ATS: Bush Ok'ed Plame leak according to Libby

And to use calssified info to attack, discredit or smear someone who crossed his is not an abuse of power? Then pray tell what is? Getting BJ's from an eager intern?

We are this < > close to a fully blown dictatorship, furthermore, i think Congress is in on it including Democrats.

Does anyone realize the implications of this?

I think whether he had a "right" to do this is insignificant. Its neither here nor there. That will come out. They are very hard at work at the WH as we type to come up with the "legit" side of this.

Supposing he had the right to do it, does that make the lying ok? As an American, dont you feel even a little that you have been screwed over several times now?

I am with ya DG...
if anyone cant see what this was, then I will be glad to clean their glasses...

Bush said leakers would be punished- then authorized leaks- making them legal leaks by his authorization... proven hypocrite

Bush used this info to counter a critic, whom he could manipulate by outing his wife...

to bad that bite bit back, for we now have lost our internal connections in Iran due to his blind desire to squash his critic.

outing Plame, killed iranian contacts

Now that action, during a time such as this, would be analogous to president Reagon, giving a list of US agents in the USSR, during his time...

absolutley unacceptable, that even an indirect leak from the White house weakened our position in Iran so much...
If we end up at war with Iran, thousands of American Soldiers will probably die for lack of that crucial info... as a direct result of the leak...
not to mention all those Iranian agents that risked their lives, not realizing that they would be used as pawns in a political scandal.

that would equate to the highest form of treason... yes?


[edit on 7-4-2006 by LazarusTheLong]

I think whether he had a "right" to do this is insignificant.

What? How can something like that be insignificant? Its like saying, whether you have a license or not I want you arrested for driving a car. One more thing, as other have repeatedly and patiently pointed out, if something is authorized for declassification by the President then it cannot be a “leak”.

For further explanation please go to Seekerof’s cartoon and or Valhall’s post.

Originally posted by dgtempe
So, what Seekerof is saying is that it doesnt matter if we were deceived or not.
What really matters is the law and loopholes.

I'm not going to speak for Seekerof, but I'll be clear that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is

Bush OK'd Leaks of Classified Information

is a true headline

Bush OK'd Plame Leak

is a false headline. This is, in fact, an important issue, so why muddy the whole mess with a false statement?

grover - your logic didn't play well with me. And I'm not sure he didn't authorize the logistically planned attack on Plame, but I don't agree with taking a statement that DOESN'T state that and twisting it to circumstantially (and through mental machinations) state that.

It's just not right for me.

[edit on 4-7-2006 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Odium
If the Government declassified the information before they gave it to a reporter, they can easily come forward and show us this.

And please praytell, why should the government have to come forward and literally show "us" what has been declassified. Again, I gave you a couple of links, and within those links was information concerning the process of declassification, and to where (a number of places, for there are National Archives all across the US) such recently declassified material is sent.

The fact they haven't or haven't came forward to say Scooter is lying speaks for itself.

See above. What speaks for itself is the mere fact that you did not read the Fitzgerald documentation. There is nothing but hearsay, implying Libby says Cheney said Bush said.


Having said that, exactly what is Scooter Libby currently being indicted for anyhow, Odium? Could it possibly be one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements? So let me get this straight: Libby has made an unsubstantiated allegation--Bush OK'd Leaks of Classified Information--that you, among others, believe to be true, yet his indictment shows that he is prone to making intentional false statements, and doing so under oath.

As Valhall has mentioned, in which I agree with considerably, the headlines are incorrect and misleading, in more ways then one.







seekerof

[edit on 7-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Libby's allegations are being confirmed by others. Bush is the man with the traitorous plan. No wonder Tenet flew the coup, especially if Bush lied to Fitgerald when he was interviewed.

Maybe Bush will resign. Wonder who will write him a pardon if Cheney leaves too?




[edit on 7-4-2006 by Regenmacher]

I think you Bush bashers are grasping at straws that won't even support their own weight, much less an indictment of the President.

1. Neither Bush nor Cheney authorized the passing of Valerie Plames name to the press.

2. Bush authorized Libby to tell the NYT about part of the contents of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that concluded Iraq was attempting to buy nuclear materials and implying they wanted to manufacture an atomic bomb. (Need I remind you that Bush did not write the NIE, our intelligence agencies did. Further, he did not tell them what to write, on the contrary, he and the VP questioned the accuracy of the estimates on several different occassions. Therefore the charge of lying to the American public just won't wash unless and until someone can absolutely prove he knew beyone any doubt the NIE's were totally wrong.)

Originally posted by Seekerof
And please praytell, why should the government have to come forward and literally show "us" what has been declassified.

You know why? Because the United State's Government employes people in Public Relations. While their name is dragged around in the mud, with people claiming they have done this and that and nobody comes out to prove them wrong it helps to validate the point Libby is making. If everything is above board, within a matter of hours the whole proces could have been crushed. Times, dates, who, where, when, could have all been given. The lack of this and the oncoming reports seem to paint the Government were in fact in the wrong and didn't go through the normal channels.

The Bush/Cheney "Gotcha" non-Moment

Regenmacher:
Do you really want to play this petty game of what *your* biased specific sources say, because if you do, a couple of good counterfactuals to yours would be:
The Left's Libby Lie
The Libby NIE Leak: Much Ado about Nothing

Let me know, if you wish to persist in this, k?



As for below source and its assertion of:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan today attempted to justify, rather than deny, allegations that President Bush authorized a leak of classified information to reporters in summer 2003.
White House 'declassified' argument at odds with event timeline

The alleged "classified information" was dubbed 'Key Judgments.' The 'Key Judgment' documents were an 25-page section of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that was declassified. According to your Rawstory source, they are asserting a date of July 18, 2003. This is incorrect. The 'Key Judgments' documentation were officially declassified in October of 2002, when Tenet sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee declassifying portions of its new NIE on Iraq. Source: Sen. Carl Levin News Release

Another source that substantiates this is the Freedom of Information Center, where this is mentioned:

A 25-page version of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was released in October 2002. It made clear-cut statements about Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons capabilities in two pages of "Key Judgments."
A Clash on Classified Documents

Further, a copy of the declassified portion of the NIE on Iraq that was referred to as 'Key Judgments' can be found here (which is a .pdf).

Libby's allegations are being confirmed by others.

Just as the sources I have provided confirm my position. Your point is what? That media does have an agenda by improperly and purposely misleading its readers?

Bush is the man with the traitorous plan. No wonder Tenet flew the coup, especially in Bush lied to Fitgerald when he was interviewed.

Yeah, right. Question: is Bush being indicted for perjury and making false statements, or is Scooter Libby?

Maybe Bush will resign soon.

Wishful thinking.






seekerof

[edit on 7-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Odium
You know why? Because the United State's Government employes people in Public Relations. While their name is dragged around in the mud, with people claiming they have done this and that and nobody comes out to prove them wrong it helps to validate the point Libby is making.

As such, it validates nothing but what you wish to continue to believe, period.

If everything is above board, within a matter of hours the whole proces could have been crushed.

It is crushed, but as always, the media has a tendency to not know when to admit defeat or leave well enough alone.

Times, dates, who, where, when, could have all been given.

Like I just linked up and gave?

The lack of this and the oncoming reports seem to paint the Government were in fact in the wrong and didn't go through the normal channels.

Speculative, based on subjective interpretation, and incorrect.





seekerof

I will repeat myself...it is disingenious to claim that all they did was declassifiy some material and then gave it to the press. They knew damned good and well that Valerie Plames name would be released as well, they knew damed good and well that she was a covert operative (and that exposing a covert operative was against the law) and that it would destroy her career. How did they know this? They were gunning for her Husband Joe Wilson. They knew damned good and well what they were doing and it was using classified material to smear Joe Wilson, material that they themselves declassified just to do that with.

What part of this is criminal don't you understand?

Originally posted by grover
They knew damned good and well that Valerie Plames name would be released as well...

And your source for the above is?

The source of the ATSNN story snippet says :

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

Once again, the ATSNN headline is false.





[edit on 4/8/2006 by eaglewingz]

I find it somewhat odd that when the story from Ben Bradley (former Washington Post executive editor) came out, no-one said a word. That story specified that it was former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage who leaked Plames name..... no-one said a word or complained.

This is somewhat amusing because, as has been proven ad-nauseum, that Plame was not undercover, and hadn't been for at least 6 years. Hence, no law was broken, as was stated by one of the people who WROTE the law protecting agents. Talk about beating a dead horse........

Bush's grand facade points to a massive coverup in criminal misconduct.

Latest twist is the Bush administration even had a hand at forging the Niger documents.

Bush's 16 words
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.