Originally Posted By woody >>The president added, "There's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. We've had leaks from the executive branch and leaks from the legislative branch. I want to know who the leakers are."<< The President was referring to the leak of Plame's name in the quotes. The President is capable of declassifying secret information, which is not about leaking.
Originally Posted By woody "Why did he say he'd fire whoever it was who leaked the info then?" Since Bush was not the one who leaked Plame's name, he was saying he'll fire the one who did. Bush did not declassify Plame's name. He declassified some classified NIE information.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 To be even more precise, he declassified (or "authorized to leak," take your pick) only a portion of the NIE. The portion that seemed to support the administration view. Other portions of the NIE that did not were not leaked. For instance the State Dept's view contained within that the claims that Iraq purchased uranium from Niger were "highly dubious" and that State and DOE also believed that the aluminum tubes were "most likely for the production of artillery shells." Pretty much the definition of "cherry picking," in this case, cherry picking which pieces of classified info they wanted to leak out into the public.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh To be really precise, he authorized the release of the information that the NIE supported the accusation that Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa. In other words, the truth.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <To be really precise, he authorized the release of the information that the NIE supported the accusation that Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa. In other words, the truth.> No, the opinions of that portion of the intell community that supported the idea that Saddam was doing that. The portions of the SAME report that reported on the portion of the intell community that did NOT support that was left out. How convenient.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The majority of the opinions supported that, and they've been proven right.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The majority of the opinions supported that, and they've been proven right.> Whether they've been proven right is debatable - "seeking" uranium, if that's all they prove, is pretty thin stuff to hang invasion on. Plus, why leave out the dissenting view - including that of, oh, just the State Department - unless you're trying not to present the whole story, but just the story that backs up your view?
Originally Posted By woody >>Whether they've been proven right is debatable - "seeking" uranium, if that's all they prove, is pretty thin stuff to hang invasion on. Plus, why leave out the dissenting view - including that of, oh, just the State Department - unless you're trying not to present the whole story, but just the story that backs up your view?<< Whether you agree with the NIE report or not, it is more credible than Joe Wilson's fictional evidence gathering.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Does anyone think Joe Wilson is NOT a liar? If so, feel free to tell us why. Bush can declassify anything he wants. So the word " leak " is yet another misleading term the liberal media and their pawns like to use to muddy the truth. If Joe Wilson is going to lie about what he found on his vist it Africa, lie about who sent him ( Valerie Plame the socialite sent him ), and lie in order to undermine the war effort.... I would expect ANY administration with any sack at all to set the record straight. So declassifying a few documents to set the record straight was perfectly in line with what they needed to do to combat Joe Wilson the serial liar. But nice try at yet another Bush "scandal ". The libs get more pathetic by the week.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF ^^^ You have some of this stuff stored in a keyboard macro, don't you?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Plus, why leave out the dissenting view - including that of, oh, just the State Department - unless you're trying not to present the whole story, but just the story that backs up your view?> Because the State Department view did not conflict with the majority view.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Just a reminder how Joe Wilson lied in his Op Ed NY Times piece that the left all wet themselves over. Notice how he says Cheny's office sent him... not his wife?? What a loser. "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office"
Originally Posted By Bob Benchley For post 111- I'm curious. Do you keep making these repetitive postings because you need to keep reassuring yourself about such things?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy No Bob, I am putting the final point on a thread that hinted that the president was a leaker and that all eyes should be on him not Joe Wilson. You seem to have no problem with people making stuff up that is not true or people who advance stories that are also not true. So you attack me, the guy who calls these people out? I know.. lets let them say all the crazy stuff they want and let it slide so they won't have their feelings hurt and people will believe what they say.
Originally Posted By Bob Benchley "So you attack me, the guy who calls these people out?" It was an honest question, not an attack. It just seems to me that if you were so sure of your convictions you wouldn't need to keep repeating them until such time as they're rendered useless.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Patrick Fitzgerald said that. More to the point, fitzgerald's court filing speaks of "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against mr. wilson." And ... "It is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of white house efforts to punish mr. wilson". Bush was asked point-blank at a press conference about fitzgerald's claims that the white house was retaliating against wilson. He dodged the question. There are yet more shoes to drop, and it's unlikely that they'll be favorable to bush. Libby is now giving us the framework of his defense, and it looks to be a good one - he was acting on directives from the president and vice president. >> Notice how he says Cheny's office sent him... not his wife?? << No, I don't notice that at all. However, what I DID notice was this ... >> The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office". << Seems pretty clear that he's saying "the agency officials" made the request - not the veep's office. >> What a loser. << He hasn't lost anything. >> Bush can declassify anything he wants. So the word " leak " is yet another misleading term the liberal media and their pawns like to use to muddy the truth. << If "leak" is misleading, then why did they instruct and underling like libby to secretly funnel this "declassified intelligence" to two sympethetic reporters on "double super secret" attribution? Sounds like a "leak" to me.
