Originally Posted By Mort2 <a href="http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm" target="_blank">http://news.nationaljournal.co m/articles/0406nj1.htm</a> So if Bush did this, does that mean it was a defacto declassification? My brain hurts. . .
Originally Posted By Mort2 . . .wait a minute, my brain stopped hurting. I think this just make it worse. If Libby is speaking the truth, then we have a President who is out to stop people from speaking the truth (Joe Wilson), and will go to any length, including targeting that man's wife (Plame). It ain't about declassification. It is about motivation.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Boy, no kidding the brain hurts. "Bush and Cheney authorized the release of the information regarding the NIE in the summer of 2003, according to court documents, as part of a damage-control effort undertaken only days after former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV alleged in an op-ed in The New York Times that claims by Bush that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium from the African nation of Niger were most likely a hoax. According to the court papers, "At some point after the publication of the July 6 Op Ed by Mr. Wilson, Vice President Cheney, [Libby's] immediate supervisor, expressed concerns to [Libby] regarding whether Mr. Wilson's trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife." Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA officer at the time, and Cheney, Libby, and other Bush administration officials believed that Wilson's allegations could be discredited if it could be shown that Plame had suggested that her husband be sent on the CIA-sponsored mission to Niger. Two days after Wilson's op-ed, Libby met with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and not only disclosed portions of the NIE, but also Plame's CIA employment and potential role in her husband's trip." So if this isn't confirmation Plame WAS covert I don't know what is.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "It ain't about declassification. It is about motivation." Yeah, but now it's a different kind of hurt. Grab on tight to something, 'cause the room is going to be "spinning" heavily soon enough.
Originally Posted By Mort2 I think I'll put on the Mad Tea Party audio track D'land plays in a loop while riding the Tea Cups. Curiouser and curiouser. . . .
Originally Posted By Dabob2 STPH, what was the source for your quote there? Just to play devil's advocate (and just to be fair), it looks like the last two paragraphs are not quotes from the court papers and are the author's take on things. Or perhaps I'm reading that wrong. Anyway, the AP put it this way: "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." So I'm not sure if this is a bombshell or not (at least not yet). That the white house would have one of its people leak to the press is common. That it would be classified material would be iffier, but I don't think unprecedented. Another AP quote: "Libby's participation in a critical conversation with Miller on July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised the defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate," the papers by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stated. The filing did not specify the "certain information." Whether this is a bombshell or not I think depends on WHAT the material was that Bush and/or Cheney authorized Libby to leak. I'm not getting from the stories I've read that we know what that is yet.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder And now CNN weighs in. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/cia.leak/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI CS/04/06/cia.leak/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Kerry is weighing in RIGHT NOW on Hardball. It's looking murky for the Pres.
Originally Posted By gadzuux From STPs link - >> Bush has long criticized leaks of secret information, and had threatened to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's identity. "Now if the president leaked, for whatever purpose, we ought to know that -- and we ought to know what distinguishes his leaking information from all the others who leaked information and were condemned by the president," Schumer said. << And who could argue with that? A few weeks back, I quietly fumed while democratic pols in washington stayed at arms length from senator feingold's call for a censure of bush. Now, in hindsight I'm even more convinced that he was right. If the democrats had backed his measure at the time, with this latest revelation the dems could be building some momentum against bush and the GOP controlled congress. Still, this is another log on the fire. Bush's feet are being held to the flames, and he seemingly can't get anything right - iraq, immigration, dubai ports deal, harriet myers, katrina, SSI - a perfect storm of incompetence. He doesn't have one single solitary success to point to. I'm getting cautiously optimistic about this november.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Pass-You surprise me with this even-handedness You wouldn't be sneaking a peak at the Factor or Fox while cruising down the San Diego Freeway, would you? Actually, my wife and I just saw the immigration stuff in the Senate with Graham and Wyl and that has been all I've seen of the Factor this week with Tony Snow replacing Bill and the Masters going on. Tony is fair as I just told my wife, but he is not Bill. This may sound strange Pass, but I actually really listened to Kerry for the first time in over a decade. I have no idea why> maybe I'm mistrusting George more and more, but John seemed to make some modicum sense. Not to inflate the uninflatable ego of yours, but that Alice in Wonderland comment of yours was a classic I just laughed my butt off. You say things, like I do, so inherently nonchalantly and for some reason people get upset. I think they get more upset at my stuff than yours though
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Gad--to make an analogy with golf-- When the opponent is putting to win or lose a match against you, you're ingrained with the feeling of NOT hoping he misses. It's a classy life style that golf teaches. In politics, this scenario being the most recent example, it seems the dems are HOPING for the elephants to screw up. Why can't the Dems, in this case, recognize the wrongdoing of the Repubs without the hoping? Just a crazy thought of mine that we're all Americans and shouldn't do the gotcha thing. I'm a registered unenrolled (as called in Mass) so I have NO ax to grind except I wish Congress could stop the bull and work together.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Why can't the Dems, in this case, recognize the wrongdoing of the Repubs without the hoping? << I'm "hoping" to see them do more than sideline themselves. I'm rootin' for the home team here - there's nothing that would make me happier than to see MY congressional representative - nancy pelosi - become speaker of the house. But to do that they've got to step up and take it. Not just "hope".
Originally Posted By ecdc The spin on this story should be fun. The White House is saying that since the President authorized the leak, the information is immediately declassified. Interesting way to declassify something, by having a staffer meet in secret with reporters and give them information without allowing them to cite the source. I wonder how those so willing to defend the President on this issue would act if Bill Clinton had pulled a stunt like this...
Originally Posted By mele Yeah, why aren't the usual suspects chiming in with the denials and defenses?
Originally Posted By gadzuux Another way of saying "it's not illegal when the president does it". That didn't work before, and there's no reason it should this time.
