Hmmm....
April 6, 2006 9:18 AM   Subscribe

Bush authorized Plame leak? According to Libby, "Libby, testified in 2003 that he provided reporter Judith Miller with information from a classified National Intelligence Estimate after being told by Cheney that Bush 'specifically had authorized' him to 'disclose certain information in the NIE.'" [via Drudge]
posted by trinarian (221 comments total)
 
Is the wort 'authorize' being drained of meaning completely, or can bush authorize Laura to blow him while he watches baseball on the TV?
posted by Space Coyote at 9:21 AM on April 6, 2006


I smell patsy.
posted by grubi at 9:21 AM on April 6, 2006


sorry for the poor grammer at the begining, "According to Libby, 'Libby...'"... I rushed a bit too much. Anyway to post-post edit this or will I permanently look a fool?
posted by trinarian at 9:21 AM on April 6, 2006


Sad Scenario: Now that he is already re-elected he can just say that he authorized all these leaks so that unless Libby et al. lied to investigators there is no crime in the Plame leak. Everyone walks, the president is slightly tarnished, yet all the nefarious goals remain achieved. Uggghhh. Although sad, at least this scenario is not too likely.
posted by caddis at 9:24 AM on April 6, 2006


Was the info in the NIE info about Plame's identity? Or was this classified info about Iraq reconstituting its nuclear program or somesuch?
posted by ibmcginty at 9:25 AM on April 6, 2006


Have any mainstream news organizations picked up this story yet?
posted by thefreek at 9:26 AM on April 6, 2006


Now im curious about this answer...i would have thought Libby was just going to fall on his sword on this one; he seems to be indicting Bush though. Wonder if Libby ends up dead for this, or if its part of "the plan" somehow.
posted by JohnnyK at 9:26 AM on April 6, 2006


Can we please have endless network repetition of the "I did not have sex with that woman" clip juxtaposed with the "If anyone in my administration leaked this they will be fired" clip?

Pretty please?
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:28 AM on April 6, 2006


The Associated Press has it
posted by trinarian at 9:29 AM on April 6, 2006


GET THAT MAN A MEDAL, STAT!
posted by machaus at 9:30 AM on April 6, 2006


As president, Bush has the authority to declassify information. Their argument will be that if Bush authorized the info to be released, it's no longer classified, so no law has been broken.
posted by Crash at 9:30 AM on April 6, 2006


... no way to edit after posting though? I admit I was trying too post to quickly to avoid a double. *dodges snarks*
posted by trinarian at 9:31 AM on April 6, 2006


I'm sure the Republican Congress will get right on this.
posted by MasonDixon at 9:31 AM on April 6, 2006


Fox has it, as does the National Journal.
posted by Balisong at 9:32 AM on April 6, 2006


I would be outraged, but my capacity for outrage has been so thoroughly drained by the actions of this Whitehouse, I can barely summon the least bit of indignation.
Just stick it on W's already-weighty list of misdeeds for which history must inevitably condemn him and his cronies.

I mean, history WILL condemn him, won't it? Please?
posted by BigLankyBastard at 9:33 AM on April 6, 2006


They did it through TEAMWORK!
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:33 AM on April 6, 2006


CNN International just apologized for their coverage of the story, saying it's a non-issue for now.

Stay tuned.
posted by marvngardn at 9:34 AM on April 6, 2006


From the AP article: There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.

But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.

posted by ibmcginty at 9:35 AM on April 6, 2006


So why did Bush allow the ongoing grand jury trial to waste taxpayer dollars and also say he would "deal with" whoever was found responsible?
posted by p3t3 at 9:35 AM on April 6, 2006


I mean, history WILL condemn him, won't it? Please?
BigLankyBastard

No. Of course not. Don't you know we're gearing up for the rapture? In less than four years the world will end and all Christians will be taken into the kingdom of heaven.

meanwhile, Bush and his neo-con cronies will have to resort to hiding in caves a la Bin Laden when they are shocked to find out that they didn't make the rapture cut.
posted by DragonBoy at 9:37 AM on April 6, 2006


If you can think of a better way to beat the terrists, I'd like to hear it.
posted by chasing at 9:38 AM on April 6, 2006


Oh never mind then. No clip show. Bummer.
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:38 AM on April 6, 2006


What's more than ironic is that Bush, Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales go on and on and on about how the Times' expose of the NSA wiretapping Americans endangers national security, any public debate about their war policies endangers national security, talking about torture endangers national security, blah blah blah -- but when they think they can discredit a critic who publicly questions their war rationale, Team Bush phones up the Times themselves to read a reporter excerpts from a top-secret document and then blows cover on one of their own spies.

It's such transparent hypocrisy and manipulation of public discourse, it would be laughable, if tens of thousands of people hadn't been killed and injured because of it.
posted by digaman at 9:40 AM on April 6, 2006


Trinarian, if you would have read it instead of tried to rush to be the first one to Post this, you might have noticed that there isn't anything in this document new. No where in that document does it say "Bush authorized Plame leak." All it says is that Cheney told Libby that Bush authorized information contained in the NIE to be disclosed for purposes of refuting Wilson's allegations.

This doesn't advance the ball at all in this story.

And as a practical matter, the attorneys for Libby are quite competent, and they are not likely to throw out irreparably damaging information in a Response to a Motion to Compel. Rather, they re-articulated what has already been discussed.
posted by dios at 9:41 AM on April 6, 2006


If you can think of a better way to beat the terrists, I'd like to hear it.

Step one: Stop creating thousands of more raging, self-righteous terrorists with just-say-yes-to-torture policies and wars that are basically sleights-of-hand.
posted by digaman at 9:43 AM on April 6, 2006


Write. Your. Congressmen.

We can bitch all day about it on the Internets, but until you're asking the right questions of your elected representatives and not letting it slide, it will be forgotten and spun into nothing.
posted by NationalKato at 9:43 AM on April 6, 2006


This doesn't advance the ball at all in this story.

You knew that Bush had authorized the NIE leak, Dios? That was certainly news to me.
posted by digaman at 9:46 AM on April 6, 2006


Trinarian, if you would have read it instead of tried to rush to be the first one to Post this, you might have noticed that there isn't anything in this document new

It may not be new, but it's getting coverage. Kinda like the Katrina videos. Doesn't seem to matter nowadays what is true, but rather what is being reported. I'm sure it will blow over like everything else though...
posted by dig_duggler at 9:46 AM on April 6, 2006


This doesn't advance the ball at all in this story.

dios, how does this not advance the ball? Previously, Bush was outraged at the leak and, as has been said in this thread already by p3t3, wasted tax dollars on an investigation. Not to mention withholding the truth from the American people while projecting faux outrage at the security breach.

Again, how does this not advance the ball?
posted by NationalKato at 9:47 AM on April 6, 2006


Their argument will be that if Bush authorized the info to be released, it's no longer classified, so no law has been broken.

Libby was charged with obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements.

Can we please have endless network repetition of the 'I did not have sex with that woman' clip juxtaposed with the 'If anyone in my administration leaked this they will be fired' clip?

I'd also like the networks to show clips of people saying obstruction of justice and perjury were the worst things ever when Clinton was accused of them when the same people now say it's no big deal.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:47 AM on April 6, 2006


Certainly this will the be thing that brings down Bush.
posted by wfrgms at 9:49 AM on April 6, 2006


dios, how does this not advance the ball? Previously, Bush was outraged at the leak and, as has been said in this thread already by p3t3, wasted tax dollars on an investigation. Not to mention withholding the truth from the American people while projecting faux outrage at the security breach.
The spin on this one is that the NIE leak and the Plame leak are separate. He only technically promised to fire people responsible for the Plame leak. If some individuals foolishly believed that the President wasn't authorizing the leakage of OTHER classified information to the Times, well, they're just unrealistic. You have to break the rules sometimes to advance the cause of freedom. 9/11 changed everything.
posted by verb at 9:52 AM on April 6, 2006


I'm sure it will blow over like everything else though...

The usual refrain in threads like this.

People who say these things would not make great crimefighters.

"I found a clue to the murder."
"Well did he do it? Does this break the case?!"
"Uhm, not yet, but I'm working on it. Hm -- here's another clue."
"TELL ME TELL ME -- he do it?"
"Can't be sure yet. Still working."
"None of these clues amount to anything!"
"Hmm -- here's another clue."
"SHUT UP! I'm sick of your promises. You're no detective. DID HE DO IT OR NOT?"
"Well..."
"Forget it. This case is closed. Nobody cares about your damn 'clues.' Get outta here!"
posted by digaman at 9:53 AM on April 6, 2006


verb, but was he not publicly outraged by the security leak? I'm not just forcusing on Plame here...I'm talking about leaking intelligence. I remember Bush being quite specific about how it hurts national security. That's why I believe this is news that should be focused on.
posted by NationalKato at 9:54 AM on April 6, 2006


*focusing, even
posted by NationalKato at 9:55 AM on April 6, 2006


We knew before this that the Administration had decided to disclose information in the NIE to refute Wilson's story. This says nothing about Bush authorizing the outing of Plame like the post suggests.

Again. The attorneys aren't going to release a bombshell in a Response to a Motion to Compel. The information about the administration's decision to go on a PR offensive after Wilson's story was already known.
posted by dios at 9:56 AM on April 6, 2006




"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois.

"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things."

Wednesday, February 11, 2004
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:58 AM on April 6, 2006


dios: point taken, but i there's an underlying assumption by an editor somewhere [that might well be flawed] that this has something to do with the Plame case (keep in mind it was that investigation that uncovered this and this isn't a Ken Starr investigation) , thereby making it newsworthy. I might be blamed be blamed for taking Drudge headlines seriously.
posted by trinarian at 9:59 AM on April 6, 2006


Cheney citing Bush personally authorizing the leak of the NIE to discredit Plame is news enough for me.
posted by digaman at 9:59 AM on April 6, 2006


Weird, those quotes are from the same speech but the CNN page I lifted them from said it was in feb 2004 and the Fox story is sept. 2003.
posted by CunningLinguist at 10:00 AM on April 6, 2006


I can't believe you're still wasting time on that guy
posted by matteo at 10:00 AM on April 6, 2006


Well, if it's all old news I guess the news outlets are just posting stuff that we all know. 'Cause, um...well, there's really not much else going on today.
posted by NationalKato at 10:00 AM on April 6, 2006


Libby spoke with David Addington, Cheny's counsel. Addington told him that presidential disclosure amounted to declassification. Addington is going to take the fall on this. Not Cheney and, heaven forbid, not Bush. Bush and Cheny will deny, Addington will go up the river.
posted by bryanzera at 10:00 AM on April 6, 2006


and I'm not talking about Bush
posted by matteo at 10:00 AM on April 6, 2006


"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things."

Wednesday, February 11, 2004
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:58 AM CST on April 6


And he was referring to the Plame issue (which this post doesn't address). And as a matter of obviousness, if the Administration had decided to release information in the NIE, then that isn't a "leak of classified information" because it isn't a "leak" when it is a release and it isn't "classified information" when it has been decided to be disclosed. But again, what does this have to do with Plame?

I guess this is becoming about something other than the Plame issue (which is what I thought was the issue here). If this is an issue about who authorized the release of information in the NIE, then that may be one thing, although I don't know where that inquiry leads.

But on the issue of Plame, I fail to see anything in this document which advances the ball at all on that point.
posted by dios at 10:08 AM on April 6, 2006


> This doesn't advance the ball at all in this story.

Not quite true. First of all, Fitz can't reveal in an unclassified court filing what parts of the NIE were okayed for reveal. Given that he's going forward with further indictments, it's reasonable to assume that he has a direct link to Plame.

More importantly, if Fitz follows this it will probably result in legal arguments about whether the President has the authority to arbitrarily declassify information. Bush's revision of the EO that governs classification suggests that the White House believes this, but I'd welcome a challenge to that presumed authority.

-- Scott
posted by srt19170 at 10:09 AM on April 6, 2006


"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."
posted by airguitar at 10:09 AM on April 6, 2006


if the Administration had decided to release information in the NIE, then that isn't a "leak of classified information" because it isn't a "leak" when it is a release and it isn't "classified information" when it has been decided to be disclosed.


It all depends on what the meaning of "leak" is.
posted by CunningLinguist at 10:12 AM on April 6, 2006


verb: "You have to break the rules sometimes to advance the cause of freedom. 9/11 changed everything."

how is destroying the carreer of and endangering the life of someone who's husband questioned the ties between iraq and 9/11 "advancing the cause of freedom?"

9/11 didn't change everything, so much as our reactions to 9/11 are changing everything. Look at all the changes our government has made since then, and tell me who benefits from them? It ain't US citizens, it ain't our troops, it ain't the iraqi citizens, and it sure ain't "freedom."
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 10:13 AM on April 6, 2006


man... you should see the circle-jerk going on over at Fox News... Hume demanded that they take down the headline "Libby says Bush Authorized Leak" and they immediately did and teh other anchors and the crew break out in applause...

Fair and Balanced... We Obfuscate, You Follow...
posted by WhipSmart at 10:14 AM on April 6, 2006


*the
posted by WhipSmart at 10:14 AM on April 6, 2006


As long as NPR's Libby Lewis is still assigned to all Lewis Libby stories, I'll be happy.
posted by sellout at 10:15 AM on April 6, 2006


Why would anyone think that this doesn't have to do with Plame? What other investigation might be going on here that just so happens to involve Cheney, Libby, Wilson, and the release of dubiously-cleared confidential information during the exact same time frame?

Assuming this is some other matter entirely is ridiculous. I guess it's possible, but is it likely?
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:16 AM on April 6, 2006


precisely, sonofsamiam. It doesn't take a great legal mind to see how this relates.
posted by NationalKato at 10:18 AM on April 6, 2006


trinarian, this doesn't have "something" to do with the Plame case, and dios, you must be skimming. Rapidly. Rapidly skimming. The NIE was leaked --apparently by Bush and Cheney -- to discredit Plame. So that's what this is about.
posted by digaman at 10:19 AM on April 6, 2006


I'm confused. If Libby produced a signed, authentic letter from God himself indicating that he was authorized to leak information, it still has nothing to do with the fact that Libby was indicted for lying to the grand jury? No?
posted by underdog at 10:20 AM on April 6, 2006


underdog, you gotta get that shit notarized, man.
posted by NationalKato at 10:21 AM on April 6, 2006




Does anyone know how documents go about being declassified? Assuming Bush does have the authority to declassify documents, shouldn't there be some sort of process? If Bush did authorize Libby to talk about a classified document, and this legally changes the document to be declassified, Shouldn't they let someone else know that the document is no longer classified? I mean, if I was to file a freedom of information act petition to get this document, how would anyone know it's been declassified and can be released (besides Libby's defense finally announcing it 2 years later)?
posted by Crash at 10:28 AM on April 6, 2006


Assuming Bush does have the authority to declassify documents, shouldn't there be some sort of process?

You think they'd follow it if there were?
posted by Cyrano at 10:30 AM on April 6, 2006


It still has nothing to do with the fact that Libby was indicted for lying to the grand jury? No?
posted by underdog at 12:20 PM CST on April 6


It would probably have something to do with that.

But on the issue of whether the identity of a secret agent was disclosed in violation of the Covert Agent Identity Act, this doesn't tell us anything. Nowhere in here does it say anything about Libby being told to out Plame or that he even did so. So this isn't any news on that front.

This is a Response to a Motion to Compel. If you know litigation, you would know that this kind of document is not the kind of document in which a competent attorney is going to willingly release information that puts his client's legal rights in jeopardy. And the point everyone is focusing on is not central to the argument for which it is being produced. So again, there isn't going to be a throwaway bombshell included in such a document.

If this information has any use, it has to with whether Libby, Cheney and Bush was forthright with Fitzgerald when he asked about authorized the release of information in the NIE to refute Wilson's story. Plame's identity was not in the NIE. That is a separate issue.


whether the President has the authority to arbitrarily declassify information. Bush's revision of the EO that governs classification suggests that the White House believes this, but I'd welcome a challenge to that presumed authority

Why wouldn't he have the power? It's an executive function. The Constitution imbues the President with that power. The Entire classification system is established under Executive Orders (such as Order 13292). The President can get rid of the entire idea of classification whenever he wants to do so. What possible legal argument could exist that the President doesn't have the authority to classify and declassify information.
posted by dios at 10:30 AM on April 6, 2006


There are 6 definitions of the word "leak" on Urban Dictionary

Personally... I'm cheering for #6

1. Anoter word for pcp

Lets smoke some leak

2. Take a piss.

Shit, I have to take a leak!

3. In the music industry, when a song or album is being put out before it is officially released, usually online.

Sometimes when an artist's album has been leaked, they release their album earlier than planned for fear of the bootleggers.

4. According to Kurt Vonnegut, a "leak" is a mirror. (no joke)

I've got to take a leak

5. 1) to bleed excessively

2) To urinate

"Fuck it, man. I'm leaking like fuck!"

"I need to take a leak"


6. see also: precum and pre-cum

I chatted with this str8 guy all day at work. He was talking shit and had me leaking in my pants like mad.
posted by thefreek at 10:32 AM on April 6, 2006


I still don't understand how outing an undercover CIA agent rebutts ANY claim by ANYONE. It was a dirty smear campaign. It was meant to be a threat to her life and career. I know that the story of "She was instrumental in authorizing his Niger trip." has been proved false.
It doesn't discredit Wilson, the Niger trip, or the findings of his report. It was only meant to destroy Plame, and Wilson's lives.
posted by Balisong at 10:33 AM on April 6, 2006


If this information has any use, it has to with whether Libby, Cheney and Bush was forthright....

Exactly.
posted by underdog at 10:35 AM on April 6, 2006


The NIE was leaked --apparently by Bush and Cheney -- to discredit Plame.

That's playing a bit fast and loose, as you next comment indicates. The release of information from the NIE was to counter Wilson's account of the evidence of uranium enrichment, or rather, the lack thereof. The information that was actually released happened to include the fact that Plame was a covert agent. The Response filed by the Goverment doesn't--and probably can't--say which portions of the NIE were authorized for release. So we don't know whether Plame's identity was included in the information authorized for release. However, we do know now that Bush authorized the release of some information from the NIE, and that arguably declassified that information.

This is a Response to a Motion to Compel. If you know litigation, you would know that this kind of document is not the kind of document in which a competent attorney is going to willingly release information that puts his client's legal rights in jeopardy.

Right, except it's not a Response from Libby, it's a Response from the Government to Libby's Motion to Compel.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:35 AM on April 6, 2006


Does anyone know how documents go about being declassified?
posted by Crash at 12:28 PM CST on April 6


The entire system is based on Executive Orders, and is therefore a function and a power of the President as head of the Executive Branch. Think about the fuction of the classification system: the Executive Branch is tasked with the duty to protect national security, and an attendant demand of that is to collect and analyze national security information. But to preform its security function, the Executive branch has to keep sensitive data sensitive. As such, the classification system is an internal system of the Executive Branch, established as the President who has all of the authority in the Executive Branch, established to fulfill its duties under the Constitution. It is without doubt that the a classification system created by the President can be modified by the President. Congress has no concurrent power in that regard.
posted by dios at 10:35 AM on April 6, 2006


Right, except it's not a Response from Libby, it's a Response from the Government to Libby's Motion to Compel.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:35 PM CST on April 6


Right you are!
posted by dios at 10:36 AM on April 6, 2006


dios, Mother of Fucking God. I must say, I no longer believe that you are here to talk earnestly about what you believe, because the level of pure obfuscation and intentionally baffling legalese in that post is absolutely dizzying. Do you get paid by the RNC to divert these conversations into cul-de-sacs, or is this strictly pro bono work?

Plame's identity was not in the NIE. That is a separate issue.

Yes, Plame's identity was not in the NIE, nor was your mother's telephone number or my considerable waist size. But as Murray Waas points out in the article I linked above, the raison d'etre for leaking the NIE was to discredit both Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. Or are you going to pretend that you didn't see that?
posted by digaman at 10:38 AM on April 6, 2006


Arguing over whether or not the President has the authority to leak the NIE is beside the much more significant point: this White House is willing to leak the contents of a top-secret document to quash an editorial in the New York Times, for God's sakes -- particularly when that editorial threatened to introduce doubts in the public mind that the rationale for war was based on facts which the President already knew were false.
posted by digaman at 10:42 AM on April 6, 2006


You don't know litigation. You're not advancing the ball.
posted by airguitar at 10:42 AM on April 6, 2006


If they're simply re-articulating than it doesn't really advance Libby's defense either. They're trying to turn this into another debate over executive power, as was done with the wiretap abuse (which clearly BROKE THE LAW). Once again Bush is saying he is the King, because of 911. What a load of hogwash, it's getting so tiresome to hear them play that card repeatedly. So ladies and gentleman, the most incompetent and ridiculious excuse for a President gets the sweetest excuse ever for everything. WTF?

I'm not a buddhist or anything, but I almost want to believe in reincarnation so that in the next lifetime Dubya and Co. will come back as what they truly are: slimy shit eating worms.

I mean, history WILL condemn him, won't it? Please?
— BigLankyBastard


It will if we remember and keep reminding people and perhaps if a Democrat (or even a Republican) with a back bone in the democratic party doesn't let these motherf*ckers slide into comfortable "statesman" retirement. They deserve hell for what they've wrought for the rest of their lives and need to either fess up to their mistakes and lies and incomptence or live in shame. But I actually don't put it past them in the least to create a new 911 scenario just so they can bring the country to heel again like a terrified shaking dog.
posted by Skygazer at 10:43 AM on April 6, 2006


the raison d'etre for leaking disclosing information in the NIE was to discredit both Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame.

No. It was to discredit Wilson. Where are you getting that it was "to discredit Plame."
posted by dios at 10:43 AM on April 6, 2006


I cannot express my feeling about this without the blink tag.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:45 AM on April 6, 2006


digaman, your point is purely political, and correct. dios' point is purely legal, and also likely correct. And never the twain shall meet.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:45 AM on April 6, 2006


This is Bush's executive order that governs the president's power to declassify information.

What this order does not give the president the authority to do is declassify specific items that are outlawed by Congress, say for example, the identities of covert agents. While Bush (though not Cheney) had the power to declassify the NIE, he did not have the power to declassify the fact that Plame was a CIA operative. Therefore, the story becomes interesting when we find out that Bush or Cheney authorized the Plame leak, not the leak of the NIE.
posted by ND¢ at 10:49 AM on April 6, 2006


Dios, Plame and Wilson are married. The plan was to discredit Wilson by "revealing" that he had been sent to Niger by Plame and making it seem like Wilson was a minor official sent over there by his wife.
posted by digaman at 10:49 AM on April 6, 2006


This story is now the top link on Google News.
posted by digaman at 11:03 AM on April 6, 2006


"advancing the ball"
posted by matteo at 11:07 AM on April 6, 2006


dios: I'm not sure I follow the logic.

If the president said that he wanted to find out who leaked the information then I would think that he didn't want the information leaked because as he says, "Leaks of classified information are bad things".

However, the new stance is that since the president authorized the leak it wasn't classified information.

Either the president's administration leaked the information with his knowledge, knowing it was classified, which is incompatible with my first point (he doesn't want classified information leaked, and is under the impression that this is classified information), or the administration leaked the information without his knowledge which is incompatible with point two (he would have to know about it to declassify it).

My opinion is that neither one of these could be compatible so someone is lying.

Also, (not directed to dios) the whole Monica Lewinsky thing wasn't about Monica, it was about Whitewater. The Monica issue was brought up to point out that the president had committed perjury in the testimony that he gave. The impeachment wasn't over Whitewater, but the perjury. The issue here is not only the leak now (which may or may not be a crime), but the perjury to cover up that issue.
posted by kookywon at 11:08 AM on April 6, 2006


I'm sure it will blow over like everything else though...

The usual refrain in threads like this.

People who say these things would not make great crimefighters.


huh? Have you been around for the last 6 years? Nothing sticks. Nothing. The people just don't care. Please, please, please tell me why I'm wrong.
posted by dig_duggler at 11:13 AM on April 6, 2006


However, the new stance is that since the president authorized the leak it wasn't classified information.

You are seeing an inconsistency that isn't there. Bush was referring specifically to whether someone leaked the identity of a classifed agent. He said people shouldn't do that.

He was not referring to the release of NIE information. The two things are being conflated here.

As the Bloomberg story notes (that I found when I looked at the top of Google news... and its what I have been saying in this thread):

The documents filed by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald don't allege the president authorized aides to divulge the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, whose naming in a July 2003 newspaper column prompted a Justice Department investigation.


Rather, the document was about the NIE being disclosed pursuant to Executive Authorization. Which is NOT what Bush was talking about in The Quote people keep referencing.
posted by dios at 11:14 AM on April 6, 2006


Surely this will be the thing that brings the Bush administration down.
posted by keswick at 11:15 AM on April 6, 2006


your point is purely political, and correct. dios' point is purely legal, and also likely correct. And never the twain shall meet.

yes!
posted by eddydamascene at 11:19 AM on April 6, 2006


!
posted by DenOfSizer at 11:20 AM on April 6, 2006


I don't have a problem believing that the President can declassify anything he wants. I do have a problem believing that 'declassify' means 'tell Scooter, then have Scooter tell Miller, but make her promise not to tell anyone how she knows'. I think 'declassify' means 'send it to the National Archives where anyone can look at it'.
posted by jlub at 11:21 AM on April 6, 2006


Nothing sticks. Nothing

But it leaves a residue. A slimy film that builds up over time. And little chips flake off of the teflon(tm).
Eventually, people get sick of dirty things and replace them.
I've replaced many teflon(tm) products that have become worn out.
So will America. Unfortunately, they are usually replaced by better, more impervious teflon(tm) products.

There were some horrible offences that plagued previous presidents that don't affect the current one. He has forged the way for EVEN MORE HORRIBLER offences. Someday, when future presidents are creating death squads, and gas chambers for disedents, people won't even blink an eye about him leaking top secret info for political gain.
posted by Balisong at 11:23 AM on April 6, 2006


The people just don't care. Please, please, please tell me why I'm wrong.

Who are "the people"? The majority of "people" in America who now think Bush is doing a terrible job? Checked the polls lately? Do you think they just got sick of the sight of his face?

Every one of these little revelations is important, and brings into focus part of the big picture -- as is now obvious to the majority of Americans.
posted by digaman at 11:28 AM on April 6, 2006


digaman, while I share your outrage about the situation as a whole, you seem to be conflating that whole with this specific thing admitted by Libby. They are not the same. Even if the NIE was released to discredit Wilson, that is not the same as outing Plame. If Libby had said that Bush through Cheney and his lawyer had expliclitly told him to out Plame, that would be the kind of news you seem to think this is. As it stands, you're confusing two issues, or, more to the point, wanting this admission to be a revelation of something other than what it is.

Just reading quickly through the EO regarding classification, I can't see where it says that the President can declassify something just by saying that it's declassified. Even if he has the power to classify and declassify, it may not boil down to a simple speech-act.
posted by OmieWise at 11:38 AM on April 6, 2006


Dios:

this quote, According to Fitzgerald's filing, an excerpt of which you'll find below, Libby, 55, testified in 2003 that he provided reporter Judith Miller with information from a classified National Intelligence Estimate after being told by Cheney that Bush "specifically had authorized" him to "disclose certain information in the NIE." makes me think that the President did indeed tell him to leak that specific piece of information. Am I misunderstanding something? If the NIE is declassified, then the president should have known that the Plame information was NOT classified. If so, why did he make a big deal about it before? Why didn't the administration just say 2 years ago, "yes, that information was disclosed, but it doesn't matter because it was declassified by my administration".
posted by kookywon at 11:39 AM on April 6, 2006


Eventually, people get sick of dirty things and replace them.

Frog March!
posted by soyjoy at 11:41 AM on April 6, 2006


kooky, the Plame information was not in the NIE. They are two different things.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:41 AM on April 6, 2006


kookywon writes "Am I misunderstanding something? If the NIE is declassified, then the president should have known that the Plame information was NOT classified."

The "Plame information" and the NIE are two separate things. They are related but separate.
posted by OmieWise at 11:42 AM on April 6, 2006


Actually, Omie, you're confusing things. I did not suggest that the leak of the NIE "outed" Plame. I suggested that the raison d'etre for leaking the NIE was to discredit Wilson and Plame, and the fact that Team Bush was willing to do that gives us an insight into their sense of priorities. I'm not talking about the phrasing of the FPP.
posted by digaman at 11:50 AM on April 6, 2006


digaman writes: Dios, Plame and Wilson are married.

Wow. I had no idea. I'd hate to be at that breakfast table. Mormons?
posted by The Bellman at 11:55 AM on April 6, 2006


I suggested that the raison d'etre for leaking the NIE was to discredit Wilson and Plame, and the fact that Team Bush was willing to do that gives us an insight into their sense of priorities.

digaman, nobody's questioning this; not even dios.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:58 AM on April 6, 2006


it's not a Response from Libby, it's a Response from the Government to Libby's Motion to Compel.

Ah!! I had been wondering why Libby would burn his get-out-of-jail-free card. Will he be pardoned after 2006, or will they wait until 2008?

is this strictly pro bono work?

That's "pro malo".
posted by Aknaton at 12:03 PM on April 6, 2006


monju:

digaman, while I share your outrage about the situation as a whole, you seem to be conflating that whole with this specific thing admitted by Libby. They are not the same. Even if the NIE was released to discredit Wilson, that is not the same as outing Plame.

posted by digaman at 12:04 PM on April 6, 2006


I like the way people pretend that Bush makes his won decisions and actually knows what he is doing.
posted by Artw at 12:05 PM on April 6, 2006


Is monju_bosatsu the only sane one here?

Dios (as much as I disagree with his politics) is not speaking nonsense here. People are confusing issues.
posted by rooftop secrets at 12:05 PM on April 6, 2006


I'm sorry, I am confusing things. I'm not trying to be snarky, but I was responding to your comment to dios: "dios, Mother of Fucking God. I must say, I no longer believe that you are here to talk earnestly about what you believe, because the level of pure obfuscation and intentionally baffling legalese in that post is absolutely dizzying." which seems to suggest that dios is somehow incorrect or obfuscatory in his analysis. He doesn't seem to be either, just able to compartmentalize in a way which is strictly true and thus therefore difficult to take too much issue with.
posted by OmieWise at 12:06 PM on April 6, 2006


Well, I wasn't questioning that that was the raison d'etre either, just that offering that raison d'etre was your raison d'etre for posting.
posted by OmieWise at 12:09 PM on April 6, 2006


I hear you, Omie. And I actually like dios as a person -- we've spoken on the phone. I just get frustrated when he uses his ability to "compartmentalize" in the service of obstructing the view of the forest by disputing whether the leaves of various trees are crimson or maroon.
posted by digaman at 12:11 PM on April 6, 2006


To clarify, there appear to be two sets of information released: (1) information included in the NIE, and (2) information about Plame's identity as a covert agent.

The information in the NIE appears to have been released to discredit Wilson's account of the lack of evidence supporting a uranium enrichment program in Iraq. Similarly, the information about Plame's identity appears to have been released to retaliate against and discredit Wilson and Plame, the latter apparently based on the notion that Wilson got the gig through nepotism.

We learned today that Bush apparently authorized Libby through Cheney to disclose to the press certain information contained in the NIE. That information would not have included Plame's identity, and if in fact authorized by the President, the release of the information from the NIE was not a violation of any law or the Executive Order governing classified information. Nobody disputes, however, that even if legal, the notives for disclosing the information appear to be transparently political.

The disclosure of the information about Plame's identity, however, is arguably covered by 50 U.S.C. § 421 et seq., which prohibits the disclosure of information about covert agents. The Response brief filed by the government today only alleges that Libby claims the release of the NIE was authorized by the President, and says nothing about the authorization, or lack thereof, for releasing the Plame information.

As I said above, everybody agrees, including dios, that the release of both sets of information was for transparently political purposes. Potential legal liability appears to arise only out of the release of Plame's information, however, about which we didn't learn anything today.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:11 PM on April 6, 2006


But if there's anything that we could have learned about events over the past 5 years or so is:
Repeat anything long enough, truth or not, and people will believe it. Congressmen and judges, included.

I say we start a billboard campaign.
posted by Balisong at 12:19 PM on April 6, 2006


dios, take off your lawyer hat for a second. Remember the O.J. trial? Any reasonable lawyer could look at that case and say, "enough to convict", largely because the defense had done such a good job of impugning those who tried to bring their client down. But are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that you honestly don't think that O.J. killed his wife? Please.

At the end of the day, I suspect that all a significant portion of the public will remember from this is, "George Bush authorized the leak of confidential information to discredit his political opponents," and that makes him look like Nixon.
posted by mkultra at 12:19 PM on April 6, 2006


er, "not enough to convict." Might make that point clearer ;)
posted by mkultra at 12:20 PM on April 6, 2006


Nobody reads retractions in small print five days after the matter, anyway.
posted by Balisong at 12:21 PM on April 6, 2006


monju_b-

Is it true that the President need do nothing more than authorize the disclosure of information in order for it to no longer be classified? There are no letters to sign or deliberations (outside of his/her head) to make or anything? In other words, if the President says a thing then in public then it is, by definition, no longer classified?
posted by OmieWise at 12:25 PM on April 6, 2006


if the President says a thing then in public then it is, by definition, no longer classified?

In his mind, yes, which is all that really matters.
posted by Balisong at 12:27 PM on April 6, 2006


Yeah, I'm really not interested in this specific President, I'm curious about how this particular point of public policy works.
posted by OmieWise at 12:37 PM on April 6, 2006


OmieWise, I'm not positive. The classification system is governed by Executive Order 13292. Although that Executive Order provides standards for declassification, it doesn't appear that it precludes the President from declassifying material in the manner he did here. Even if it did purport to preclude the President from doing so, there's nothing to stop the President from disregarding the Executive Order. I'm no expert, though.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:41 PM on April 6, 2006


The people just don't care. Please, please, please tell me why I'm wrong.

Who are "the people"? The majority of "people" in America who now think Bush is doing a terrible job? Checked the polls lately? Do you think they just got sick of the sight of his face?

Every one of these little revelations is important, and brings into focus part of the big picture -- as is now obvious to the majority of Americans.


I wish I had your optimism.
posted by dig_duggler at 12:43 PM on April 6, 2006


President Bush, October 9, 2001:
"I want Congress to hear loud and clear it is unacceptable behavior to leak classified information when we have troops at risk," Bush said during an event at the White House Rose Garden.
...
"If you receive a briefing of classified information, you have a responsibility, and some members did not accept that responsibility," Bush said. "It is a serious matter, very serious, that people in positions of responsibility understand that they have a responsibility to people who are being put in harm's way.
In October 2001, President Bush felt that "classified information must be held dear" and was upset with some members of pissed off Congress by restricting the disclosure of classified information to "the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate."

Which, by the way, makes his later claim that Congress saw the same intelligence he did a lie.

Ms. Plame "was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran," and exposing her may have damaged our ability to get accurate intelligence on Iran's nuclear programs.

But on the issue of whether the identity of a secret agent was disclosed in violation of the Covert Agent Identity Act, this doesn't tell us anything.

Why are you raising this point? It's a red herring. Libby wasn't charged with violating that act, he was charged with obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements.And Plame was covert, anyway.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:00 PM on April 6, 2006


LOL, Val Plame = 007

NOT

/on lots of meds today hehehe
posted by b_thinky at 1:16 PM on April 6, 2006


Dios - if you're for real, you are out of your mind.

This is a huge story. Bush has been implicated by name.

And anybody can see that there is a difference between these two things, which you equate:

1) officially declassifying and distributing information
- or -
2) getting your VP's lackey to secretly call a reporter and dispense information specifically designed to either assist your designs for war, or discredit an inconvenient critic.
posted by rougy at 1:24 PM on April 6, 2006


Scott McLellan, September 29, 2003: "No one would be authorized to do such a thing."

In the same press conference, Mr. McLellen said that, "if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." Since President Bush and Vice President Cheney were involved, when can we expect their resignations?

Previous statements by President Bush implying that he didn't know about the leaks.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:36 PM on April 6, 2006


So is the bottle being kept on the acid in order to avoid a civil war or what?

Or is there going to be a tipping point where the folks with principles left in the Republican party will finally go “aww, screw this noise” and start impeachment proceedings?

Or is someone going to Julius Caeser the MFer?

I don’t know. Without the political will, not much is going to happen. Fitzgerald can bring a very robust case and lay out all the evidence and without a change in the current environment, not much is going to happen.

I’m curious if there will be criminal proceedings if BushCo gets out of office and the Dems come in.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:37 PM on April 6, 2006


"The Entire classification system is established under Executive Orders (such as Order 13292). The President can get rid of the entire idea of classification whenever he wants to do so." - Dios.

In layman's terms: Bush made a rule that said he can break the rules any time he wants.
posted by rougy at 2:04 PM on April 6, 2006


is someone going to Julius Caeser the MFer?

Good thing you misspelled Caesar, or you might get a knock at the door, with a bunch of red-and-blue flashing charriots outside your house.

I’m curious if there will be criminal proceedings if BushCo gets out of office and the Dems come in.

Of course not. If Bush doesn't pardon himself ala Regan, the next pres. will do it for him, lest they be held to the same standard. No president wants to be held accountable.
posted by Balisong at 2:10 PM on April 6, 2006


LOL, Val Plame = 007

NOT


Har har. To get a handle on why the Plame outing is a matter of life and death for other covert agents, read The Importance of the Plame Affair by intelligence analyst George Friedman.
posted by digaman at 2:26 PM on April 6, 2006


“...get a knock at the door, with a bunch of red-and-blue flashing charriots outside your house.”

A few years ago that’d be a joke. Now I just might get a knock at the door anyway.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:54 PM on April 6, 2006


Wow. I thought the sarcasm cam through pretty strong when I made the comemnt about 9/11 changing everything. I guess not.

this doesn't necessarily relate to the Plame leak. It is interesting, though, and raises a number of fascinating secondary questions. Specifically, the issue of leaking classified information, how it's justified, and whether it is ever acceptable. There are, I think, at least three distinct ways of looking at it:
  1. Leaking classified information is always morally wrong, period, end of story, and should be punished.(The 'absolutist' position)
  2. Leaking classified information is acceptable if
    1. it is used to expose wrongdoing,
    2. the damage done by the wrongdoing is greater than the damage done by the leak, and
    3. the person leaking the information is otherwise unable to stop the wrongdoing.
    (The 'whistleblower' position)

  3. Leaking classified information is acceptable if the person leaking ranks high enough inthe government that their decision amounts to ad-hoc declassification. (The 'judgement call' position)
The conflicting cases of the Plame leak and the NSA surveilance leaks reveal the interesting schisms between these three views. Both Democrats and Republicans tend to use the rhetoric of the absolutist position. Based on what instances they choose to complain about, however, they seem to be motivated by the whistleblower and judgement call positions, respectively. Libby's attourney seems to favor the judgement call position as well, with the 'Presidential authorization is tantamount to declassification' argument.

I tend to favor the whistleblower position, though. Why? Allowing the 'judgement call' position to be adopted basically gives our elected officials the ability to use classification as a political weapon -- a poison pill-trap that only they are immune to. Documents can be classified, then leaked selectively. Those who attempt to learn the context -- and reveal potential lies of omission -- enjoy no such immunity and can then be prosecuted.

The 'whistleblower' exception works in the opposite direction. If restricted information is leaked by an individual seeking to 'right a wrong,' and the full context makes it clear that no wrong was in fact done, declassifying the document will reveal the truth. I can see a case being made for all three positions, but I think there's a much greater danger for abuse in both the 'absolutist' and 'judgement call' scenerios. Recognizing the danger of human corruption, and the lure of power-for-power's sake, has always struck me as an essential tenet of true conservatism.
posted by verb at 2:57 PM on April 6, 2006


very thoughtful, verb.
posted by digaman at 3:00 PM on April 6, 2006


According to defendant [Libby], at the time of his conversations with [Judith] Miller and [Matthew] Cooper, he understood that only three people - the President, the Vice President and defendant - knew that the key judgments of the [National Intelligence Estimate] had been declassified. Defendant testified in the grand jury that he understood that even in the days following his conversation with Ms. Miller, other key officials - including Cabinet level officials - were not made aware of the earlier declassification even as those officials were pressed to carry out a declassification of the NIE, the report about Wilson's trip and another classified document dated January 24, 2003.

dios:
OK, so it's not about Plame's ID being revealed. It's about Bush's authority to declassify. If so, why did only three people at the time know it was declassified? Why weren't other reporters informed, or the citizenry in general?
What we appear to have here in the Libby case is a one-off declassification. The president didn't really declassify anything. He authorized Libby to show classified material to Judy Miller or whomever else.

Kinda makes his rhetoric about leaks [see above] incredibly hollow. Is this a man you still trust?
posted by dash_slot- at 3:03 PM on April 6, 2006


All of this will have no effect on the masses, until the news media begins to "manufacture outrage"-- al la Clinton/Lewinsky.
posted by wfc123 at 3:13 PM on April 6, 2006


And they won't do that until Bush starts pissing off the ruling class-- a la Clinton.
posted by wfc123 at 3:14 PM on April 6, 2006


Or, as FDL put it so much better -

Yet despite the fact that the Pres supposedly had already declassified it, and Libby had already revealed it to Miller, the WH was still pressing for it for it to be declassified???

How can the Pres request the declassification of something he has already declassified???

posted by dash_slot- at 3:16 PM on April 6, 2006


More here, in a lucid and damning account from the NYSun:
Mr. Bush's alleged instruction to release the conclusions of the intelligence estimate appears to have been squarely within his authority and Mr. Fitzgerald makes no argument that it was illegal. While Mr. Libby said he gave that information "exclusively" to the Times reporter at their breakfast meeting at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, many of the findings of the estimate were formally declassified and discussed at a White House press briefing ten days later, on July 18, 2003.
The declassification was properly made after the leak - unless one buys the principle that what George Bush says is legal, is legal.

If so, why did you guys get rid of the other mad George? 'Cos he was german?
posted by dash_slot- at 3:30 PM on April 6, 2006


I guess it's a little late to join the conversation here, but this morning I woke up to the headline: Libby Says Bush Authorized Leaks, but further in the article it states "The court documents did not say that Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Plame's identity."

Given this whole case is about leaking a CIA agents name, I believe the headline is a bit sensationalist.

I guess my opinion is irrelevant because leaking the name of a CIA employee is wrong, but Joe Wilson is a fucking ass. One of the cool things about the USA is everyone has the right to be questioned. Joe Wilson, by writing the op-ed, was trying to position himself in an uncriticizeable position. That was wrong. But now Wilson and Plame have cashed in and made themselves famous, which they seem to be enjoying. Congrats to them.
posted by b_thinky at 4:30 PM on April 6, 2006


Would I be wrong to look at this story without wondering why there is not any mention of Republican Man-Whore Prostitutes being involved in the leak of information about Valerie Plame. Jeff Gannon was one of the first 'press sources" to bring up knowl;edge of the Plame case...

It should be just a matter of time...
posted by zaelic at 5:07 PM on April 6, 2006


That's right, b_thinky, it's all about what you think of Valerie Plame's personality, or the Wilsons' desire for "fame." That's why Plame became a covert agent -- so she could be famous! Congrats to you for seeing though all this fog about "national security" and "intelligence" and the President possibly breaking the "law" to the real question at hand.
posted by digaman at 5:26 PM on April 6, 2006


I still want to be on record apologizing for a shitty post wording. My haste was uncalled for. I'm not a secret agent... I wanted to be famous.
posted by trinarian at 5:51 PM on April 6, 2006


Joe Wilson, by writing the op-ed, was trying to position himself in an uncriticizeable position.
I don't get this jump, b_thinky. Are you saying that writing op-ed pieces is 'attemptint to position one's self in an uncriticizeable position?' Or are you suggesting hat there was something special about Wilson's op-ed piece that makes him a fucking ass?

I know nothing of Joe Wilson, really, other than what I've read. Some people talk about him like he's a sainted martyr for the cause of truth and freedom, others talk about him like he's some sort of Machiavellian schemer plotting to bring down the king.

It seems to me that he's neither; just a government beurocrat who was frustrated by what he believed to be dangerously false information in circulation. He wrote an op-ed piece about it in a national publication, and the administration launched a campaign to discredit what he wrote. No matter whether you believe he was accurate or inaccurate in his statements (that's a topic for another flamewar), it seems pretty straightforward in this regard.

And, no, the leak of Plame's identity is not what Libby specifically spoke of. It is another drop in the bucket full of unsettling glimpses into the Administration's thinking. Classification is not, in my opinion, should not translate into 'Information only the President can leak.' If something is Classified, the President should be required to follow the rules about its dissemination just like anyone else. Declassification is an official process, not something that is willed into being by the President.

Saying that Presidential intention-to-disseminate equals declassification is like saying that the members of Congress can simply withdraw large sums from the Treasury at will. They have the right to vote themselves a pay raise, after all, and isn't it the same thing?
posted by verb at 5:59 PM on April 6, 2006


Yeah, that post was borderline incoherent. Must... proofread... before... posting...
posted by verb at 6:00 PM on April 6, 2006


Now get this -- more from Murray Waas:


Regarding that meeting, Libby "testified that he was specifically authorized in advance... to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller" because Vice President Cheney believed it to be "very important" to do so, the court papers filed Wednesday said. The New York Sun reported the court filing on its Web site early Thursday.

Libby "further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE," the court papers said. Libby "testified that the Vice President had advised [Libby] that the President had authorized [Libby] to disclose relevant portions of the NIE."

Additionally, Libby "testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then counsel to the Vice President, whom [Libby] considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.


The country is going to war. Tens of thousands will die and many more will be injured. The administration knows that its intelligence on Iraq is shaky at best. So what's on the mind of the Vice President; what is so "very important" that he has to have his chief of staff running around doing it?

Discrediting an op-ed in the New York Times.

And any minute now, Alberto Gonzales or some other hired umpire will be trotted out to declare that, in fact, if the President wants to declassify something, all he has to do is pick up a telephone and start blabbing about it -- which will set all kinds of horrific precedents. And why? Because Cheney or Bush or Addington or all of them were pissed off that someone dared criticize them.
posted by digaman at 6:16 PM on April 6, 2006


Sorry, the new Waas link.
posted by digaman at 6:17 PM on April 6, 2006


Would I be wrong to look at this story without wondering why there is not any mention of Republican Man-Whore Prostitutes being involved

Nope. People who were frenzied about President Clinton getting a blow job don't seem to be disturbed by the possibility of people blowing Guckert/Gannon or getting some butt-lovin'* in the White House during his unusal, undocumented visits. Talk about your in-and-out privileges.
* "aggressive, verbal, dominant top"
posted by kirkaracha at 6:30 PM on April 6, 2006


There is one word missing from this thread: Treason. Presidential Declassification considered, any act commited for one's own personal or political gain that compromises national security is treason.

I totally understand the "letter of the law" (dios). But damn, many many years ago the U.S. was a country with a foundation in common sense. Common sense has been replaced with corporate greed to the point of cannibalism(and yes, I realize this is no recent event). For example, when Ford and GM close their doors, the corporate heads will leave unscathed whereas the tens of thousands of workers will be left to look for jobs at WalMart.

If it is true about Bush authorizing this leak, then it is treason and cannibalization.
posted by snsranch at 6:35 PM on April 6, 2006


Oh, but kirkaracha, Gannon/Guckert was doing just so much for Scott McClellan and Bush. I mean, he was really doing some heavy lifting in his questions in White House press conferences so that McClellan didn't have to. Like this one -- which happened to be about... well, what do you know? Joe Wilson!

July 15, 2004:
Guckert/Gannon: "Last Friday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that shows that Ambassador Joe Wilson lied when he said his wife didn't put him up for the mission to Niger. The British inquiry into their own prewar intelligence yesterday concluded that the President's 16 words were 'well-founded.' Doesn't Joe Wilson owe the President and America an apology for his deception and his own intelligence failure?"

and then there was this one:

April 1, 2004:
Guckert/Gannon: "I'd like to comment on the angry mob that surrounded Karl Rove's house on Sunday. They chanted and pounded on the windows until the D.C. police and Secret Service were called in. The protest was organized by the National People's Action Coalition, whose members receive taxpayer funds, as well as financial support from groups including Theresa Heinz Kerry's Tides Foundation."
"MR. McCLELLAN: I would just say that, one, we appreciate and understand concerns that people may have. I would certainly hope that people would respect the families of White House staff."
posted by digaman at 6:40 PM on April 6, 2006


Joe Wilson, by writing the op-ed, was trying to position himself in an uncriticizeable position.

I do not understand this logic.
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:42 PM on April 6, 2006


Oh, but kirkaracha, Gannon/Guckert was doing just so much for Scott McClellan and Bush.

You're right, the buttfucker-cum-journalist has made many positive contributions in the press room.

And any minute now, Alberto Gonzales or some other hired umpire will be trotted out to declare that, in fact, if the President wants to declassify something, all he has to do is pick up a telephone and start blabbing about it

Why not? Gonzales can't rule out tapping domestic phone calls without a warrant.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:02 PM on April 6, 2006


Well yes, of course. Because this is what the Bush White House has wanted all along: the ability to tap your phone and even enter your house without a warrant and without supervision, Fourth Amendment be damned, because you might be... oh... plotting to publish an op-ed in the New York Times.

Terrorists, schmerrorists. Did anybody seriously believe that they were restricting their surveillance to their little black book of Al Qaeda telephone numbersTM?

"Look out Manny -- the mullah is ordering another 9/11, holy shit! Get that tape recorder goin'!"
posted by digaman at 7:12 PM on April 6, 2006


I'm late here, but can anyone explain why Fitzgerald wants the grand jury to be informed about this? If his investigation is still ongoing, he evidently still thinks there's a possibility of getting additional indictments. Who in particular is hurt by this? This seems to be part of a filing in response to arguments put forward by Libby (I think), so is this just part of the case against Libby, or against someone else?
posted by gsteff at 7:14 PM on April 6, 2006


There are rumors of future indictments, possibly against Stephen Hadley and Karl Rove.
posted by digaman at 7:16 PM on April 6, 2006


I'm fully expecting the democrats to do... absolutely nothing with these revelations...
posted by NewBornHippy at 9:24 PM on April 6, 2006


I'm fully expecting the democrats to do... absolutely nothing with these revelations...
posted by NewBornHippy at 9:24 PM PST on April 6 [!]


Why would they?

How does doing something advance corporate interests?
posted by rough ashlar at 9:57 PM on April 6, 2006


Yes, I am also very interested in the "official dios legal explanation" of how disclosing sensitive classified information for purely personal political gain is not treason even (especially!) if committed by the president.
posted by dopeypanda at 10:32 PM on April 6, 2006


I do not understand this logic.
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:42 PM PST on April 6 [!]


Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Wilson not claim that he had been sent to Niger by Cheney?

Now if you criticize the policy of any administration, they have the right to rebutt, correct? But because he was sent by his undercover CIA wife, and he knew it would be illegal for anyone to point out his lie. So I don't condone anyone leaking her identity, but it seems like if he were a better husband/diplomat/CIA operative, he wouldn't have been so public.
posted by b_thinky at 10:36 PM on April 6, 2006


No, Wilson did not claim that he was sent to Niger by Cheney. He said that Cheney's office had asked the CIA about Niger, and the CIA decided that they better send somebody. They got Wilson because he was an expert and familiar with the area. Wilson said that it was very unlikely that Cheney's office knew of the decision to send him, but it was Cheney's inquiry that caused him to be sent.
posted by willnot at 11:56 PM on April 6, 2006


dopeypanda, read The presidential order that covers classification. It was signed by Clinton, and seems to spell out rather explicitly that the President can classify and declassify pretty much anything at will. The only grey area seems to be whether the President has the authority to declassify something that was classified by a different classifying authority, i.e. the CIA. Nitpicking, i suppose.

My concern isn't so much about the legal technicalities as the moral and ethical implications of 'Classification as a tool of rhetoric.' In incidents like this it seems obvious that the goal is to control the terrain of a public debate, rather than an attempt to protect national security.

b_thinky: they certainly have the right to rebut. As Willnot pointed out, however, two of your premises are incorrect and the conclusions that follow them are still a leap. Even if Wilson had claimed that Cheney sent him (which he did not), and even if his wife had sent him (which she did not, as best as anyone can tell), it does not follow that "rebutting Wilson's claims" would necessitate outing his wife's CIA status.

His claims were about what he found while investigating claims about fissionable material. The question of who sent him (Cheney, his wife, the tooth fairy) is a smokescreen no matter how you cut it.

And that, in turn, is a less interesting question than the whole 'Classification is a gleam i nthe president's eye' issue.
posted by verb at 12:12 AM on April 7, 2006


Actually, on closer reading it does appear that he has the legal right to classify or declassify documents at will. As the CIA is part of the executive branch, and he's the head of that branch, he would seem to have ultimate classification authority over anything they produce.
posted by verb at 12:18 AM on April 7, 2006


No, no. I'm not arguing that he doesn't have the right to declassify at will. I'm arguing that he doesn't have the right to commit treason. And this seems to fit very neatly into the letter of the law as far as treason is concerned (with the big caveat that I'm not a lawyer).
posted by dopeypanda at 12:36 AM on April 7, 2006


Next time the president is asked a question he doesn't want to answer, he's going say "Sorry, that information is classified". And thank god he can't run for office again, could you imagine the debates?

Bush: Blah Blah, Let me finish, Blah Uh... Blah.
Commentator: And now for a response from the democratic candidate....
Bush: I just classified the entire subject. If my opponent talks at all, it's clear he hates freedom and is a traitor. Oh, and 9/11 changed everything. Good night America!
posted by Crash at 7:10 AM on April 7, 2006


One might also say that the Pope, as God's representative on Earth, has the ultimate authority to rewrite the Bible -- to throw out the idea of Jesus helping the poor in favor of Jesus rewarding the rich for hoarding earthly treasures, for instance, or to put in a new verse that specifically enabled the Pope to have a harem of pubescent altar boys and girls at his beck and call for hot tubs and papal sodomy in his rooms in Vatican City. After all, haven't previous popes done this? Perhaps a Catholic historian or cardinal could be trotted out to declare that this sort of thing had been done before, and that nothing was really changing. Perhaps there are clauses in the laws of the Church that could be cited. And then people could spend a lot of time talking about the validity of those clauses. The ones who were most adamantly against the new laws could be excommunicated or dismissed as heretics and anti-papists. But surely, the Pope is the most powerful man in the Church, isn't he? Surely, if He decides to do something, even God shouldn't stand in His way?
posted by digaman at 7:11 AM on April 7, 2006


I’d call declassifying an agent’s noc as “aid and comfort to the enemy,” if it’s done without going through official channels.

Lessen the scale: Joe Blow cop infiltrates the mob. Cop splits from that assignment without the cover being blown (fortunate). Cop isn’t currently investigating, but is on the organized crime taskforce. Working cases, advising, whatever. Cop’s wife (Mrs. Blow) works for the DA and goes to/is sent to investigate something out of town. Comes back with information the Mayor doesn’t like. Someone from hizzoner’s office tells the papers: “Oh, yeah, Joe Blow was actually Tony Blowinetti when he was undercover investigating the LCN. His wife, Mrs. Blow has a chip on her shoulder which is why she’s saying hizzoner’s info is wrong.”

No one would buy that as an innocent mistake and the PBA would be all over the Mayor’s office.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:21 AM on April 7, 2006


Today, the White House is not disputing that Bush leaked the information. But Scott McClellan declares that comparing Bush's leakage with, say, the New York Times expose of the NSA wiretapping program is "crass politics" by Democrats.
posted by digaman at 8:53 AM on April 7, 2006


From the article digaman linked:

McClellan said the release of the declassified information was very different from what he called the potentially damaging leak of information about Bush's domestic eavesdropping program which aims to track phone calls and e-mails in the United States to suspected al Qaeda contacts abroad.

I have to agree with McClellan here. The distinctions between the two leaks are huge. One leak was used to justify waging war against a sovereign nation based upon false pretenses and the other was used to inform the public of illegal activities by the administration.
posted by caddis at 9:11 AM on April 7, 2006


Indeed.
posted by digaman at 9:29 AM on April 7, 2006




At this rate, Rudy Guiliani will be sworn in in January 2009.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:45 AM on April 7, 2006


McClellan said the release of the declassified information was very different from what he called the potentially damaging leak of information about Bush's domestic eavesdropping program which aims to track phone calls and e-mails in the United States to suspected al Qaeda contacts abroad.
And there we have a perfect example of the whistleblower vs. judgement call divide. It's nice to have a theory confirmed.
posted by verb at 12:00 PM on April 7, 2006


Frost: "So...what...you're saying is that there are certain situations...where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal."

Nixon: "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

Frost: "By definition."

Nixon: "Exactly, exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security...then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating a law."
posted by kirkaracha at 12:07 PM on April 7, 2006


Verb, you lying bitch:

Executive Order 13292, the latest and the greatest, was signed by GWB himself.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

*****

I ask you: can you remember at what point in time, in your life, that you decided that the truth didn't matter if it conflicted with your politics?
posted by rougy at 12:43 PM on April 7, 2006


Verb:

Your 12:00pm post is equally meaningless.

Apples and Oranges.

The fact that Bush decided to break the law and spy on Americans without any judicial oversight whatsoever is not at all the same.

You're claiming Bush is a whistle-blower.

The jig's up. You've lost. You lost because your mean arrogance was not enough to compensate for your crass stupidity.

Bush has been a crook from day one, and all of us lefty's have been telling you that.

Yet, your nose was too high in the air to pay heed to our warnings.
posted by rougy at 12:52 PM on April 7, 2006


roughy, I apologize for not being more clear. The Executive order that I linked to was #12958, signed by Clinton in 95. You'll note the URL: http://www.dss.mil/seclib/eo12958.htm. My purpose was to establish that this loophole -- complete executive control over classification status -- has existed for a good long time, even if it wasn't exploited as cunningly.

If you see any details in the 13292 Executive order that make it harder for the President to classify or declassify information, by all means let me know.

Lest you think that I'm defending the moral or ethical character of the leaks, or the general approach to using classification as a tool of rhetoric, please read my posts above. I think it's despicible and tremendously dangerous for any democratic institution. It's a flaw in the system that should be fixed by legislation -- which Presidential Orders are subservient to.
posted by verb at 12:56 PM on April 7, 2006


Roughy, you are seriously misunderstanding what I'm saying here. I'm not arguing that Bush is a whistle-blower. In fact, I'm arguing that he is abusing the classification system in a way that is dangerous and tremendously damaging to our nation's system of checks and balances. It's a rhetorical God-Mode hack that allows anyone in the Executive Seat to control the spigot of information during public debate. It's unethical, immoral, and is a grave breach of the electorate's trust.

But, under the current rules outlined in the Executive Orders that cover classification, it appears to be legal and permissible. That should be assaulted on moral and ethical grounds, and changed via legislation, rather than getting into endless nitpicking wars with the 'judgement call' advocates.
posted by verb at 1:05 PM on April 7, 2006


Verb:

I've been agonizing for - several minutes - over the post I made, because I was late in spotting your irony.

We must surely agree, then, that though a thing may be legal and permissible, it is still loathsome and contrary to the most common precepts of right vs. wrong.
posted by rougy at 1:35 PM on April 7, 2006


Definitely, roughy. We see eye to eye on this one.

I worry that the public discourse on this will get sucked into 'was the NIE leak legal or illegal?' when that is not really the critical issue, in my mind.
posted by verb at 1:53 PM on April 7, 2006


You know who else crammed laws through the system so that all his actions were perfectly legal as far as the courts were concerned, don't you?
posted by Balisong at 3:11 PM on April 7, 2006


So, when is Bush going to be firing himself? ...keeping with a June 2004 pledge to dismiss any leakers of Valerie Plame's identity. ...

His pledge means something or no?

I'll expect his resignation by Monday--thanks.
posted by amberglow at 3:22 PM on April 7, 2006


OK my head is spinning here. . .Libby, defending himself against charges that he perjured himself and obstructed justice in relation to the Valerie Plame leak (he was not charged with the leak was he?) told the Grand Jury that the authorization to out Plame came from the President.

The President does not contest this, and does not see a problem (he's lied to the public so many times, and apparently there is no law covering this) in that he can declassify any information he sees fit, including material that lead to Plame's outing.

Am I correct in all of these statements? Please help me understand.
posted by Danf at 3:29 PM on April 7, 2006


Isn't Bush now going to be called as a witness in Libby's case? And can't Bush now not pardon Libby? Bush has totally placed himself inside and as an essential part of the investigation and the case, something they avoided up until now (bec of the Supreme Court?).
posted by amberglow at 4:10 PM on April 7, 2006


and can't Fitzgerald now investigate Bush directly?
posted by amberglow at 4:11 PM on April 7, 2006


No, Libby did not say that the authorization to out Plame came from the President. He said that authorization do discuss portions of the NIE came from the Presient via Cheney. Plame's identity was (as far as I know) not in the NIE, so there are two different leaks relating to the one leak case.
posted by willnot at 4:18 PM on April 7, 2006


This could be a turning point.

Might be the "event horizon."

I hope.

Long overdue.
posted by rougy at 4:19 PM on April 7, 2006


GOP spin on Hardball just now: Joe Wilson's op-ed in the Times was so serious and it was such an important policy matter they had to authorize the leak.

ridiculous.
posted by amberglow at 4:21 PM on April 7, 2006


We got 'em by the balls.

The Dems should be running rough-shod all over this.

If they don't, then do it right and respectfully.

The day is won.

We won.
posted by rougy at 4:36 PM on April 7, 2006


NYT Editorial: ...But at the least, revealing selected bits of intelligence, including information that officials may well have known to be false, seems like a serious abuse of power. It's not even clear that Mr. Bush can legally declassify intelligence at whim.
We don't know for certain whether Mr. Wilson's conclusions got to Mr. Bush before the war. But we do know that they were omitted from the sanitized intelligence report presented to Congress and later to the public. ...
The intelligence report on Iraq, prepared in late 2002, has now been largely declassified. But the White House has kept secret a one-page summary prepared for Mr. Bush. According to The National Journal, that document said the State Department and the Energy Department had concluded that it also was not true that Iraq bought aluminum tubes to enrich uranium. During his State of the Union address in 2003, Mr. Bush said flatly that it was true. ...

posted by amberglow at 4:42 PM on April 7, 2006


more on that one-page summary: ...there is a piece of paper out there which constitutes hard evidence that Bush withheld critical info from the American public as he made the most critical decision a president can make -- the decision whether to go to war. Jaded DC hands will say, "Old news -- everyone knew there was dissent within the bureaucracy." Fine. But Wass's story says more than that -- he says there's proof of the extent to which Bush knew of that dissent, that he deliberately concealed it from the public, and that Rove thought this fact could "severely damage" Bush's reelection prospects if it surfaced.

The latest Libby revelations suggest, yet again, just how spooked Bush and his advisers were about the possibility that the truth about the runup to the war would come out. They suggest, yet again, that there's a great deal we don't know about the biggest story of this presidency. ...

posted by amberglow at 4:56 PM on April 7, 2006


Like - maybe - just saying - Cheney and Rummy were being 9/11?

No joke.

It's that big.
posted by rougy at 5:02 PM on April 7, 2006


..."behind" 9/11.....
posted by rougy at 5:04 PM on April 7, 2006


millions believe that, rougy--i just think they knew all about it, and sat back to let it happen so they could go ahead with all their horrible plans.

Digby asks a brilliant question, one i bet no reporter will ever ask: ...If the president was willing to authorize leaking of national security information to reporters for political purposes, why should we believe he won't authorize warrantless wiretaps on Americans for political purposes? ...
posted by amberglow at 5:15 PM on April 7, 2006


Genius, if the president releases info, its no longer a leak.

Again, every administration does this. This is a "story" because big media is so liberal. But like all fake stories, it will evaporate at some point.

Did you know the unemployment rate is 4.7%?
posted by ParisParamus at 5:19 PM on April 7, 2006


White House: Bush did not flip-flop on leaks
No, he outright lied about leaks. But wouldn't it be nice to flip-flop some waffles his way.

Did you know the unemployment rate is 4.7%?
STFU, what does that have to do with anything? Are you counting those who have quit looking for jobs, or just the latest figures of who are applying for unemployment benefits?
I've been unemployed and have never applied for benefits.
I suppose that if Bush did away with unemployment benefits altogether, then there would be no unemployment, right?
posted by Balisong at 5:28 PM on April 7, 2006


I will not STFU. Fake polemic--"leaks" that are not leaks v. positive news. The connection is that one is reported, played up, and really, INVENTED, nearly out of whole cloth; and one is ignored because it doesn't support the liberal agenda. It's called Mmta-commentary.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:31 PM on April 7, 2006


Meta...
posted by ParisParamus at 5:31 PM on April 7, 2006


Show me your link to these numbers. Where did they come from, and who do they count?
posted by Balisong at 5:36 PM on April 7, 2006


Not that it has anything to do with anything else in this thread. why did you even bring it up? Just to point to something, ANYTHING that is possibly positive? Didn't Clinton get lambasted for similar numbers? or did his numbers ever go that high?
posted by Balisong at 5:38 PM on April 7, 2006


My point is that this is a fake story; even more fake than the Clinton impeachment (Republicans were a-holes on that one, but Clinton kind of deserved what he got for being such a DICK).

Over and out.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:41 PM on April 7, 2006


For a second there, I thought you called me out to MeTa..
posted by Balisong at 5:45 PM on April 7, 2006


So, you don't have a link then? Just pulling numbers out of thin air? Classy.

Rodger, Wilco!
posted by Balisong at 5:47 PM on April 7, 2006


Here. You want links? Here and here
posted by ParisParamus at 5:56 PM on April 7, 2006


I already looked it up. Let me ask you again, what the heck does this have to do with "Bush authorized Plame leak? According to Libby, "Libby, testified in 2003 that he provided reporter Judith Miller with information from a classified National Intelligence Estimate after being told by Cheney that Bush 'specifically had authorized' him to 'disclose certain information in the NIE.'"?

I'll consider the employment numbers a derail. Do you have anything else to contribute?
posted by Balisong at 6:00 PM on April 7, 2006


No. Obviously, I never contribute anything.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:15 PM on April 7, 2006


Obviously.
posted by Balisong at 6:15 PM on April 7, 2006


Genius, if the president releases info, its no longer a leak.
There is a difference, though, between 'releasing information' and 'telling a subordinate to give cherry-picked snippets of a national security document to a friendly reporter and attributing it to a nonexistant person, just after denying less friendly reporters access to the same information because you say it's classified.'

I'm reminded of theology debates about the nature of 'good' in the Christian faith. Does God tell us what IS Good, or does God DECIDE what is Good and inform us of it? If God woke up on the wrong side of the bed monday, would murder be Good and charity be Evil? Etc. etc.

It's an interesting chicken-egg debate when it comes to theology, but less amusing when it comes to partisan politics. Sophistry won't change the fact that this administration agressively uses classification, reclassification, and selective declassification to control the rhetorical landscape. That's different than 'guarding national security.'

Obviously, you'll disagree, Paris, but I thought it worth clarifying.
posted by verb at 6:32 PM on April 7, 2006


Also STFU = Smell The Funny Umbrella
posted by Balisong at 6:40 PM on April 7, 2006


You know who else crammed laws through the system so that all his actions were perfectly legal as far as the courts were concerned, don't you?

Silvio Berlusconi?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 6:45 PM on April 7, 2006


Verb, the President DECIDES what is classified; can DECIDE to declassify something; and can do so to correct a public misconception. The real issue here is that certain people don't like Bush, and so his activities are given an evil spin.

And by the way, I thought the Bush Administration was too secretive and hid everything....
posted by ParisParamus at 6:50 PM on April 7, 2006


Bush flat out lied to all of us repeatedly on this and many other matters--his word is worthless, and his decisions regarding information and its uses are suspect to say the least. This hurt our national security and our welfare, as well as setting our covert operations in the Middle East and Gulf back years--it is treason, and certainly conduct unbecoming the President of the United States.

Nixon committed crimes to win an election--Bush commits crimes to go to war. Guess which one is worse? That you derail this thread with employment figures shows that there really is no credible defense of this administration's actions--you've done your party proud, PP, and like them, hurt this country by trying to stop discussion and inquiry.
posted by amberglow at 6:58 PM on April 7, 2006


by the way, the last person to use the defense of a President "deciding" that things were legal or not was Nixon--not someone you should be reminding people of, i don't think. I look forward to the day Bush walks to a helicopter on the WH lawn, leaving in disgrace, just like his apparent role model.
posted by amberglow at 7:00 PM on April 7, 2006


Verb, the President DECIDES what is classified; can DECIDE to declassify something; and can do so to correct a public misconception.
Yes. It is within his legal rights, without question. That's what I've been saying from early on in this thread. I'm more curious whether the ability to selectively classify, declassify, reclassify, in whole or part, with or without context, with or without informing other branches of government or the public, is a good thing or something that has too great a potential for misuse. As I said, recognizing the corrupting potential of power and the danger of 'loopholes' that can be abused by the unscrupulous is one of the fundamental convictions of genuine conservatism. I have to wonder whether you bothered reading anything I've written, or simply decided that anyone who uses words like 'ethics' has to be a dirty lib.
The real issue here is that certain people don't like Bush, and so his activities are given an evil spin. And by the way, I thought the Bush Administration was too secretive and hid everything....
Again, you're not bothering to read what I am typing. I'm not particularly shocked, but please do try. MetaFilter is certainly a liberal-leaning place on the net, and you disagree with the consensus opinion here like clockwork, but your response to disagreement seems to be putting LESS work into careful thought and discussion rather than MORE. It's a pity.
posted by verb at 7:02 PM on April 7, 2006


Liberals shall cower no more - just read more closely the fine print.
posted by rougy at 7:10 PM on April 7, 2006


the President DECIDES what is classified; can DECIDE to declassify something; and can do so to correct a public misconception

...or to advance a public misconception, apparently.

Namely, the lies that said Iraq was using (substandard) aluminum tubes to enrich uranium (which he didn't have), for a (non-existent) nuclear weapons program.

Smoking gun, indeed.
posted by edverb at 7:26 PM on April 7, 2006


Alas, I'm afraid Paris is right, once this slips off the front page, we will get outraged by something else, and this will become forgotten.
posted by Balisong at 7:33 PM on April 7, 2006


"...and this will become forgotten.

By the fools and the corrupt.
posted by rougy at 7:56 PM on April 7, 2006


…only a fool would defend Bush now.

I can't count all of the shitty things he's done, all the evidence of dishonesty and pettiness.

He joked about not finding WMDs.
He does any damned thing he wants and calls it a privilege of the executive branch.

A few people, pointed out that for the GOPs defense to hold true - that it was merely a matter of declassification - then Bush would have had to declassify it, reclassify it, then declassify it again - all without so much as a word to Congress.

And on top of that - no, it wasn't "illegal" - he would have had to claim, on several occasions, that he had no idea who the leaker was, and had nothing to do with it.
posted by rougy at 9:01 PM on April 7, 2006


"By the fools and the corrupt."

By a nation too wired to CNN and the Sopranos to notice the difference between political corruption, and politically-motivated scandal fabrication.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:03 PM on April 7, 2006




"By a nation too wired to CNN and the Sopranos to notice the difference between political corruption, and politically-motivated scandal fabrication."

Speak for yourself.
posted by rougy at 9:39 PM on April 7, 2006


political corruption, and politically-motivated scandal fabrication.

The Bush regime is well versed in both.
posted by Balisong at 9:45 PM on April 7, 2006


The Bush regime is well versed in both.

Nobody's holding up a lighter for the guy.

These long-coming confirmations, are flowers to me, perhaps spear-heads to others.

Many thousands of innocent people - little kids, and young people - are dead as a result of what is connected to this revelation.

I have not forgotten, nor forgiven, what transpired as a lie built upon a hoax.
posted by rougy at 9:51 PM on April 7, 2006


OT: What's wrong with this scenario? Hint: selective enforcement.
posted by Balisong at 10:31 PM on April 7, 2006


Balisong:

Saw that, saw the CNN video (sorry, no link).

Brown Shirts in Texas.

It's the con's version of an Ace in the Hole.

They can always rely on the vapid bullies.
posted by rougy at 10:58 PM on April 7, 2006


If that would have happened to republicans, there would have been LOTS of arrests, and probably bloodshed of the democrats.
posted by Balisong at 11:10 PM on April 7, 2006


Balisong:

I hear you.

The band's name is "Chicago."

(?)
posted by rougy at 11:26 PM on April 7, 2006


Libby testimony shows a White House pattern of intelligence leaks-- ...Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials have reacted angrily at unauthorized leaks, such as the exposure of a domestic wiretapping program and a network of secret CIA prisons, both of which are now the subject of far-reaching investigations.

But secret information that supports their policies, particularly about the Iraq war, has surfaced everywhere from the U.N. Security Council to major newspapers and magazines. Much of the information that the administration leaked or declassified, however, has proved to be incomplete, exaggerated, incorrect or fabricated. ...

posted by amberglow at 5:14 AM on April 8, 2006


Maybe Bush should offer a reward to find the real leaker. And then go out and play golf.
posted by JackFlash at 11:50 AM on April 8, 2006






« Older Stop squinting   |   Lao wai! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments