NationStates Jolt Archive

That's right folks. The shrub did in fact order the leak of a covert CIA operative's name to the press in order to shut up a war doubter.

Bush Ordered Declassification, Official Says (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/washington/10leak.html?ex=1302321600&en=a822dffc46e8662d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

Why do I get the feeling, though, that the blame for this will somehow fall on Prick Cheney?

He ought to keep his promise and fire the man responsible for the leak. :p

it isn't a leak IF THE PRESIDENT ORDERS IT.

The President of the United States is the grand poobah when it comes to de-classifying information. He CAN'T leak anything, and if he ordered the "leak" then it wasn't a leak at all.

it isn't a leak IF THE PRESIDENT ORDERS IT.

The President of the United States is the grand poobah when it comes to de-classifying information. He CAN'T leak anything, and if he ordered the "leak" then it wasn't a leak at all.

But, he isn't allowed to break the law, nor is he above the law. And, the law is pretty clear that allowing the name of a covert agent to be revealed is a rather serious offence.

That's right folks. The shrub did in fact order the leak of a covert CIA operative's name to the press in order to shut up a war doubter.

Bush Ordered Declassification, Official Says (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/washington/10leak.html?ex=1302321600&en=a822dffc46e8662d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

Why do I get the feeling, though, that the blame for this will somehow fall on Prick Cheney?


Just to clarify something... testimony does not equal confirmation.

it isn't a leak IF THE PRESIDENT ORDERS IT.

The President of the United States is the grand poobah when it comes to de-classifying information. He CAN'T leak anything, and if he ordered the "leak" then it wasn't a leak at all.


So you support the outing of Valerie Plame?

it isn't a leak IF THE PRESIDENT ORDERS IT.

The President of the United States is the grand poobah when it comes to de-classifying information. He CAN'T leak anything, and if he ordered the "leak" then it wasn't a leak at all.

So can you explain what tactical brilliance that Your Dear Leader was latching onto when he decided to "Declassify" Valerie Wilson and the entire Brewster Williams operation under the CIA's nose?

But, he isn't allowed to break the law, nor is he above the law. And, the law is pretty clear that allowing the name of a covert agent to be revealed is a rather serious offence.

Yep. Too bad Plame was not a covert agent at the time...:headbang:

it isn't a leak IF THE PRESIDENT ORDERS IT.

The President of the United States is the grand poobah when it comes to de-classifying information. He CAN'T leak anything, and if he ordered the "leak" then it wasn't a leak at all.
OK

its not a leak, its a dirty trick. the sort of thing that brought nixon down.

do you feel better now?

That's right folks. The shrub did in fact order the leak of a covert CIA operative's name to the press in order to shut up a war doubter.

Bush Ordered Declassification, Official Says (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/washington/10leak.html?ex=1302321600&en=a822dffc46e8662d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

Why do I get the feeling, though, that the blame for this will somehow fall on Prick Cheney?


It says nothing of the sort

Did you actually read this article before providing the link?

It merely outlines how one official has claimed that Bush authorised the de-classification of certain parts of the original 'Niger-connection' report.

It says nothing about whether he authorised the leaking of the agent's name.

If this was never a big deal, why was it investigated? :p

Yep. Too bad Plame was not a covert agent at the time...:headbang:

Dude you need to stop using that smiley, it kills brain cells...

How is running a CIA front company in Africa not covert in your estimation?

it isn't a leak IF THE PRESIDENT ORDERS IT.

The President of the United States is the grand poobah when it comes to de-classifying information. He CAN'T leak anything, and if he ordered the "leak" then it wasn't a leak at all.

Then why didn't he just come forward in the very beginning and admit it? If it's perfectly legal, why the investigation and the "fire the person responsible" hoopla? If he can just declassify information, why did he try to hide the fact that he did?

Yep. Too bad Plame was not a covert agent at the time...:headbang:

Excuse me Comrade Bushevik, but NOC means "Non-Official Cover". As in "If you get caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions." And if she wasn't supposedly a covert agent, then you need to tell the CIA that it had its head up the ass when it demanded the investigation into the leak.

:rolleyes:

It says nothing of the sort

Did you actually read this article before providing the link?

It merely outlines how one official has claimed that Bush authorised the de-classification of certain parts of the original 'Niger-connection' report.

It says nothing about whether he authorised the leaking of the agent's name.

Well it was this part that got me about it.

"[I]n an effort to rebut critics who said the administration had exaggerated the nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein."

There was only one critic, and we all know who that was.

A good read from Greg Palast on the issue.


GANGSTER GOVERNMENT
A LEAKY PRESIDENT RUNS AFOUL OF 'LITTLE RICO'
Buzzflash
by Greg Palast
Sunday, April 9, 2006

It's a crime. No kidding. But the media has it all wrong. As usual.

'Scooter' Libby finally outed 'Mr. Big,' the perpetrator of the heinous
disclosure of the name of secret agent Valerie Plame. It was the
President of United States himself -- in conspiracy with his Vice-President.
Now the pundits are arguing over whether our war-a-holic President had
the legal right to leak this national security information. But, that's
a fake debate meant to distract you.

OK, let's accept the White House alibi that releasing Plame's identity
was no crime. But if that's true, they've committed a BIGGER crime:
Bush and Cheney knowingly withheld vital information from a grand jury
investigation, a multimillion dollar inquiry the perps themselves
authorized. That's akin to calling in a false fire alarm or calling the cops
for a burglary that never happened -- but far, far worse. Let's not
forget that in the hunt for the perpetrator of this non-crime, reporter
Judith Miller went to jail.

Think about that. While Miller sat in a prison cell, Bush and Cheney
were laughing their sick heads off, knowing the grand jury testimony, the
special prosecutor's subpoenas and the FBI's terrorizing newsrooms were
nothing but fake props in Bush's elaborate charade, Cheney's Big Con.

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.

If you or I had manipulated the legal system this way, we'd be breaking
rocks on a chain gang. We wouldn't even get a trial -- most judges
would consider this a "fraud upon the court" and send us to the slammer in
minutes using the bench's power to administer instant punishment for
contempt of the judicial system.

Why'd they do it? The White House junta did the deed for the most evil
of motives: to hoodwink the public during the 2004 election campaign,
to pretend that evil anti-Bush elements were undermining the Republic,
when it was the Bush element itself at the center of the conspiracy.
(Notably, elections trickery also motivated Richard Nixon's "plumbers" to
break into the Watergate, then the Democratic Party campaign
headquarters.)

Let me draft the indictment for you as I would have were I still a
government gumshoe:

"Perpetrator Lewis Libby (alias, 'Scooter') contacted Miller; while
John Doe 1 contacted perpetrators' shill at the Washington Post, Bob
Woodward, in furtherance of a scheme directed by George Bush (alias 'The
POTUS') and Dick Cheney (alias, 'The Veep') to release intelligence
information fraudulently proffered as 'classified,' and thereinafter,
knowingly withheld material evidence from a grand jury empanelled to
investigate said disclosure. Furthermore, perpetrator 'The POTUS' made material
statements designed to deceive investigators and knowingly misrepresent
his state of knowledge of the facts."

Statements aimed at misleading grand jury investigators are hard-time
offenses. It doesn't matter that Bush's too-clever little quip was made
to the press and not under oath. I've cited press releases and comments
in the New York Times in court as evidence of fraud. By not swearing to
his disingenuous statement, Bush gets off the perjury hook, but he
committed a crime nonetheless, "deliberate concealment."

Here's how the law works (and hopefully, it will). The Bush gang's use
of the telephone in this con game constituted wire fraud. Furthermore,
while presidents may leak ("declassify") intelligence information, they
may not obstruct justice; that is, send a grand jury on a wild goose
chase. Under the 'RICO' statute (named after the Edward G. Robinson movie
mobster, 'Little Rico'), the combination of these crimes makes the Bush
executive branch a "racketeering enterprise."

So, book'm, Dan-o. Time to read The POTUS and The Veep their rights.

After setting their bail (following the impeachments and removals, of
course), a judge will have a more intriguing matter to address. The RICO
law requires the Feds to seize all "ill-gotten gains" of a racketeering
enterprise, even before trial. Usually we're talking fast cars and
diamond bling. But in this case, the conspirators' purloined booty includes
a stolen election and a fraudulently obtained authorization for war. I
see no reason why a judge could not impound the 82d Airborne as "fruits
of the fraud " -- lock, stock and gun barrels -- and bring the boys
home.

And if justice is to be done we will will also have to run yellow tape
across the gates at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue -- "CRIME SCENE - DO NOT
ENTER" -- and return the White House to its rightful owners, the
American people, the victims of this gangster government.

**********
Former racketeering investigator Greg Palast is author of "ARMED
MADHOUSE: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War," to be released in June. Subscribe to the new podcast of our columns at
www.GregPalast.com (http://www.GregPalast.com)

Just to clarify something... testimony does not equal confirmation.
I take it you didn't hear the white house said it was not going to deny it.

So you support the outing of Valerie Plame?


Where does the article say that?

So you support the outing of Valerie Plame?

i made no mention of what i thought about his decision to de-classify... i simply said that a president cannot leak information... given the definition of "leak."

Yep. Too bad Plame was not a covert agent at the time...:headbang:
i think you missed the point of the story

the president of the united states authorized the planting of a story about the wife of someone who told the truth in order to both discredit him and to intimidate any other administration official from doing the same thing.

when the "outing" of this cia agent was questioned, instead of coming forward and saying "i authorized this so there is no problem with its legality" he covered it up and let the congress hire a special investigator to look into what really happened. not until a few million dollars were spent and a couple years passed -- during which time a new york times reporter went to jail -- was the truth brought out and THEN he comes clean

you dont find something just a little bit sickening about that?

A good read from Greg Palast on the issue.

That was really cool. Even John Gatti was better at hiding his criminal activity.

I take it you didn't hear the white house said it was not going to deny it.

Oh I am quite aware, and to be honest I don't disagree with the statement that the President is responsible for the occurences. However, that piece of information was not in the article originally posted(I could have overlooked it though). The point I was making was that article alone really does nothing definitive to support the statements made in the original posting of this thread. I would encourage people to really read and consider the articles they post in support of such statements before they use them.

That really came out in a jumble so let me summarize:
1. Your statement is correct, and yes Bush is probably at fault.
2. It bothers me when people don't fully understand the content that they use to support their views.

i think you missed the point of the story

the president of the united states authorized the planting of a story about the wife of someone who told the truth in order to both discredit him and to intimidate any other administration official from doing the same thing.

when the "outing" of this cia agent was questioned, instead of coming forward and saying "i authorized this so there is no problem with its legality" he covered it up and let the congress hire a special investigator to look into what really happened. not until a few million dollars were spent and a couple years past -- during which time a new york times reporter went to jail -- was the truth brought out and THEN he comes clean

you dont find something just a little bit sickening about that?

There's also the point missed that the political gut stab happened to destroy a front company (Brewster Williams) that the CIA had spent years and lots of money developing. Which also now endangers everyone who had any substantial connection to that company and shut off a source of Mid-East nuclear intelligence.

I hate the president as much as the next guy, but just to be clear no one, not even Libby, is saying that Bush okay's the leak of Plame's name. Re read that article. What it says, and what Libby said during testimony, is that Bush authorized the declassification of material that, if the public knew, woudl help bolster the case for war in Iraq. In itself that's bad enough, in my opinion, but no one is saying he actually authorized her name to be leaked or that he declassified her name so it could be leaked.

There's also the point missed that the political gut stab happened to destroy a front company (Brewster Williams) that the CIA had spent years and lots of money developing. Which also now endangers everyone who had any substantial connection to that company and shut off a source of Mid-East nuclear intelligence.
But...but...Wilson was contradicting the president. Surely all that intelligence, all that work, all those covert operatives, plus all those millions and hours spent on the investigation were a small price to pay for the chance to belittle a critic by painting him as someone who was recommended by a mere wife.

:rolleyes:

i made no mention of what i thought about his decision to de-classify... i simply said that a president cannot leak information... given the definition of "leak."
And he didn't leak--but he did authorize his underlings to leak, and accessories usually get the same sentences as the people who commit the crime.

That said, the poster who noted that the thread title is misleading is correct. The article does not say that Bush authorized the leak of Plame's name, only that he authorized the leaking of parts of the classified NIE. The two are not the same.

The main point here, however is not whether or not Bush committed a crime, but why he's being such a hypocrite when it comes to complaining about leaks. He's basically saying that it's okay to leak info to falsely bash a political enemy--and remember, the stuff that came out of the NIE was cherry-picked intel--but it's not okay to leak information that points out that the administration is breaking the law and violating the Constitution (the NSA wiretapping scandal).

There's only one way to reconcile those two positions: IOKIYAR. It's Okay If You're A Republican.

I don't understand.

If he had the authority, why did he make it look like a leak, and order a sham investigation? :confused:

I don't understand.

If he had the authority, why did he make it look like a leak, and order a sham investigation? :confused:
To be fair, he did try to derail the investigation at every turn, and he didn't order it--the CIA referred it and Justice had no choice but to follow up. I'm still a bit surprised that Ashcroft recused himself instead of killing it.

To be fair, he did try to derail the investigation at every turn, and he didn't order it--the CIA referred it and Justice had no choice but to follow up. I'm still a bit surprised that Ashcroft recused himself instead of killing it.
OK, that makes sense.

But still, why make it look like a leak when you can announce it live on breakfast news?

I hate the president as much as the next guy, but just to be clear no one, not even Libby, is saying that Bush okay's the leak of Plame's name. Re read that article. What it says, and what Libby said during testimony, is that Bush authorized the declassification of material that, if the public knew, woudl help bolster the case for war in Iraq. In itself that's bad enough, in my opinion, but no one is saying he actually authorized her name to be leaked or that he declassified her name so it could be leaked.
Yeah, but the president can't just blanket declassify unspecific material. He can't just give an instruction that could be read as "Anything you think is going to help this project by being publicized, consider it declassified," or else how could the nation secure any secrets? Each piece of information has to be declassified after being vetted to see if there is any other information within it or clearly attached to it that can't be declassfied. If the claim is that Libby was authorized to release this info, then Bush must have been aware of it.

Or if what you are saying is accurate, then Bush is in even bigger trouble because this would bolster a charge that he used the nation's security as a political tool against his critics.

There's also the point missed that the political gut stab happened to destroy a front company (Brewster Williams) that the CIA had spent years and lots of money developing. Which also now endangers everyone who had any substantial connection to that company and shut off a source of Mid-East nuclear intelligence.
yes that is one of the more sickening aspects of what bush did. he risked the lives of agents and informants just to intimidate those who dare to tell the truth.

its so mingbogglingly more serious than lying to a grand jury about a few blowjobs.

OK, that makes sense.

But still, why make it look like a leak when you can announce it live on breakfast news?Because the intel in the NIE that was still classified wasn't spun as well as the stuff that had already been released, the stuff that many accepted as a slam dunk case, but that more than a few thought was full of holes (the people who were against the war from the start). If he'd actually released the NIE before the vote to authorize the war had happened, people would have seen the many objections from the various intel groups, like the Dept of Energy, for one. He needed this to be a political hatchet job because he didn't have the goods he needed for an actual argument.

Yeah, but the president can't just blanket declassify unspecific material. He can't just give an instruction that could be read as "Anything you think is going to help this project by being publicized, consider it declassified," or else how could the nation secure any secrets? Each piece of information has to be declassified after being vetted to see if there is any other information within it or clearly attached to it that can't be declassfied. If the claim is that Libby was authorized to release this info, then Bush must have been aware of it.

Or if what you are saying is accurate, then Bush is in even bigger trouble because this would bolster a charge that he used the nation's security as a political tool against his critics.
That doesn't mean Bush declassified her name. It could just as likely mean what everyone thought before. Libby leaked it on his own or was told to by someone else. Like I said, I think Bush is the worst president in history. I think he's dangerously stupid. The fact remains there is no evidence he knew about Plame or that he authorized the leak of her name. More likely he just has a bunch of morons working for him and this is just one of the stupid things that happen when competence is not a requirement for appointment in the Bush White House.

Because the intel in the NIE that was still classified wasn't spun as well as the stuff that had already been released, the stuff that many accepted as a slam dunk case, but that more than a few thought was full of holes (the people who were against the war from the start). If he'd actually released the NIE before the vote to authorize the war had happened, people would have seen the many objections from the various intel groups, like the Dept of Energy, for one. He needed this to be a political hatchet job because he didn't have the goods he needed for an actual argument.
Ah, I see now. Sacrifice a pawn from behind the scenes, let it blow over.

I think it's too complicated for most American voters to understand though. I bet Cheney had to explain the plan to Bush with diagrams. And everyone who voted Republican would probably shrug and say the King can do no wrong because His Word is the Law. :(

Ah, I see now. Sacrifice a pawn from behind the scenes, let it blow over.

I think it's too complicated for most American voters to understand though. I bet Cheney had to explain the plan to Bush with diagrams. And everyone who voted Republican would probably shrug and say the King can do no wrong because His Word is the Law. :(Not to mention that it happened so long ago that it's hard to remember the order. I wonder how many people think that Plame's name was leaked after the war started rather than well before? I wonder if there's a timeline of this scandal available somewhere?

Not to mention that it happened so long ago that it's hard to remember the order. I wonder how many people think that Plame's name was leaked after the war started rather than well before? I wonder if there's a timeline of this scandal available somewhere?

if i were a lefty and i wanted Bush smeared over this, i'd go to a friendly site like moveon.org

hehe

they'll have all the alleged details.

OK, that makes sense.

But still, why make it look like a leak when you can announce it live on breakfast news?

I would say because if he did, the CIA would have dropped the Brewster Williams bomb on Bush.

it isn't a leak IF THE PRESIDENT ORDERS IT.

The President of the United States is the grand poobah when it comes to de-classifying information. He CAN'T leak anything, and if he ordered the "leak" then it wasn't a leak at all.

Sorry lad but the President is above the rules.

I was in the DOD for a few years and they had one simple rule about talking about your job. Don't.

That included other people.

As a government person she held at the very least a secret clearance which you don't get to "de-classify" Even when your clearances are pulled it does not give you the ability to talk about what you did.....

It was political and he should be punished over it.

I am quite sure if Clinton had done it many of you would be singing a different tune.

if i were a lefty and i wanted Bush smeared over this, i'd go to a friendly site like moveon.org

hehe

they'll have all the alleged details.

Bush is a walking farce like Michael Jackson. He'll generate plenty of smearage on his own.

And you're dodging some of the main points Comrade Bushevik, do you believe it was justified for Your Dear Leader Shrub to destroy the CIA's Brewster Williams front, endanger lots of people and cut off Mid-East nuclear intelligence because it's okay for him to "declassify" materials?

Oh good lord. I don't wanna sound like a broken record when I say this, but it seems that most people haven't heard it or don't listen when they do:

If a democrat had fucked up anywhere NEAR as badly as the Bush administration had fucked up, then not only would he have been impeached, but he would've been arrested for various charges, along with a bunch of other people in his administration.

Republicans are just better at blowing things out of proportion, and making large things seem meaningless or deflecting them to where they don't belong but do the least amount of damage.

I'm not gonna lie and say it doesn't piss me off.

But, he isn't allowed to break the law, nor is he above the law. And, the law is pretty clear that allowing the name of a covert agent to be revealed is a rather serious offence.
No, no, your problem is your thinking this is a nation of laws. If you look at some of the ideas guys like Scooter(what kind of grown up calls himself Scooter)Libby and Dick Cheney have dropped into the pot of political discourse. They have expressed the belief that Congress has no power to make laws restricting the president. And in another stinker of political philosophy, apparently the independence of the
judiciary requires the supreme court to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the executive branch. So no, the law is not relevant.:rolleyes:

Google: "Unitary Executive Theory"

It's basically elective autocracy, and I wouldn't put too much money on the elective part.

You guys are having a useless argument. No one is accusing Bush of having anything to do with leaking Plame's name. It doesn't say that on the Smoking Gun and it does,'t say that in this article.

This is a stupid post. Pres. Bush ordered the declassification of the intelligence report not the agent involved which he has every right to do as President. If you read the NY Times article you would've noticed that it never states he leaked the name of the agent. Besides Bush has not gone as far as Democratic Pres.Woodrow Wilson did when he passed legislation making it illegal to criticize the government during WWI. Imagine if that type of law passed today. 80% of the American people on here would be arrested. There have been scarier times in history than what we are going through right now.

This is a stupid post. Pres. Bush ordered the declassification of the intelligence report not the agent involved which he has every right to do as President. If you read the NY Times article you would've noticed that it never states he leaked the name of the agent. Besides Bush has not gone as far as Democratic Pres.Woodrow Wilson did when he passed legislation making it illegal to criticize the government during WWI. Imagine if that type of law passed today. 80% of the American people on here would be arrested. There have been scarier times in history than what we are going through right now.
Your argument is "worse things have happened"?

Cute.

This is a stupid post. Pres. Bush ordered the declassification of the intelligence report not the agent involved which he has every right to do as President. If you read the NY Times article you would've noticed that it never states he leaked the name of the agent. Besides Bush has not gone as far as Democratic Pres.Woodrow Wilson did when he passed legislation making it illegal to criticize the government during WWI. Imagine if that type of law passed today. 80% of the American people on here would be arrested. There have been scarier times in history than what we are going through right now.

The point being made here explicitly is that Shrub flip-flopped on how he handled the leak. First he was proclaiming how anyone caught leaking would be dealt with accordingly, and then when Scooter fingers him as authrorizing the "declassification" the White House then goes on the "President had the right to do it all along" copout, almost the same exact behavior and excuse displayed for the Domestic Wiretapping brouhaha.

The fact that the leak destroyed a fairly important CIA cover operation seems to be ignored by Busheviks.

Your argument is "worse things have happened"?

Cute.


You betcha. Much much worse things have happened. We only have to go back as far as the Cuban Missile Crisis for a prime example.

I am much cuter than you.

LONDON IRISH!
http://www.london-irish.com/default.ink

Excuse me Comrade Bushevik, but NOC means "Non-Official Cover". As in "If you get caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions." And if she wasn't supposedly a covert agent, then you need to tell the CIA that it had its head up the ass when it demanded the investigation into the leak.

:rolleyes:

The New York Times and other papers demanded the investigation.

So someone working a desk in the USA is worried that someone is going to take them out? You mean like in a movie?

If there was a real crime committed, why has no one been arrested for it?

They are only prosecuting people for lying during the investigation...

The point being made here explicitly is that Shrub flip-flopped on how he handled the leak. First he was proclaiming how anyone caught leaking would be dealt with accordingly, and then when Scooter fingers him as authrorizing the "declassification" the White House then goes on the "President had the right to do it all along" copout, almost the same exact behavior and excuse displayed for the Domestic Wiretapping brouhaha.

The fact that the leak destroyed a fairly important CIA cover operation seems to be ignored by Busheviks.

You're missing a prime fact and that is he never leaked the agent's name. You seem to be mistaking the leaking of the agent's name with the legal Presidential leak of an intelligence report.

By the way I only voted for Bush the first time. I voted for Kerry the 2nd time. Assuming I'm Pro-Bush is ignorant.

Just the facts that is all I ask.

You betcha. Much much worse things have happened. We only have to go back as far as the Cuban Missile Crisis for a prime example.

I am much cuter than you.

LONDON IRISH!
http://www.london-irish.com/default.ink
So, as long as the president doesn't go further than what has been done in the past, its all good?

So, as long as the president doesn't go further than what has been done in the past, its all good?


Assuming that is what I meant is silly. Don't waste my time with inane questions. I'm just saying that there have been scarier times than what we are experiencing today.

Assuming that is what I meant is silly. Don't waste my time with inane questions. I'm just saying that there have been scarier times than what we are experiencing today.
Things being scary have nothing to do with the fact that, yet again, Bush abused his power in the White House.

Things being scary have nothing to do with the fact that, yet again, Bush abused his power in the White House.

You're mistaken. He was well within his rights to do this.

The New York Times and other papers demanded the investigation.

Bullshit Bushevik. The CIA requested the investigation. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13258-2004Nov25.html)

The Justice Department launched a leak investigation at the CIA's request in September 2003 and, after a preliminary inquiry, turned it over to a politically independent special counsel late last year. Justice Department officials said it will be up to Fitzgerald to decide whether to issue a report on his findings if he does not seek criminal charges.

So someone working a desk in the USA is worried that someone is going to take them out? You mean like in a movie?

Wow, you're a real fucking strategic genius. Plame was working overseas when Novak published the leak and in fact she had to be brought back to the Continental U.S. Which can't be said for the other CIA operatives and local contacts who have been fingered by their association with the cover company.

If there was a real crime committed, why has no one been arrested for it?

That's probably the same cocky excuse they used when Liddy and Co. were caught breaking in to the Democratic Campaign Office.

They are only prosecuting people for lying during the investigation...

You mean like how the whole Lewinski deal only started out as an investigation into real estate fraud?

Wow, you really are a hardcore Bushevik.

:rolleyes:

You're mistaken. He was well within his rights to do this.
You're telling me that it is right to declassify a CIA agents name for political reasons which have nothing to do with National Security. Huh.

Assuming that is what I meant is silly. Don't waste my time with inane questions. I'm just saying that there have been scarier times than what we are experiencing today.

What's scarier than sabotaging an apparatus of the nation's intelligence network for partisan revenge?

What's scarier than the sabotage being connected to an agenda to push an unnecessary and costly war that's toppled a stable and secular if despotic regime and replaced it with chaos that's teeming with the all but certain outbreak of civil war?

What's scarier than bolstering terrorist organizations across the globe and turning world opinion against us at a time when we need support the most?

What's scarier than an out of touch adminstration who's seriously considering using nuclear weapons on a country... to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons in the first place?

You're telling me that it is right to declassify a CIA agents name for political reasons which have nothing to do with National Security. Huh.


One last time....he did not leak the agent's name only an intelligence report. There is a big huge difference. Even though his reasons are somewhat dubious he still has the right as President to release such information if he so chooses. Every President has that right.

Did you know that anybody releasing an agent's name would be guilty of treason against the USA? Treason is punishable by death. Do you honestly think the President would do such a thing? I think not. The person responsible for leaking the agent's name is in quite a bit of trouble. If it turns out that it was the President that leaked the agent's name then that would effectively end his Presidency, but like I said it wasn't Bush.

What's scarier than sabotaging an apparatus of the nation's intelligence network for partisan revenge?

What's scarier than the sabotage being connected to an agenda to push an unnecessary and costly war that's toppled a stable and secular if despotic regime and replaced it with chaos that's teeming with the all but certain outbreak of civil war?

What's scarier than bolstering terrorist organizations across the globe and turning world opinion against us at a time when we need support the most?

What's scarier than an out of touch adminstration who's seriously considering using nuclear weapons on a country... to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons in the first place?


Are you on drugs? If so you need to share with the rest of us. You really need a tighter grip on reality if you believe such things as you have stated above.

To answer your general question as to what was scarier I would have to say the Cuban Missile Crisis beats everything. All out global thermo-nuclear war that brings about the end of the world is extremely scary. Today's issues don't even come close. I would've been safe though hiding underneath my wooden desk at school because that is what the incredibly scary movies they used to make us watch back in the 80's said to do. Then I could go outside to the playground and f*cking melt.

Are you on drugs? If so you need to share with the rest of us. You really need a tighter grip on reality if you believe such things as you have stated above.

To answer your general question as to what was scarier I would have to say the Cuban Missile Crisis beats everything. All out global thermo-nuclear war that brings about the end of the world is extremely scary. Today's issues don't even come close. I would've been safe though hiding underneath my wooden desk at school because that is what the incredibly scary movies they used to make us watch back in the 80's said to do. Then I could go outside to the playground and f*cking melt.

Who cares if there were scarier times? Laws and morals are not based on a sliding scale.

Yep. Too bad Plame was not a covert agent at the time...:headbang:

First of all, how do you know? Because they people who have already lied to you about this case told you so without any substantiation? Also know that any substantiation (i.e. specifics about her work,) would still be classified even after her identity was revealed. There is a reason why covert agent's identities aren't revealed even if they are no longer actively covert...because their contacts (agents of foreign countries whose home countries would execute them if they learned they had been working with US agents,) are still to be protected.

Finally, you can't come up with an explanation of why the CIA would order an investigation into the outing of an agent who was not covert. Hmmm? DO you have an explanation for that, or are you going to keep repeating the same debunked and painfully stupid meme over and over again?

Please answer. If you can.

Face it. That SOB in the Oval office outsmarted us. All he had to do was say he authorized it, and it instantly becomes legal. No one can ever prove what the motive was, even though we all know it. The most you could say is it was unethical (but only if we could actually prove he did it for revenge), but it wasn't illegal, because he really is within his rights to declassify anything he sees fit. Jackass 1, American people 0. Dear God, I can't wait until 2009!

One last time....he did not leak the agent's name only an intelligence report. There is a big huge difference. Even though his reasons are somewhat dubious he still has the right as President to release such information if he so chooses. Every President has that right.

Did you know that anybody releasing an agent's name would be guilty of treason against the USA? Treason is punishable by death. Do you honestly think the President would do such a thing? I think not. The person responsible for leaking the agent's name is in quite a bit of trouble. If it turns out that it was the President that leaked the agent's name then that would effectively end his Presidency, but like I said it wasn't Bush.
An abuse of power does not have to be an illegal act. He has the right to declassify anything he chooses, true. But he also has to face the consequences of what he does in office. You're right though, he was not the one to leak the name to the press. Others did that for him.

It's naive to think that just because a man is president, he wouldn't break the law.

Are you on drugs? If so you need to share with the rest of us. You really need a tighter grip on reality if you believe such things as you have stated above.

To answer your general question as to what was scarier I would have to say the Cuban Missile Crisis beats everything. All out global thermo-nuclear war that brings about the end of the world is extremely scary. Today's issues don't even come close. I would've been safe though hiding underneath my wooden desk at school because that is what the incredibly scary movies they used to make us watch back in the 80's said to do. Then I could go outside to the playground and f*cking melt.
I wonder what this president would have done during the Cuban Missile Crisis... http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/image_big_teaser/international/photosvideos/photos/george-bush-leads-the-us-towar.jpg

Are you on drugs? If so you need to share with the rest of us. You really need a tighter grip on reality if you believe such things as you have stated above.

I'm sorry- okay I'm not really, but if you think none of those are serious problems- and half of those have actually happened- then you're the one on the reality-distorting drugs.

To answer your general question as to what was scarier I would have to say the Cuban Missile Crisis beats everything. All out global thermo-nuclear war that brings about the end of the world is extremely scary. Today's issues don't even come close. I would've been safe though hiding underneath my wooden desk at school because that is what the incredibly scary movies they used to make us watch back in the 80's said to do. Then I could go outside to the playground and f*cking melt.

1) The Cuban Missile Crisis was a direct result of Castro calling on Khruschev for help after the half-assed Bay of Pigs invasion- which Kennedy later on admitted was a mistake in both planning and not supporting all the way through.

2) Unlike Shrub, Kennedy was proven to be not trigger-happy, impatient and impertinent in an "Us Versus Them" scenario; the Hot Line between the White House and the Kremlin was in fact established following the averting of the Missile Crisis. Also, there were *no* fully operational missiles prepped for launch in Cuba when the blockade was set up. The Navy did not open fire on the Soviet vessels which would have provoked an outright conflict.

3) There was a documentary (was either Frontline or American Experience) that talked about the nuclear arms race, and it was quite mentioned that the Duck Under Desk Drill was nothing more than a security blanket for the general public who would have been fried had the ICBMs struck anyways. So you wouldn't have even made it to the playground.

That doesn't mean Bush declassified her name. It could just as likely mean what everyone thought before. Libby leaked it on his own or was told to by someone else. Like I said, I think Bush is the worst president in history. I think he's dangerously stupid. The fact remains there is no evidence he knew about Plame or that he authorized the leak of her name. More likely he just has a bunch of morons working for him and this is just one of the stupid things that happen when competence is not a requirement for appointment in the Bush White House.
Granted this is a likely scenario, and in this case, Libby should go to prison. The fact is these morons, taken together, couldn't yield enough brain to pickle and spread on a cracker. My mom recently described them and the current Congress as "desperately searching for their own asses with flashlights and not finding them."

(I was raised to be the way I am. ;) )

Face it. That SOB in the Oval office outsmarted us. All he had to do was say he authorized it, and it instantly becomes legal. No one can ever prove what the motive was, even though we all know it. The most you could say is it was unethical (but only if we could actually prove he did it for revenge), but it wasn't illegal, because he really is within his rights to declassify anything he sees fit. Jackass 1, American people 0. Dear God, I can't wait until 2009!
You're right, of course, and I won't believe this isn't another lie they came up with to kill this investigation until Bush produces a dated and authenticated piece of paper declassifying this information -- before 2 weeks ago, that is. But it doesn't matter -- they have effectively killed it, just by creating the mother of all reasonable doubts. I'd be willing to bet that, now that they've hit on this little trick, we'll be seeing it again as they sacrifice more of the nation's interests to launch smear campaigns against the opposition in the upcoming elections.

Assuming that is what I meant is silly. Don't waste my time with inane questions. I'm just saying that there have been scarier times than what we are experiencing today.
And having a guy point a loaded gun at my head is scarier than being told I might have cancer, but that doesn't mean I'd be happy to have cancer.

But, he isn't allowed to break the law, nor is he above the law. And, the law is pretty clear that allowing the name of a covert agent to be revealed is a rather serious offence.
Plame was not an NOC. She worked at an embassy. As such she was not under cover. Period.

Plame was not an NOC. She worked at an embassy. As such she was not under cover. Period.
Then why was her identity leaked, as opposed to just told?

Then why was her identity leaked, as opposed to just told?
Simple, it came out in the whole bit about her recommending that her husband go to niger as a hack job on Bush which he lied about when he came back by contradicting his own flipping report. It's much faster for something to trickle through the media by leak than it is to actually give the explanation.

Plame was not an NOC. She worked at an embassy. As such she was not under cover. Period.

First of all, that is relevant under one law only.

Second, do you have proof? The CIA appears to be under the impression her identity was secret.

Simple, it came out in the whole bit about her recommending that her husband go to niger as a hack job on Bush which he lied about when he came back by contradicting his own flipping report. It's much faster for something to trickle through the media by leak than it is to actually give the explanation.

Wow. Somebody has adopted the talking points as their mantra.

Too bad the substance isn't true.

And the logic -- a leak spreads faster than a press conference -- is faulty.

Wow. Somebody has adopted the talking points as their mantra.

Too bad the substance isn't true.

And the logic -- a leak spreads faster than a press conference -- is faulty.
Actually it is true, as an embassy posting without a truly extensive diplo backround, which she did not have, is the same as someone slapping a 'Kick Me' sign onto her back for a foreign intelligence agency.

First of all, that is relevant under one law only.

Second, do you have proof? The CIA appears to be under the impression her identity was secret.
Well then, as soon as charges other than perjury from fitzy, we'll see if the CIA is right.

Actually it is true, as an embassy posting without a truly extensive diplo backround, which she did not have, is the same as someone slapping a 'Kick Me' sign onto her back for foreign intelligence agency.

And so you believe the CIA was full of shit requesting the Justice Department to investigate the leak even though you allege there was nothing covert about her job. Wow, you're a regular John LeCarre.

Actually it is true, as an embassy posting without a truly extensive diplo backround, which she did not have, is the same as someone slapping a 'Kick Me' sign onto her back for a foreign intelligence agency.
Well then, as soon as charges other than perjury from fitzy, we'll see if the CIA is right.

All righty, then. We'll put that down as "No. I have no proof" (and "I don't really know as much as I am fronting.")

it isn't a leak IF THE PRESIDENT ORDERS IT.

The President of the United States is the grand poobah when it comes to de-classifying information. He CAN'T leak anything, and if he ordered the "leak" then it wasn't a leak at all.

LOL. Thanks for the giggle.

Simple, it came out in the whole bit about her recommending that her husband go to niger as a hack job on Bush which he lied about when he came back by contradicting his own flipping report. It's much faster for something to trickle through the media by leak than it is to actually give the explanation.
I'm sorry, but the bolded sentence is one of the silliest things I've read on this forum. Compare the following, please:

Scenario 1: Bush wants to shut Wilson up, so he declassifies Wilson's wife's info, has some talking points written up about it, and has Scott McClellan deliver them in his daily briefing to the WH press corp, guaranteeing that it will be on all the networks and wireservices within 24 hours.

Scenario 2: Bush wants to shut Wilson up pronto, so he declassifies the info, and then calls a press conference and announces it himself, guaranteeing that it will be broadcast live or within 12 hours on all media internationally and pursued on the media for the next several weeks.

Scenario 3: Bush wants to shut Wilson up, so he lets a third party leak Wilson's wife's info anonymously to only a few reporters and then denies that he had anything to do with leaking classified information, and three years later, in the midst of investigations, he now has to explain that it wasn't a crime after all, even though he said earlier that it was. This, of course, is what actually happened. Oh, and by the way, Wilson, rather than being silenced, is still being quoted on the news.

Seriously, Ravenshrike, you cannot possibly think that Scenario 3 was the most efficient method of silencing Wilson. :rolleyes: