Bush Behind Plame Leak ?

[Michael Hardner]

I had forgotten about this story until today...

Bush has long criticized leaks of secret information, and had threatened to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's identity.

"Now if the president leaked, for whatever purpose, we ought to know that -- and we ought to know what distinguishes his leaking information from all the others who leaked information and were condemned by the president," Schumer said.

CNN

At first glance, this seems pretty big to me. I remember Bush threatening to fire anyone who leaked information, but now Libby is saying that the president approved it ?

This isn't as big as Clinton's "I did not have relations..." lie, but - if true - is more than a little misleading.

Breitbart Article

But it points to Cheney as one of the originators of the idea that Plame could be used to discredit her husband, Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson.

Before his indictment, Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on prewar intelligence on Iraq and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say.

Personally, I'm stunned by this development. While not a fan of Bush, I would never have suspected him of being devious enough to leak his own goverment's secrets for political gain. If it's found to be true, I see this as the biggest scandal of the administration so far.

*NOTE: After reading the article again, I realize that it's not the Plame leak that they're talking about here. My apologies.

[geoffrey]

This isn't as big as Clinton's "I did not have relations..." lie, but - if true - is more than a little misleading.

I think leaks of topic-secret information is a little bit, just slightly so, more important than a lie about a blow job.

Not impressed with Mr. Bush, come on now. Leaking secrets for political expediency... trouble.

[newbie]

Plame or not, Dubya/White House denied sensitive information leaks eight times. Enough is enough.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Dem_lead...clean_0406.html

[geoffrey]

I personally don't care if he lied about it, that's what politicans do.

I do think its very troubling that a President would authorize a leak in intelligence. If I were American, I would not be impressed one bit.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear newbie,

Plame or not, Dubya/White House denied sensitive information leaks eight times.

You are into the world of legal semantics here. I see no words of denial, so you would have to proce 'a sin of omission' (of responsibility) in court.

Mr. Hardner,

The following quote was from the Plame investigation...

President Bush, 7/18/05 issue of USA Today:

"If someone committed crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

[newbie]

theloniusfleabag, what about Libby's testimony that Bush authorized leaks?

[Liam]

I'm an Amreican who is *not at all* a fan of Bush's, but I don't see a legal problem here for a couple of reasons. (I have problems with this leak issue, but I don't think there is a *legal* problem here.)

First, Bush has the power to declassify information and could make the argument that by releasing Libby to talk about the issue, Bush merely took an indirect path to declassifying information. Second, was the decision to release the information (what Libby revealed was the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq -- *not* Plame's identity) a political decision? Did Bush have Libby reveal this information for political reasons or for actual wartime policy purposes (to explain a certain policy decision -- as opposed to shoring up support for the policy decision, Bush personally, and/or the GOP)?

I think if Bush wanted to declassify the information, he should not have been so surreptitious about it. It comes across as sneaky, underhanded, and unnecessarily clandestine. So it looks ethically suspect and quite possibly is. What is more damning, though, is that by taking this path, Bush and Cheney appear to be saying one thing in public (intolerance for leakers) while doing something entirely different behind closed doors (leaking). And it shows that Bush is just another shifty politician when the media shows clips of his saying he wants to find our who in his administration is leaking things to the press. I suppose, like OJ's search for the real killer, Bush was looking for the real leaker?

[geoffrey]

Whether an issue is legal or ethical are two different concepts. It's time we stop just holding our leadership in both Canada and the US to legal standards and start holding them to ethical ones.

[KrustyKidd]

Whether an issue is legal or ethical are two different concepts. It's time we stop just holding our leadership in both Canada and the US to legal standards and start holding them to ethical ones.

Well, is it ethical to lie in order to benifit your country? Churchill did it a thousand times, and, many politicians do it over and over every day. To give us the information to decide if it is right or not would also give the enemy an advantage so, guess we have to trust their judgement? Fine if you are the part of the country getting the benifit but what if you're the guy getting screwed to have this benifit take place?

[gerryhatrick]

What is this BUSH OBSESSION???

Maybe the fact that the little puke pulls all the strings has something to do with it. Just a guess.

[KrustyKidd]

the little puke

Bush does have a cult like following it seems - on the looney left.

[Montgomery Burns]

I hate to rain on the parade of some people here, but presidents and VPs can declassify information based on their own good (or bad) judgment. That is a privilege and responsibility of the office. Their authority is near absolute, whether you like it or not. Circulating unclassified information isn’t a crime, no matter the technique used. The information can be disseminated at a press conference, in a press release, in a speech, or yes!-– via leak.

[Michael Hardner]

I hate to rain on the parade of some people here, but presidents and VPs can declassify information based on their own good (or bad) judgment. That is a privilege and responsibility of the office. Their authority is near absolute, whether you like it or not. Circulating unclassified information isn’t a crime, no matter the technique used. The information can be disseminated at a press conference, in a press release, in a speech, or yes!-– via leak.

It seems, though, that this was done for political purposes, with GWB all the while saying 'we will find the leakers etc.'.

Misleading to say the least.

Would you excuse a Liberal who did that ? I wouldn't.

[Montgomery Burns]

It seems, though, that this was done for political purposes, with GWB all the while saying 'we will find the leakers etc.'

I doubt that he was talking about himself and Dick Cheney; he meant the people who do not have the constitutional authority.

Misleading to say the least.

Only if your MO is "gotcha" when assessing the Bush administration.

Would you excuse a Liberal who did that ?

If they had the constitutional authority to do so...yes!

[gerryhatrick]

Would you excuse a Liberal who did that ?

If they had the constitutional authority to do so...yes!

You would excuse a Liberal for leaking classified information for crass political reasons?

You lie.

[KrustyKidd]

You would excuse a Liberal for leaking classified information for crass political reasons?

Watched Cretien do it for years. Pretty normal and SOP for any government I think. I personally don't see what the big deal is, like she was already compromised ten years ago and was unfit to operate as a true undercover operative and, her husband seemed to be actively working against the Adminsitration (right or wrong youdon't do that when holding a position) so, what's the big deal? If this were an evil administration they would have planted evidence to throw him in jail and have him taken out of service.

[Montgomery Burns]

Liberal Washington Post editorial: Bush was right to leak and Joe Wilson is a liar .

PRESIDENT BUSH was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do. But the administration handled the release clumsily, exposing Mr. Bush to the hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy that Democrats are leveling.

...

...

The affair concerns, once again, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his absurdly over-examined visit to the African country of Niger in 2002. Each time the case surfaces, opponents of the war in Iraq use it to raise a different set of charges, so it's worth recalling the previous iterations. Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraq threat." The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.

...

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.

Ouch! That's gotta hurt when even the liberal WaPo sides with Bush.

Another leftist meme is seen swirling down the toilet.

[gerryhatrick]

Liberal Washington Post

Holy sh#t, are you ever out of touch. That's incredible.

Besides you obviously not being familiar with the editorial writings of the WP, you're not familiar with the much talked about contradictions in the issue your editorial appeared in. Basically the Post news controdicted claims in the editorial...more than once. I'll post it for you.

Anyway, in answer to the repeated comment here that Bush didn't do anything illegal, I'd like to draw your attention to this point by Greg Palast:

On February 10, 2004, our not-so-dumb-as-he-sounds President stated, "Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing. ...And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it."

Notice Bush's cleverly crafted words. He says he can't name anyone who leaked this "classified" info -- knowing full well he'd de-classified it. Far from letting Bush off the hook, it worsens the crime. For years, I worked as a government investigator and, let me tell you, Bush and Cheney withholding material information from the grand jury is a felony. Several felonies, actually: abuse of legal process, fraud, racketeering and, that old standby, obstruction of justice.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=490&row=0

There ya go.

[Montgomery Burns]

The WaPo isn't liberal?

This must've been the first time that Gerry ever read their paper.

And Greg Palast?

GREG PALAST?!

Cuckoo cuckoo.

Tell me something. Is Mr Palast still working on his "Bush stole the 2004 election" conspiracy theory?

[Liam]

Liberal Washington Post editorial: Bush was right to leak and Joe Wilson is a liar .

PRESIDENT BUSH was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do. But the administration handled the release clumsily, exposing Mr. Bush to the hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy that Democrats are leveling.

...

...

The affair concerns, once again, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his absurdly over-examined visit to the African country of Niger in 2002. Each time the case surfaces, opponents of the war in Iraq use it to raise a different set of charges, so it's worth recalling the previous iterations. Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraq threat." The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.

...

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.

Ouch! That's gotta hurt when even the liberal WaPo sides with Bush.

Another leftist meme is seen swirling down the toilet.

Editorial columns are opinion, they are not fact. I could write an editorial about how you're a handsome devil, but it wouldn't make it true.

[gerryhatrick]

delete

[gerryhatrick]

GREG PALAST?!

BTW Monty, you ignored this article:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5546

different source.

Take the discussion there if you like. Remember, admitting a mistake is admirable.

[GostHacked]

HEY MONTY !!!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/12/bush.wmd/

"The reporting I saw this morning was simply reckless and it was irresponsible," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "The lead in The Washington Post left this impression for the reader that the president was saying something he knew at the time not to be true. That is absolutely false, and it is irresponsible."

<peter griffin> COME ON!! </peter griffin>

"I cannot count how many times the president has said the intelligence was wrong. The Robb-Silberman commission, which was the independent bipartisan commission that looked into this intelligence, said that the intelligence community's assessment of Iraq's biological weapons programs was almost entirely wrong," he said in Wednesday's White House briefing.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ld/14325691.htm

OK who T.F. is telling the truth? or is this another diversionary attempt on Bush's camp buddies?

Iraq never had a chance to get their nuclear program off the ground. (But I am not totaly ignorant to say that they did not posses chem weapons, regardless of the fact that none were actually found). The Israelies bombed the nuke plant. The Iraq invasion rendered the power grid useless. France gave the uranium/plutonium in a sludge that was good for nuclear reactors but useless for refining for weapons.

All the intelligence seems to be now pointing to the NO sign regarding the question : Did Iraq have WMDS?

[KrustyKidd]

All the intelligence seems to be now pointing to the NO sign regarding the question : Did Iraq have WMDS?

Politically it's a moot point as the violation of the fourteen or so resolutions provided the rationale to carry out enforcement via regime change/invasion. WMDs in Saddam's posession gave a dramatic edge to it which by all accounts, most leaders of the world agreed he had.

On the practical side, I hope that if they are there still they are found so some farmer or kid doesn't kill themselves or worse, end up in the hands of some unsavory types and get returned to France in a Paris subway.