W.House does not dispute Bush leak allegation

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/bush_leak_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Friday chose not to challenge a prosecutor's disclosure that President George W. Bush authorized top official Lewis "Scooter" Libby to disclose intelligence on Iraq in 2003, as Libby alleges.

Spokesman Scott McClellan noted that the White House released declassified portions of an intelligence report at around the same time, July 2003.

That was part of an already known public release of information in the face of criticism of Bush's grounds for invading Iraq from former Ambassador Joe Wilson.

McClellan said the release of the declassified information was very different from what he called the potentially damaging leak of information about Bush's domestic eavesdropping program which aims to track phone calls and e-mails in the United States to suspected al Qaeda contacts abroad.

at today's press conference.

Oh, sorry, but I had to laugh hysterically at the Bushies' initial response to this current example of their hubris...

Isn't it past time to start showing the Bushies the level of disdain they've earned, and so richly deserve? Why not?! We can take a page out of Rove's playbook! No more Mr./Ms. Nice Guy!!!

By the way, to me Scott is a dissembling automaton. I might admire his "courage under fire," if any of the press corp besides Helen honestly held his feet to said fire. What a media circus are his banal, repetitive press briefings! Do you think he sleeps well at night?

Don't dispute the WH leak authorization and act as if it was a perfectly ordinary thing to do. Deflect by throwing blame back on those who disclosed the ILLEGAL wiretapping program.

:eyes:

In order to beat the rap on giving away classified information they both testified that they had Bush's ok. Now that the shit has hit the fan the White House can not deny it because the Special Prosecutor probably has collaborating evidence from Rove that could be released later.

boy, if Bush's master plan of listening to the terrorists hadn't have been exposed, we might have caught them having a nice chat with their mothers about their plans. :eyes:

BULLSHIT!

More propoganda - another case of others doing it makes it wrong, when we do it it's OK. Reminds me of Nixon's spin: when the President does something, it is legal. Right. It's important that you Republicans believe this, because no one else does. :eyes:

Just checked and supposedly Snotty Scotty will be on C-Span 1 at 12:45 to spread the propaganda. Hope Helen Thomas and David Gregory are in the house, I would use some nice fireworks on a lovely April afternoon.

I don't even like popcorn but think I might have to pop up a bowl just for the hell of it.

Bush's "Leak" was a petty, vindictive, politically motivated (and SHOULD be Criminal) leak designed to destroy an honest, courageous American's career as well as discredit her husband, another honest, courageous American citizen who was merely attempting to deliver the Truth to the citizens of the U.S. so that they could make an informed decision regarding Bush's illegal war proposal.

While, on the other hand, the "Leak" of the information that the Bush Administration was illegally and improperly spying on average Americans (they listened in on tens of thousands of Americans--since very, very few, if any were actual terrorists, therefore most were innocent citizens who deserved their privacy; and worse, there was no oversight or regulation on who or why or what was done with the information). This latter leak was the act of a courageous American who did the country a real service--for when our government takes actions towards becoming a fascist/police state, we, the people truly need to know--even if it means someone has to break the law by exposing a classified program (in which case, since the program was illegal, the classification used to hide it should also be considered invalid).

A Big Difference Indeed.

Remember the reason for Nixon's trouble was not breaking in to the Watergate but conspiracy.

Yesterday I read an article at truthout that said the missing WH emails that Fitzgerald now has proves conspiracy!
We already know Rove & Libby were involved and since yesterday we also know that Cheney & Bush were involved too.

NGU.

Did they appear before Fitzgerald? If so, did the do it separately? Did they submit to being sworn in? (references to their ultra-brief joint (only) appearance before the 9/11 commission where they refused to be sworn in). If they haven't been forced to appear, what do you wanna bet they attempt to either appear together or avoid taking an oath to tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth?

........but I'm sure he talked to Cheney at some point or other. And I doubt if it was done under oath. But even if Cheney did not talk to him under oath, if he didn't tell the truth (and we all know by now that he didn't), his lies could still be viewed as obstruction of justice.

Personally, I've believed for a long time that Fitzgerald's real target has been Cheney! And I think he is still after him! That's why he indicted Libby.........because he wanted to pressure Libby into giving up info on Cheney.

It looks like it's working............

like Daniel Ellsberg. This led to the creation of the Plumbers. The cover-up conspiracy that Nixon and his henchpeople engage in was to prevent knwolege of the Plumbers from getting out.

Won't it be great if BFEE goes down for a similarly ill-conceived war and trying to punish truth-teller Joseph Wilson, this generation's Ellsberg?

History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce -- K. Marx (Somehow, though, I doubt the 130,000+ dead Iraqis and innumerable wounded Iraqis would view this iteration as "farce," nor would the U.S. KIA and WIA)

I doubt if any of the dead could be happy about any of this but if they were still around, at least they might be grateful when the madness is over.

As for me, I would just like to see them publicly humiliated and sentenced to a very long prison sentence for their crimes!

I wasn't thinking. There must be some conspiracy in there and all these denials might have been concurrent with who knows what attempts to obstruct justice.

........working together to achieve a similar goal.

According to my count, so far there are 4.........maybe more to come later. And yes, they were working to achieve the same criminal agenda and this, I believe, is what Fitz is focused on.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040606R.shtml

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald stated in a court filing late Wednesday in the CIA leak case that his investigators have obtained evidence during the course of the two-year-old probe that proves "multiple" White House officials conspired to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence.

This is the first time the special counsel has acknowledged that White House officials are alleged to have engaged in a coordinated effort to undercut the former ambassador's credibility by disseminating classified intelligence information that would have contradicted Wilson's public statements.

More at link.

He told the American people he knew nothing about the leak and wanted to get to the bottom of it and fire the people responsible.

I've noticed that the talking heads are taking great pains to distinguish this from the Valerie Plame leak. However, we must not let others lose sight of the fact that the two are inextricably intertwined.

The reason why Bush authorized Libby to disclose portions of the NIE to Judith Miller was to discredit Joe Wilson. The reason why Libby disclosed the name of Wilson's wife was to discredit Joe Wilson. We now know that Bush/Cheney knew about the limited NIE disclosure; OF COURSE CHENEY AND BUSH KNEW ABOUT THE PLAME DISCLOSURE TOO! It was all part of the same strategy session. Common sense tells us this must be true. Bush either knew about the Plame leak, or Scooter/Cheney/Rove purposely kept Bush out of the loop, to preserve plausible deniability. What's great about this current scandal is the propensity of the lazy media and your average uninformed american to see it, lump it all together in their minds, and say to themselves, "Bush knew about the leaking all along."

So now we know that Bush looked straight into the camera and lied to the American people when he said over and over again that he wanted to get to the bottom of who the leaker was in his administration. He knew all along, regardless of whether he specifically authorized the Plame leak.

Given our recent NSA escapade, I fully expect the White House and its shills to start screeching about how there was no "leak" here, because as soon as Bush authorized the release of the NIE it was no longer "classified." "And besides," they'll continue, "he had to defend his program in the name of national security." Let them sqawk. They've already lost the argument.

What NSA has taught us is that there is a sizeable group of people who believe that Bush is incapable of breaking the law, particularly in war time, because when he does something, and claims he is doing it in the name of national security, it is automatically legal. Hell, I'm beginning to believe that 25% of our population would happily allow Cheney to shot-gun blast their own mother in the fact, if Bush told them it was in the name of national security.

But none of these 'legal/national security arguments' make Bush's actions POLITICALLY DEFENSIBLE.

Bush only authorized the release of PORTIONS of the NIE. He refused to authorize the release of those portions of the NIE that undermined his position (or equivocated) re the use of Iraq's aluminum tubes. That shows that his release was for political purposes, i.e., he was playing games with classified documents to undermine his critics. That is repulsive to most middle-of-the road, non-KOOL AID drinking voters.

We're getting closer to the tipping point, people. The flacks can scream all they want about "no proof of illegality," but screw the law (the Supreme Court would likely rubber stamp Bush's behavior if it ever got that far any way.)

What we're getting closer and closer to is an "emperor has no clothes" moment, when enough of the public looks upon this administration with the disgust that they deserve, and gives the spineless politicians and sycophantic media an excuse to openly challenge the president. When that happens, the floodgates could open, and we could be headed toward an appropriately disgraceful exit for the neoconservative cabal and its enabler in chief.

:toast:

with you.

Welcome to the DU, Ximines -MN!! Keep those posts coming:toast:

--
What NSA has taught us is that there is a sizeable group of people who believe that Bush is incapable of breaking the law, particularly in war time, because when he does something, and claims he is doing it in the name of national security, it is automatically legal.
--

The question we need to ask these people is "Who exactly is being spied upon that the FISA court would not give a warrant?" The FISA court has a reputation for being very 'easy'--they apparently almost always grant a warrant. So if *'s spying program is really aimed at terrorists, there doesn't seem to be any good reason why he couldn't go through FISA. Thus, the most likely explanation is that the program has more to do with spying on political opposition in general.

It's true that polls have shown murkins are okay with domestic spying when it's phrased as looking for terrorists. I don't think very many murkins would approve of giving * (or any other government official) a green light to gather information about their personal conversations for political purposes.

:thumbsup:

But informing the American public is the only one that is wrong???!!!???

Right is wrong
Left is right
and 2 + 2 = 5

I guess it's okay for political parties to endanger people and ruin their career's for political gain. Gawd it seems like every day, and in every way, I hate the chimp more and more.

"The administration I'll bring is a group of men and women who are focused on what's best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will see service to our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house."

-- gw bush, Des Moines Register debate, Iowa, Jan. 15, 2000

if the information was classified?

http://www.tomharkin.com/nl/CensurePetition.htm

PREWAR INTELLIGENCE
Insulating Bush
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm

and did so using the defined procedure, which procedure requires a Declassification Guide. The legal requirements are defined in Executive Order 12958 (amended by Bush in 2003) here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030325-11.html

I'm begging DU lawyers to read it and figure out if the lackk of a Declassification Guide is a smoking gun. See my post here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2557135&mesg_id=2557135

so anyone undercover who pisses off Bush can be exposed and
thereby marked for death when their cover's blown.
?-and it's all legal because Bush has the final say about what is "top Secret"?--

This is not a system of checks and balances --
this is a dictatorship.

but wait...didn't the White House spokesman previously deny that the white howse had anything to do with outing Plame?

with the Senator Grahm in the hearing last week over NSA.

Libby said that Cheney told him that Bush authorized him to leak portions of the National Intelligence Estimate to Judith Miller. That is not the same as leaking Plame's identity. So no, the White House is not (yet) claiming that Bush can authorize leaking the identity of undercover agents.

HOWEVER, the leaking of the NIE document and the leaking of Plame's identity are intertwined, as both were part of a campaign to discredit Joe Wilson and his claim that the Bush Administration was using intelligence they knew to be faulty. In this way, Libby's disclosure that Bush authorized him to leak the NIE document DOES tie Bush in to the broader conspiracy, but it does NOT necessarily mean that Bush authorized the Plame leak, nor is it clear whether this action by Bush was illegal.

among other things tied directly to this "outing"?
I know that even lying to a federal investigator is a crime-

"Lying to a Federal Agent" the only crime Martha Stewart was convicted of (she was not convicted of insider trading)
and Martha Stewart did jail time.

I think that they want us to believe that everything Bush does is legal no matter how immoral it is or how it badly hurts the country. If Bush killed a child on live television, we would probably have experts telling us how Bush's actions were perfectly legal.

Why this leak ? To discredit Wilson's report nixing Saddam's search for Niger yellow cake. It became the center star reason for the Bush mushroom cloud statements. Whether it was legal leaking or not, that was the motive for outing Mrs. (Plame)Wilson. The leak to discredit Joseph Wilson's report so the Bush/Cheney nuclear fear mongering could be directed to the public.

The lies to the American people are important, but the lie to the federal prosecutor is going to be a real heartbreaker.

It's going to make this election a mandate for impeachment. It's going to make stealing this election all the more important to them. This is perhaps the last crossroads between two very different futures for the American people.

I hope we choose wisely.

Maybe this is the "tipping point" and they will finally tell the emperor he has no clothes!

difference!

....That was part of an already known public release of information in the face of criticism of Bush's grounds for invading Iraq from former Ambassador Joe Wilson.

McClellan said the release of the declassified information was very different from what he called the potentially damaging leak of information about Bush's domestic eavesdropping program which aims to track phone calls and e-mails in the United States to suspected al Qaeda contacts abroad.

I'd love to hear the scripted answer!

McClellan said the release of the declassified information was very different from what he called the potentially damaging leak of information about Bush's domestic eavesdropping program which aims to track phone calls and e-mails in the United States to suspected al Qaeda contacts abroad.

"Democrats who refuse to acknowledge that distinction are simply engaging in crass politics," he said.

RECOMMEND THIS STORY

Recommend It:

Average (603 votes)
4.1 stars

I've never seen more crass people than those in power right now.

...."There's nothing in that that was declassified that could compromise our nation's security," McClellan said. "It was a historical context about some of the intelligence that was used in making the decision to go to war in Iraq."

Democrats have seized on the news, accusing Bush of hypocrisy. The president has often denounced leaks from his administration and vowed to punish the leakers.

Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record) of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the disclosure, if true, revealed Bush himself as the "leaker in chief."

......

"Democrats who refuse to acknowledge that distinction are simply engaging in crass politics," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060407/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_28;_ylt=AkWWgN.YopMsG7.2JF3AQjAb.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--

White House Sidesteps Questions on Leak

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 28 minutes ago

.........
Sen.John Kerry, D-Mass., citing Bush's call two years ago to find the person who leaked the CIA identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, said the latest disclosures means the president needs to go no further than a mirror.

In his court filing, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald asserted that "the president was unaware of the role" that Libby "had in fact played in disclosing" Plame's CIA status. The prosecutor gave no such assurance, though, regarding Cheney.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said that "in light of today's shocking revelation, President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information. The American people must know the truth."

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the president has the "inherent authority to decide who should have classified information." The White House declined to comment, citing the ongoing criminal probe into the leak of Plame's identity.

In July 2003, Wilson's accusation that the Bush administration had twisted prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat "was viewed in the office of vice president as a direct attack on the credibility of the vice president, and the president," Fitzgerald's court papers stated.

Part of the counterattack was a July 8, 2003, meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller at which Libby discussed the contents of a then-classified CIA report that seemed to undercut what Wilson was saying in public.

..After Wilson began attacking the administration, Cheney had a conversation with Libby, expressing concerns on whether a CIA-sponsored trip to the African nation of Niger by Wilson "was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife," Fitzgerald wrote. The suggestion that Plame sent her husband on the Africa trip has gotten widespread circulation among White House loyalists.

Wilson said he had concluded on his trip that it was highly doubtful Niger had sold uranium yellowcake to Iraq.

The prosecutor's court papers offer a glimpse inside the White House when the Justice Department launched a criminal investigation of the Plame leak in September 2003. Libby "implored White House officials" to issue a statement saying he had not been involved in revealing Plame's identity, and that when his initial efforts met with no success, he "sought the assistance of the vice president in having his name cleared," the prosecutor stated.

The White House eventually said neither Libby nor Karl Rove had been involved in the leak. Rove remains under criminal investigation.

So they will not dispute that Bush make the leak. They will act as though this is normal procedure for presidents, it's not illegal and therefore nothing to see here.

Hopefully, this time the press will not let this get by. We need to keep putting it in their faces. The important issues here are that the leak was authorized by Bush, and yes, it is intimately tied up with the Plame issue, because the whole reason for all of it is the political destruction of a White House enemy (Joe Wilson). So it doesn't matter that it might not be technically illegal, but it is definitely not the place for this administration to be using classified information for political purposes. And in fact, it probably is illegal that Bush lied and withheld evidence from Fitzgerald in the course of a significant investigation of these issues.

Let's stick to the lying and the reasons behind these leaks and not get caught up in their distractions on a technicality.

chill_wind Donating Member (132 posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr-06-06 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. James E. Sharp - John Dean 2004- in Findlaw

Edited on Thu Apr-06-06 01:53 PM by chill_wind
on the significance of private counsel:

This action by Bush is a rather stunning and extraordinary development. The President of the United States is potentially hiring a private criminal defense lawyer. Unsurprisingly, the White House is doing all it can to bury the story, providing precious little detail or context for the President's action.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Bush explained his action by saying, "This is a criminal matter. It's a serious matter," but he gave no further specifics. White House officials, too, would not say exactly what prompted Bush to seek the outside advice, or whether he had been asked to appear before the grand jury.

Nonetheless, Bush's action, in itself, says a great deal. In this column, I will analyze what its implications may be.

analysis at: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040604.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=860958&mesg_id=861438

they will have a measured response.
And a secondary response.
And a "kill the messenger" response.
And a diversion. And probably a couple more diversions.
And a long stall.
And a lot of "tut tut, fear boys with bugs" response.

Which will all add up to ..... as usual..... NOTHING.
But, and this is KEY.... they will never actually refute anything directly.
They'll get Gonzalez, who already knows all this stuff, to say it's all legal.
Then... they'll all go on vacation.
And they'll stick their heads in the sand (or in the brush they're all cutting like mad) and try to get us all to forget.

Until....
something major happens to add insult to injury...
and the news media will ask Scottie again.
And he'll get all puffed up and beligerant again...
And...

ad infinitum.

Does this all sound like a broken record?
Because it is.

It's the Bush Record.

the spin on this is becoming dizzying. 'if bush ordered it, its not a 'leak'! cry the freepers. 'this makes the whole thing LEGAL' they also claim. and this of course; "McClellan said the release of the declassified information was very different from what he called the potentially damaging leak of information about Bush's domestic eavesdropping program...". very different my ass. its WORSE.

If you are above the law, why bother to deny any wrongdoing?

The sad part, of course, is how few in the media and the "opposition party" are even willing to call them on anything.

White House defends intelligence leak as `in the public interest'

BY KENNETH R. BAZINET
New York Daily News


WASHINGTON - The White House insisted Friday President Bush did nothing wrong in authorizing a leak of prewar intelligence because he had allegedly declassified the secret information.

The White House was silent about the leak for almost 24 hours before spokesman Scott McClellan said the President - who has repeatedly trashed government leakers - slipped the information to the New York Times "in the public interest."

The furor over the leak erupted when court documents revealed that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, had told investigators that Bush had authorized him to leak parts of the CIA's secret National Intelligence Estimate to the Times.

McClellan argued yesterday there was nothing wrong in what the President did because Bush had declassified the information.

"Declassifying information and providing it to the public when it is in the public interest is one thing," McClellan said.

"But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious, and there's a distinction," he said.

McClellan was pressed, however, on whether Bush leaked the information before it was declassified.


snip


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14295291.htm

whenever they feel like doing it.

legallity be damned.

now you'ld THINK that would piss off conservatives -- it's exactly the kind of behavior that's supposed to make them nuts with disapproval.

stretch it anymore and it will run into the end of the universe :eyes:

In the U.S., is the president allowed to do anything? Does the president have the right to break the law? If so, then where are the checks and balances I heard so much about in school? Or did history writers simply pull the idea that there were checks and balances, out of their @$$?

<snip> Bush merely instructed Cheney to "get it out" and left the details to him, said the lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case for the White House. The vice president chose Libby and communicated the president's wishes to his then-top aide, the lawyer said.

It is not known when the conversation between Bush and Cheney took place. The White House has declined to provide the date when the president used his authority to declassify the portions of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a classified document that detailed the intelligence community's conclusions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The typical Rove spin-around, who's got the truth??

I wonder when Congress will hold him to his pledge of firing the Plame leaker? Bad joke, I guess, but if you want to put any of your Republican reps/senators on the hot seat in their offices?

revelation that Bu*h/Cheney leaked this info and the lack of a statement from the WH strongly implies that Bu*h and Cheney are indeed guilty of maliciously and criminally leaking this info, and are working frantically on coming up with just the right lie to cover their asses.

It's too late, no one but a fool or a republican will believe whatever phony story they spin now. The WH would have repudiated the accusation immediately if they had not done something seriously wrong.