MSM is once again framing the issue wrong in the Plame outing.

Note how every story in the MSM is making sure we all know that "Bush has the authority to release classified intelligence". Now the debate becomes whether it's legal for Bush to reveal the name of a CIA agent or not. It's a trap people. Lets not bite on this weenie.

The real issue is not the legality but the reason.
What purpose does it serve? How does it further the safety and security of the American people by outing a covert CIA agent and exposing their entire network? Why is an act that could be defined as treason necessary?

Did they allow Judith Miller to rot in prison, and Scooter Libby to roast over a slow flame? Why didn't they just come out and say, "yeah, leave Scooter alone, I told him to do it, and I have the authori-tay!"

Why did Bush lie, and promise to 'smoke out the leaker?'

This is the story.

You're right. The blast fax made it out, and everyone has their marching orders.

The only person to declare it "legal" have been the people who committed the crimes. Just because Bush's flunky, who also has declared torture legal, btw, says it is legal that certainly doesn't make it so.

They want us to debate legalities. That want us to sift through legal databases to find laws that prove them wrong. It keeps us from asking the important questions.

The question is not "If it was legal why ....?" The question is just plain "Why?" Why do it at all?

Question I've asked in another thread...if it was perfectly "legal" then why was an investigation thats lasted 33 months called in the first place? Why is the leak now legal? Was it declassified with an executive order yesterday and back-dated? Inquiring minds wanna know....

JG

and only a fool would argue otherwise. IMPEACH HIS ASS. LONG TIME OVERDUE!

it, but B* has resulted in excessive profanity on my part!

No one is saying Bush okayed Libby's exposing Plame. Libby said that he okayed revealing the NIE information on the tubes, which came from the OSP's information that came from the INC. The corporate media is reporting this accurately.

Two things that follow are: {1} did the president tell the truth when discussing this with Mr. Fitzgerald? If not, that is obstruction of justice. And {2} did Cheney discuss exposing Plame with Libby? I think we know he did, but can it be proven in court?

I have been told that there are significant fights within the Whitte House right now. In my opinion, this is because of something that Jason Leopold reported recently -- that Rove is cooperating with the investigation. That cooperation is Karl pointing the finger of blame at Cheney and Libby.

and even if the VP did give Scooter permission to talk about its contents with reporters, then why didn't they just say so to begin with?

Why did they allow Judith Miller to sit in a jail cell for months? Why did they lie to the prosecutors, grand jury and the American people? Why? Because they are a bunch of obstructing justice liars.

Because Karl knew how explosive this was, and they needed to keep the revelations away from the voters before the 2004 theft, er, election.

are the questions that every journalist worthy of our respect should be asking. You are focused on one of the keys to this case. These questions show that there is no reason to stretch the truth about what Mr. Fitzgerald's document said. Very well done.

NPR this morning had their take on this, one thing that stuck out for me that they touched upon is "WHY" this was leaked. Of course they were reporting everything else "correctly" based on what was said in the 04/05/06 filings, but they ended the segment stating how this was leaked as a concentrated effort by the Admin. to rebut Patriot Wilson's article. They also mentioned that Fitz stated in the filing that their are other Admin. Docs that show this concentrated effort.

I for one have been busier than a one legged man in ass kicking contest so I could not pour over the 50 pgs of PDF filings from yesterday as well as would still like to, but this little nugget reporting by NPR is good. Also if others like KO and David reported this then I missed it, but I have not heard or at least caught this piece in the MSM until now.

Anyway back to work just wanted to check in this morning, let me know if there are some other threads worth watching on this.

described the whole mess as a "10" in terms of significance this morning on "Today", and Matt asked some really good questions, like why didn't bushco just go to the the American people with this info and explain he was declassifying in order to give Americans a better idea of the threat.

country with preemptive strike. they are consistent how they spin stories.

they are awfully worried about losing house and senate and actually have 9/11 and the rest actually investigated. this is how one gets it done with total control over govt. not going to be the same if they lose that control

on NBC this morning. He also said "the emperor has no clothes".

He hates being all alone, so he'll ride with the big boys for a while, then start fawning over his master again. Always does.

Matthews has provided the most accurate information on the case in the corporate media. It is no coincidence that Wilson begins his book on the scandal with the call he got from Matthews.

but I loved the look on matty lauer face when he said it! Priceless! :)

... KING'S X!! I had my fingers crossed!!

I can declare my actions legal!

The whole crew was onto this one... including Miles, Soledad (the O'Briens), Elaine Quijano, and John King. They were all trying to make it perfectly clear to the American people that the president did nothing illegal and that none of this was of any real consequence. Blecch.. I just cringed listening to all the fellating noises coming from my TV.

Funny thing, though, just yesterday their "senior political analyst", Bill Schneider, was tearing Boosh a new one over this. He used the word "devious" to describe him, said it was a terrible political liablity, and that his political outlook looked "grim" because of what he did. You sure wouldn't have guessed this from what his colleagues had to say this morning. :grr: :puke:

...then why didn't he say so long ago and avoid a fullblown investigation?

BushCo are lying themselves into another corner. Why they gave the media Valerie Plame's name is the question that hasn't yet been satisfactorily answered by the administration.

And Fitz's court filing doesn't. In fact Fitz's document says that Bush was unaware, at least as of Sept 2003, of Libby's role in disclosing her identity.

All we have so far based on the legal docs is Scooter testifying that Cheney told him that Bush authorized releasing selected portions of the NIE on Iraq WMD, not Plame's identity which Libby denied knowing at the time or leaking.

The reasons for the leaks of course are of primary importance. Also why they tried to cover it up. And would have suceeded if not for Ashcroft's recusal and Fitz's appointment. But the trap also is to claim that Fitz's filing says more than it does.

(From the pasted article on the DU home page):
The new disclosure places Bush, "for the first time, directly in a chain of events that led to a meeting where prosecutors contend the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was provided to a reporter." {/i]

I agree with you that Fitz's filing doesn't say what the NY Sun is implying but isn't it funny how the right has been saying all along "No laws were broken" and now the MSM has picked up the meme and dutifully copied it.

My point is that legalities are for the courts to work out. Who cares anyway. What I want the media to do and what we should be doing is to keep the focus on the outing and the reason it was done and not get sucked into a debate about presidential powers.

from Cheney to Bush on the Plame matter. He probably had fits (no pun intended) at how this hit and played in the media. Especially since Rover's likely been helping Fitz to shove both Scooter and Cheney under the bus. Rover's speed dial must have gotten a work out yesterday. :)

about repeating that junior told Cheney to tell Libby to leak Plame. At least not in the info we know so far. That's not in Fitzgeralds' filing.

What is inescapable and devastating for Bush is that the NIE was "selectively" released. Only the juicy data that would make America freak about about the need for war. He didn't leak anything about the two agencies who said the aluminum tubes were non threatening.

Plus he wanted it leaked it covertly to a reporter, their favorite reporter that was on their payroll already spreading false bullshit as she was told to.

That puts Bush right in the box. It was right after the Wilson article and there is no way to spin that.

I never watch that ass-clown (Imus OR Kelly) but I had it on for the Kerry interview and never changed it. She just told Imus unequivocally that "everybody knows" "there is no doubt about it" that the president can declassify anything he wants to, there is "no question about the legality of it."


Funny, there seem to be a lot of questions for something which is so unquestionable!

did Bush follow the proper procedures to declassify information? Where was the review by the agency head to make sure that the president did not accidentaly disclose something he didnt intend to or reveal intelligence sources? I think this story needs to be dug into further...

Let's start with the president can declassify information provided he follows proper procedures and follows the "rule of law"!

If this was no big deal, why didn't he just fess up to it? For the past 2 years he's been saying he knows nothing about it, and anyone involved will be dealt with. Now we know he was involved up to his smelly arm pits. I think that is the issue, which proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the man can't be trusted.

:sarcasm:

:yoiks:

At least they are admitting that Bush did it.

Get Joe Wilson out there to frame it for our side.

guy out there to "TALK" about it.


:applause:

My wife is a perfect example. She is mostly a-political, so she doesn't hear about stuff like the Plame outing. If she does, it's only when she's reading a headline in the local paper. She might see that Bush outed a CIA agent, but she doesn't care to read the article or hear how it is framed.

If most people hear that Bush outed a CIA agent, and don't care about how it is framed, then it's good thing for our side. I would bet that there are more people like this than we'd like to think.