Bush Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury

www.cia.gov...
xs38.xs.to...

There you go, i saved myself a few hundred bucks. It is the blank star in the 2003 section.


[edit on 7-4-2006 by NinjaCodeMonkey]

First, thank you for the links to what you were mentioning.

Second, you are aware that the so-called "classified" information that was declassified and "leaked" was done so in Oct. of 2002? The information had nothing to do with Valerie Plame. Would this, then, not make your assertion that a CIA agent may have lost his or her life in 2003 due to this information being "leaked" invalid?

Please see my next to last post in the below linked topic on this:
Bush Ok'ed Plame leak according to Libby




seekerof

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Seekerof]

When a president uses his own political power for revenge that's what the issue should be about.

While the Bush supporters keep banging their heads trying to defend the president's act of revenge with excuses that his presidential powers gives him the right to do whatever he does, because he can do it, the truth is that he is behaving like a child with a power trip with a temper tantrum whenever somebody disagree with him.

Bush supporters now goes after Wilson and his wife reputation and question them to make the presidential blunder seems lest outrageous.

The truth is that Bush sought revenge against Wilson because he disagree with the president claim that Saddam was Trying to buy uranium from Niger.

While Bush and his administration used bad intelligent or manipulated intelligence to make their case for war in Iraq.

Then came around and used classified information that he Conveniently declassify under his presidential powers so he could setter a score.

Funny the issue can be spin around and around to make the presidential blunder look legal and within the presidential powers.

But the truth still reminds. . . how much power can a president give himself to cover up for his own mistakes when his mind is in the red for revenge.




[edit on 8-4-2006 by marg6043]

Ive been waiting to weigh in on this; you said it for me Marg. Thanks!

Wanna WATS?

Originally posted by Seekerof

What continues to puzzle me is why many of you continue to let your blind-hatred and politics interfere with rational thinking. You provide no valid arguments other than to attack someone personally. I defend because some of you simply play the 'hater' role, arguing with nothing but conjecture and 'hater' rhetoric.

seekerof

What personal attacks?

I said that the white house won't deny the leak and that Mcclelland is squirming over technicalities. Neither of these are personal attacks. They are facts.

Care to answer?

Seekerof, you have done to me exactly what you have accused me of: a personal attack.

In addition, you don't have have the guts to answer.

I haven't read the entire thread here, but I dont think this BBC article has been linked yet:
news.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by rizla
What personal attacks?

I said that the white house won't deny the leak and that Mcclelland is squirming over technicalities. Neither of these are personal attacks. They are facts.

Care to answer?

Sure I care to answer--remember this from the previous page?

Originally posted by rizla
What continues to puzzle me is why people like seekerof continue to support this administration.

Originally posted by rizla
Seekerof, you have done to me exactly what you have accused me of: a personal attack.

In addition, you don't have have the guts to answer.

seekerof