Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder To be fair, the usual Bush defenders here may be away from a computer and can't post the party line. I've been accused in the past of shying away when in reality I wasn't even in town at the time, which will happen again later today as I'm off to Palm Desert, out home away from home. OR....... Limbaugh, Hannity et al are scrambling for talking points and no one knows what to say.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Have a good weekend Pass and I do appreciate your insightful, thoughtful, posts
Originally Posted By woody There are no talking points. This is not good for Bush. Not sure what this means for Libby.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "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." Yes, I don't understand how that is ok. It basically means he can say anything he wants without worry of punishment. I don't think that's how it works either...
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Woody--Good job as your post 23 should show a lot of people here that you're NOT just a rubber stamp republican,
Originally Posted By woody I read some more about this. Bush did not leak any information about Wilson's wife Plame. Bush declassified some NIE classified information to counter Wilson's accusation where Wilson leaked classified DISinformation. Clearly, someone had the correct classified information and it wasn't Wilson. Wilson made unfair charges. Bush set the record straight. This means nothing to Libby's case since the leak does not involve the leaking of Plame's name. This is mere background noise. It does appear the leak will hurt the news media. They were the ones who demanded the White House to provide information in response to Wilson. Now, the Bush Administration is trashed for doing precisely what the news media normally wants... leaked classified information. BTW: I don't think classified information should be leaked, but these things happen in politics. It's funny how Bush is often accused of secrecy. This is not an example of secrecy. It is an example of transparency. Do they want transparency? No, they want the scoop!!!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I'm at a loss to understand why this is a big deal. We learned a month or so ago that Mr. Libby was authorized to release parts of the NIE to the press, when he filed papers stating that. The fact that Mr Fitzgerald confirmed that Mr Libby had said that doesn't seem like it should rate the coverage it's getting. Furthermore, it does nothing to answer the question of whether Ms Plame was covert or not, nor does it prove that the White House was attempting to "smear" anyone. Instead, it seems to show that they were trying to get the truth out.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe The talks last night and this morning indicated that there will be NO political consequences for George per se as he is a lame duck, but it's the cumulative effect that all these "events" are having that could spell a change in leadership in Nov. We all know what the events are so there's no need to rehash. There have been NO smoking guns but appearance is everything especially in politics.
Originally Posted By DlandDug It is odd that there has been little response from the more (shall we say) virulent posters here. Perhaps they, like me, were busy yesterday. Regardless... >>It ain't about declassification. It is about motivation.<< And this is to me, also, the most troubling aspect of this whole story. Say what you will about President Bush (for good or ill), he has never made any of this personal. Nixon, famously, did much of what he did out of a sense of personal outrage. Bush has always stubbornly believed that what he does is right, regardless of how others feel. It is the "personal revenge" aspect of this assertion that to me, rings false. As has been stated by others, if what Libby is claiming is true, it's not illegal. But I would say it is improper. >>So if this isn't confirmation Plame WAS covert I don't know what is.<< I see nothing in the content of that post (#3) that makes Plame's status definitive. >>Take Kerry with a grain of salt. Two grains, even.<< John Kerry is, of course, a craven political opportunist whose statements are largely meaningless in the present debate. (Just wanted to throw out a little red meat.) >>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...<< The key word in this statement is "seemingly." By choosing only negatives-- and even casting things in only a negative light, the President "seemingly" gets nothing right. And the polls (which measure perceptions, not realities) feed this. >>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.<< Regretably, "Gotcha" has become the coin of the political realm in today's Washington DC. >>...there's nothing that would make me happier than to see MY congressional representative - nancy pelosi - become speaker of the house.<< Nancy Pelosi is an evil, evil woman who cares only about grabbing power and keeping it for herself. (More red meat.) >>The spin on this story should be fun.<< Let's wait and see if there is spin before declaring it fun, shall we? Personally, all I have seen so far is some fairly straightforward statements. >>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.<< No one has said that, and I would be very surprised if anyone tried. >>There are no talking points. This is not good for Bush. Not sure what this means for Libby.<< Exactly. I will be very busy today. I do hope there won't be 180 posts to slog through tonight, as I am on a video shoot this weekend as well...
Originally Posted By gadzuux Some here are making this sound as if the bush administration had the purest of intentions in "declassifying the NIE". But that's not what happened. Apparantly they authorized libby to speak with two reporters, "double-secret" pinky swear off the record" (and with plausible deniability), that wilson's trip to niger was not only not authorized by the veep's office, but was possibly prompted by plame's nepotism - all in an effort to discredit wilson who had published a high-profile op-ed piece in the NYTimes, essentially saying bush lied (which he did). NOW - after the fact - they're trying to spin it, not as a "leak", but as a "declassifying" of the NIE. Now what motivation would they have to 'declassify' this info and spread it to willing media whores like miller and novak? The answer is obvious - to lash out at a critic - to "get him", or at least his wife. THAT's why this is a big deal.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe What kind of shoot Dug? Where? Only red meat I'll chew on is Nancy Pelosi---I don't know who I despise more her of Barabara the boxer. They make my blood boil! AAAHHH See you got me going Dug Now you're down to 179 more posts to read
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> By choosing only negatives-- and even casting things in only a negative light, the President "seemingly" gets nothing right. << Maybe you could provide the sunnier upbeat view about the successes of iraq, immigration, dubai ports deal, harriet myers, katrina, SSI ... >> Nancy Pelosi is an evil, evil woman ... << Wow - and people think I'M too hard on bush. >> No one has said that, and I would be very surprised if anyone tried. << That's exactly what they're saying - not in so many words, but instead they're saying that "when the president does it, it's called "declassifying", not "leaking".
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...all in an effort to discredit wilson who had published a high-profile op-ed piece in the NYTimes, essentially saying bush lied (which he did).<< Regretably for this argument, it is Wilson's assertions about the yellowcake uranium that were directly addressed in the recently translated documents from Iraq. It turns out that Wilson was quite wrong. Whether he actually lied (ie: said something he knew was wrong) has never been established. But in light of more recent (and completely credible) information, it is quite understandable why some would feel that Wilson was, indeed, lying about the President's information. >>Maybe you could provide the sunnier upbeat view about the successes of iraq, immigration, dubai ports deal, harriet myers, katrina, SSI ...<< There's hardly anything sunny about these particular topics. And that, of course, is why they are the exclusive focus of some when discussing the current President of the United States. >>...they're saying that "when the president does it, it's called "declassifying", not "leaking".<< When the President does what he is currently charged with doing, it is, indeed, declassifying. That's not spin, just a simple legal fact. Personally, I find it improper, but then who am I to argue with the law?
Originally Posted By DlandDug Anyway-- I really must be off. I will likely check in one more time. (And I am on a video shoot that no one here will ever hear of this weekend.)
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It's not like Presidents haven't authorized the limited release of classified information in the past, as Andrew McCarthy points out this morning on NRO. "After the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed in 1998, the Clinton Administration retaliated, in part, by bombing the al Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. Almost immediately, President Clinton was attacked politically: we had taken out a mere aspirin factory, Sudan was not a threat to us, it was a gratuitous act of American aggression, etc. So what did the Clinton Administration do? Exactly what it should have done. It had intelligence officials leak to the media previously undisclosed, previously classified information which put President Clinton’s decision in sensible context." <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200604071224.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/ mccarthy/mccarthy200604071224.asp</a>
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Almost immediately, President Clinton was attacked politically: we had taken out a mere aspirin factory << Not surprisingly, national review mischaracterizes the "political attack" against clinton. It ran along the lines of "wag the dog", that clinton was merely attacking a sovereign nation to divert attention away from the lewinsky scandal. Funny thing, this attack was fostered by the very same people who were driving the lewinsky scandal - the very same people who get their talking points from the national review. So how could clinton "do right"? It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't conundrum. And now, years later, they have the unmitigated crust to bring up this example in defense of "their guy" and his media leak. What gall.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Funny thing, this attack was fostered by the very same people who were driving the lewinsky scandal - the very same people who get their talking points from the national review.> I didn't read National Review back then, so I'm not sure your recollection is correct. It's beside the point though. <So how could clinton "do right"?> Hit a target that actually damaged the terrorists, and then followed it up.
Originally Posted By gadzuux What clinton was doing was attacking al qaeda, bin laden and the taliban. The GOP openly mocked and criticized him for it at the time, but when bush attained office, they did NOTHING about the threat, even though they had been provided several clear and urgent warnings. After 9/11 bush was hailed as some kind of hero by GOPers for his response and given a pass on the fact that he ignored the threat completely prior to 9/11. And what a response. He invaded a nation that was completely and totally unrelated to 9/11, and bungled that as well. Now, suddenly, it becomes expedient for them to point to this same incident in `98 as justification for bush's selective leaking of classified intelligence, motivated only as an effort to discredit a critic who published damaging evidence about bush's flawed pretexts for this unrelated war. Except the comparison isn't apt - bush is doing something completely different than clinton. Bin ladin, al qaeda and the taliban are flourishing and prospering while bush is mired in iraq fighting insurgents in a civil war of his own creation. It's now widely accepted that the reasons provided for the iraq war are false. I know douglas - you would like for us all to believe that the reason given for the iraq war was all about the UN resolutions, and not about the WMD, nuclear programs, and imminent danger to americans, but that's just not what happened. The cat's outta the bag now, and the white house doesn't even bother to try and justify their false pretexts anymore. But back then, when wilson's column appeared, bush's justifications were still in the process of falling apart. It was important to bush and his administration to try and maintain the illusion that their reasons provided were valid. Bush did not stand up and counter wilson's assertions in any forthright manner. Instead, he apparantly told cheney to tell libby to leak self-serving classified intel to the press. More likely it was cheney's idea and bush rubber-stamped it. Meanwhile bush went out and made public statements about how distressed he is about leaks to the press. How's that for integrity?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy How did I know Mort or someone like him would post this topic all exiced that Bush was toast!! How many times has Bush been toast now libs?? 25 - 50 - 500 times according to you guys?? This story is old. This story is also misleading like most MSM stories these days. What determines someones ability to call themselves smart and not an ignorant fool is their ability to look at a story and determine what is real and what is pure spin and progaganda. I see we have many people on LP who are very easily mislead. I gues this explains Bush's poll numbers during the best economy we have had in decades. As far as this " scandal " goes.. Joe Wilson wrote an Op Ed piece in the NY Times that was proven to be totally false and totally innacurate. I say he lied based on other things he said. But lets just agree his NY Times piece was bunk because it's been proven to be bunk. I challenge anyone who says Wilson's NY Times op ed was accurate... anyone. What was the White House supposed to do at this point?? Just let some idiot like Jow Wilson who lied that Cheney sent him to Niger It was his wife Valerie Plame ) to get away with lying to the public in a hyped NY Times piece that was getting traction in the liberal, legacy media?? We are fighting a war on terror for the very security of America. Why do the libs think it's OK to derail this by letting a creep like Joe Wilson lie about the facts of the war?? Oh, I forgot... Getting Bush comes first, the security for my family and the nation come last to these unpatriotic, military hating bad Americans. So the White House fought back and relesed documents that showed the TRUTH. That was the " leak ". Something we knew about months ago by the way, and something that is totally legal. So why the hysteria libs???? Any White House would do the same thing when people were lying about the facts of something as important as the Iraq war. This is a scandal????? This makes Bush the bad guy?? Once you libs put blame where it belongs, on Joe Wilson, we might stop laughing at you.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<but when bush attained office, they did NOTHING about the threat, even though they had been provided several clear and urgent warnings.>> Totally false Gadzuux... but keep spreding the misinformation. Bush started making changes the day he got into office regarding how we handle terrorism. It was the dems who put a wall up that didn't let us get the 9/11 hijackers before the attack happened. And NOW.. you same moonbats are trying to stop him again by trying to stop the terrorist spy program. This terrorist loving, BS conspiracy crap might play in SF, but it will never win you guys any elections because we all knwo that the dems if in power will get us killed by being weak and ignorat against the threats that we face from Islamofacists.
