

It is also true that de-classifying the material might get Bush off the smaller charge of leaking classified material, but does nothing to get him off the larger charge: Treason, of de-classifying material for political reasons material damaging to the United States.

[Larry]

Post story about the implications of the leak:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer

Uh, Chief,

The article you referenced claims that the leak of Valery plame's name caused the revelation of a fake CIA company.

Nobody is saying that Bush authorised the leaking of Plame's name.

Libby is claiming that Bush authorised him to leak other material. (And that's what this thread is about.)

Nowdays, the current justification being used to justify the White House's actions after the fact is to claim that she wasn't covert, so publishing her name didn't reveal anything that wasn't already known. (And the White House has already staked out their next fall-back justification: That the White House didn't reveal her name, her husband did.)

[ChiefBigMeat]

other material?

The whole point of the leak was revenge against Wilson for speaking out the truth, namely - Iraq NEVER bought or attempted to buy enriched uranium from Africa.

I don't think Bush specificly said, "Expose the guy's wife." (Which is ghasty- not only endangering national security, but focusing an attack with violent implications on a man's wife)

Instead, I get the impression he gave a broad order to use classified information, and his underlings orchastrated the details. That is the issue at point here. He initiated a management policy and he is responsible for its outcome.

Yeah, of course the white house is going to try and spin and make all the excuses they can - It's just only going to go over about as well as telling the police officer your speedometer is broken and you were just on your way to the dealership........

[twa]

What do you propose to do when someone acting as a agent of the US goes on a official fact finding mission,reports, and then issues a press release with a different conclusion than the report?

I have a few suggestions, but they involve torture

The president simply released info to show him a liar with a agenda.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1523

http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=68&showlogin=1

Starting just around 12:30 into this 15 minute segment Wilson points out the administration was careful to only talk about uranium with respect to Africa initially. he says that until the story turned to Niger, and then the Niger angle was denied by state, it was difficult to make the case that the march to war was built on lies. Wilson admits, in his own words, that to attack Bush’s policies required the story to be about Niger and not Africa. Why? Well, because the forgery angle only applies to Niger, and the broader Africa angle has more substantiating intel and history.

[Larry]

What do you propose to do when someone acting as a agent of the US goes on a official fact finding mission,reports, and then issues a press release with a different conclusion than the report?

I have a few suggestions, but they involve torture

The president simply released info to show him a liar with a agenda.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1523

http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=68&showlogin=1

Starting just around 12:30 into this 15 minute segment Wilson points out the administration was careful to only talk about uranium with respect to Africa initially. he says that until the story turned to Niger, and then the Niger angle was denied by state, it was difficult to make the case that the march to war was built on lies. Wilson admits, in his own words, that to attack Bush’s policies required the story to be about Niger and not Africa. Why? Well, because the forgery angle only applies to Niger, and the broader Africa angle has more substantiating intel and history.

Uh, I've read the first 3-4 screenfull of your first link (about 1/4 of the page) and don't see anything at all that would point to Wilson changing his story. (And I'm flat out incredulous that, if that had happened, Rush Limbaugh wouldn't have been announcing it the next day.)

In fact, in what I've read of the first link, I really don't even see a lot (or even a few) alleged facts. (Or a lor of reasoning that I can follow, for that matter.)

All I've read so far on that link is a lot of implications, maybe's, and could be's thrown around and the abandoned on the way to the next maybe.

And your second link appears to be a listing of the names and resumes of a bunch of people who had a conference.

Now, if you've got some evidence that Joe Wilson came back from Africa and told W "Yes, sir, Saddam bought Uranium", and then went to the Times and said otherwise, then I'd really like to see it.

(I'll just leave it as "implied" that even if your unsupported (and, so far, unreported even on "right wing talk radio") claim that Wilson lied to the White House were true, does that[/i] justify the White House's subsequent actions?)

[ChiefBigMeat]

nah, Lar - I think you misunderstood. When twa mentioned how Wilson's Editorial differed from the report, he meant that Wilson had to go to the press, because the official report (Being put forth by Bush administration) was contrary to what Wilson had discovered and reported.

The president was saying Iraq bought enriched uranium from Africa to help fabricate a case for war, and Wilson knew for a fact this was not only not true, but that Bush knew it too and was lying.

[twa]

Larry ,you actualy read all that? :doh: :laugh: sorry screwed up the link.

Chief what I was saying is Wilson reported back to the CIA(which is who sent him) and they issued a report showing Sadamn had SOUGHT uranium in africa (which they had documentation of).

[ChiefBigMeat]

Yeah, wasn't it that they ignored what Wilson had to say and instead based the official report on a rumor from someone the Germans told us was a total phony?

I can't remember what they called him....they made up some wild alias for this "source"

I heard this stuff ont he radio a while ago, so I'm not sure about the details - but it seems like the Germans et al knew the intelligence Bush was putting out there was VERY sketchy.

Anyway, its already come out that Bush was planning a war with Iraq even before 9/11:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?ex=1301115600&en=be186887fe0c83a2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Larry]

Anyway, its already come out that Bush was planning a war with Iraq even before 9/11:

Yes, he was.

However, does that mean he used 9/11 as an excuse to falsely do what he wanted to, anyway?

Or does that mean he chose to focus on anything that blamed the devil he already hated, anyway?

Face it, if 9/11 had happened under Reagan, he would've blamed the Russians.

Pat Robertson would've blamed gays.

Sarge would've blamed the ACLU.

When something bad happens, it's natural to jump to the conclusion that your own personal enemy is behind it.

Now we're back to motives. If Bush did (and as far as I'm concerned, there's no doubt at all that he did) deliberatly manipulate the nation into a war, did he do it because he figured he'd get a lot more power as a war President, and he'd almost certainly get a second term? Or did he do it because he honestly believed that a) Saddam was a threat, or would be one eventually, and he honestly thought he could create a democracy via invasion?

Even if "Bush Lied", he may have had a good reason. (Or thought he did.)

[ChiefBigMeat]

Heh,

I'm going to have to go with:

A) + +C(War Proffiteering) with extra emphasis on C. BTW, why isn't there more publicity about the missing $9 Billion of war funds and the $20 cups of coffee we are buying form Halliburton?

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

[Guest Gichin13]

I think proving a crime relating to outing Plame sounds like it will still be tough.

I think the evidence clearly stacks up, like expected, that the administration used leaked information they already believed or knew was inaccurate simply to throw a critic under the bus.

There may be technical legalistic defenses as to whether this was a leak or already declassified, as Oakton Bush League and others point out so stridently, but there really is no moral or ethical justification. This smells just as bad or worse now as when this story first broke.

[twa]

Good to see the Post on board

A Good Leak

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895.html

Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing.

As Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out at the time of Mr. Libby's indictment last fall, none of this is particularly relevant to the question of whether the grounds for war in Iraq were sound or bogus. It's unfortunate that those who seek to prove the latter would now claim that Mr. Bush did something wrong by releasing for public review some of the intelligence he used in making his most momentous decision.

[@DCGoldPants]

Just so we're all clear.

If they President authorizes this, then its not a leak. Is just declassified. Even if the CIA and the people's who identity was declassified doesn't find out for awhile.

[AlexRS]

Interesting.

Look at it this way.... there is a "source" and "information" coming from the source.

In order to hide or distort the truth, President can do the following:

1) Come up with false information, classify source.

2) Declassify only desired parts of the information.

3) Declassify source of information in attempt to discredit information.

4) Any combination of above.

This gives him FULL CONTROL OF INFORMATION.

[Burgold]

Bush's behavior at the time and up to this revelation indicated that he believed a wrong had been done and a crime committed. If you believe in the President, you believe there were dirty shenanigans being played.

[Kilmer17]

The media, people here, and the Dem politicos continue to combine two seperate incidents that happen to employ the same characters.

Bush spoke about the Plaime leak when referring to finding and dealing with the leaker. Not the intel leak. Which as it turns out, wasnt a leak, but rather a declassification. Albeit a slimy way to do it.

[Thiebear]

Heh,

I'm going to have to go with:

A) + +C(War Profiteering) with extra emphasis on C. BTW, why isn't there more publicity about the missing $9 Billion of war funds and the $20 cups of coffee we are buying form Halliburton?

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

You do realize Congress spent 26 billion in 2005 they can't find......

Pointing out they can't keep track of 9 billion in the IRAQ seems fractionally redundant :laugh:

[@DCGoldPants]

ok, to follow-up.

If the CIA had decided to send her out into the field after the President had Declassified this, but before it made it into the media. Then something happened to her because CIA nor the Agent was aware.

Who does this fall on?

McClellan said that they'd never declassify anything that could harm National Security. But, if she were overseas and this all the sudden was flashing across Foxnews as a way to crush her Husband and what he said. Even if she was involved with a contact or a operation. Its worth the risk?

[Redskins Diehard]

ok, to follow-up.

If the CIA had decided to send her out into the field after the President had Declassified this, but before it made it into the media. Then something happened to her because CIA nor the Agent was aware.

Who does this fall on?

McClellan said that they'd never declassify anything that could harm National Security. But, if she were overseas and this all the sudden was flashing across Foxnews as a way to crush her Husband and what he said. Even if she was involved with a contact or a operation. Its worth the risk?

I think Kilmer answers this 2 posts up

[Burgold]

This wasn't the only instance he spoke about leaks or the need to control information though. He's has consistently been a big proponent against leaks. Hense, the stuff about Congress, torture, wiretapping, etc. There have been so many issues where the President came out and proclaimed that leaking is intolerable and is an inherrant danger to the country. Again, his practice, behavior and words run contrary apparently to his deeds.