| Author | Message | ||
     chroma Citizen Username: Chroma Post Number: 24 Registered: 3-2005 |
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_authorized_leak_of_Iraq_intelligence_0406 .html | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1601 Registered: 10-2004 |
The only thing that will really make the last 6 years acceptable is if they impeach the jerk. Someone put a fork in him already. He's soup. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1930 Registered: 3-2004  |
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13458 Registered: 1-2003  |
I remember when they called Clinton "Slick Willy." So far, not much sticks to Bush. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1931 Registered: 3-2004 |
i cant believe you remember that nickname! i thought that i was the only one! it was so long ago! you have an amazing memory! | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3215 Registered: 9-2001  |
The article says that Bush authorized the leak of the NIE that contradicted Wilson's Op-Ed piece. It says nothing about his authorizing the leak of Plame's identity. The former is legal, if part of the normal Washington slime and spin game. The latter would be illegal. How does authorizing the leak of the NIE justify impeachment proceedings? Tom, don't forget Reagan as the Teflon President. He weathered Iran-Contra with barely a scratch, and now has the DC Airport named after him. Bush has a long way to go to match that performance. Lib, quit stalking Tom. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1603 Registered: 10-2004 |
Oh, ESL, I just want the jerk impeached. I'll take any reason. | ||
| SLK Lives! Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1148 Registered: 10-2005 |
Alleygater- And that is why I don't take you seriously... -SLK | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1638 Registered: 5-2001 |
The issue is whether or not the prez has the authority to declassify information on his own. Also note that Cheney said that Bush authorized it. Make of that what you will. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3218 Registered: 9-2001 |
I know Alley, I know. But we can't just impeach every president that we don't like simply because we don't like them, although the Repubs sure gave it a good try with Clinton. | ||
| SLK Lives! Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1150 Registered: 10-2005 |
Thank you ESL, now if only Alley the great Republican hater would admit it to itself.... | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3219 Registered: 9-2001 |
No problem, SLK; now I expect you to take the same medicine when talking about Democrats. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1605 Registered: 10-2004 |
Oh, I think Bush has given us PLENTY of reasons to impeach his sorry •••. At this point I'll take whatever I can get to use it against him though. I think the Democrats aren't nearly as ruthless as the Republicans at doing the impeaching. I wish they would change that for Bush. SLK, I continue to love you too.  | ||
| SLK Lives! Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1152 Registered: 10-2005 |
ESL- Point taken, but I didn't call for Clinton's impeachment. He f**ked that one up all on his own.... I don't hate Democrats. Some of my best friends are Democrats...seriously...I married one for crissakes!  -SLK Alley-please provide concrete charges for impeachment.... | ||
| chroma Citizen Username: Chroma Post Number: 25 Registered: 3-2005 |
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-CIA-Leak.html?hp&ex=1144382400&en=82f91777 a6c99ec3&ei=5094&partner=homepage The AP article refers to the information as "sensitive" in the body of the article, although it does say: ''Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller -- getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval -- were unique in his recollection,'' the papers added." once again bringing up the question of whether the President can de-classify at will. Can he? And if it is technically legal, is it the right thing to do? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5508 Registered: 8-2003 |
Yes, the Commander in Chief can declassify intelligence at will. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1071 Registered: 10-2004  |
cjc - that is arguable and quite likely incorrect. The commander in cheif is subject to the same laws as all of us. He is not king Bush as much as you might want him to be. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1643 Registered: 5-2001 |
The president can. And now the VP can too, thanks to the "executive order" Cheney referred to in that bizarre Hume interview. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 1526 Registered: 9-2004  |
"Libby's testimony also puts the president and the vice president in the awkward position of authorizing leaks -- a practice both men have long said they abhor, so much so that the administration has put in motion criminal investigations to hunt down leakers".  | ||
| chroma Citizen Username: Chroma Post Number: 26 Registered: 3-2005 |
Well, maybe not. Here's something I found: Steven Aftergood, editor of Secrecy News, a newsletter published by the Federation of American Scientists, what he thinks. He told us that Alterman's conclusion that Bush had violated the law "can't be taken at face value," adding, "though I suppose it is within an opinion columnist's editorial license." He went on: There are several specific categories of classified information that are protected by statute -- communications intelligence, identities of covert agents, nuclear weapons design information, and some others. Those statutes are binding on the executive branch as well as on everyone else. It's from here: http://hnn.us/articles/1753.html So, I guess it would depend upon what was in those documents that were leaked, which haven't been disclosed (yet?). Don't you think that it's possible that perhaps the information might have been covered by statutory protection? Would that be the reason that Fitzgerald is pursuing this so quietly and for so long? | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3390 Registered: 3-2004 |
You know, you can say that outing Valerie Plame is no crime, which I find ridiculous. But you have to admit, allowing all this prosecutor time/money to be spent on trying to find out where the leak is, really is a crime. Bush allowed this time and money to be spent while hiding the fact that it was he would permitted the leak. The press, the Special Prosecutor, Libby and others being under needless pressure, this is, well, unpatriotic. | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 172 Registered: 6-2002 |
cjc, I believe the President can declassify at will--- but aren't you disturbed by how this story has unfolded? If the last refuge for Bush suporters is that what he did, while reprehensible, is technically legal-- what are we left to argue about? I am amazed at what we just let ourselves go through for six years. Has the bar been lowered this much? | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5306 Registered: 10-1999  |
The President can "declassify at will"? Sorry, but that's just nonsense. He's not a monarch, he's the executive. Just because he has a "whim", that something should be declassified, doesn't make it right. | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 407 Registered: 8-2003 |
Was Clinton's encounter with Monica technical legal? If so, why was he impeached? Don't we hold our Presidents to a higher standard both for morals and common sense? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9152 Registered: 4-1997  |
Sounds like Bush lied. And didn't tell the whole truth. | ||
| yabbadabbadoo Citizen Username: Yabbadabbadoo Post Number: 346 Registered: 11-2003  |
"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." [Bush Remarks: Chicago, Illinois, 9/30/03] "I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things." He added that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information." [CNN, Feb 11, 2004] Q:So the President of the United States doesn't know whether or not this classified information was divulged, and he is only getting his information by reading the media? MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? Q: He does not know whether or not the classified information was divulged here, and he's only getting his information from the media? MR. McCLELLAN: No, we don't know -- we don't have any information that's been brought to our attention beyond what we've seen in the media reports. I've made that clear. Q: All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place.[9/03 WH press coference] FF | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5308 Registered: 10-1999 |
Omigosh, I just realized that (a variation of) my favorite movie line applies here.  "I'm shocked, shocked to find that leaking is going on in here!" | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1613 Registered: 10-2004 |
SLK asks: So SLK, let's assume that all of Yabbadabbadoo's Bush quotes (two posts above this one) are true (I'm too lazy to confirm if they are or aren't...I'll leave that to you to disprove or argue about). Doesn't that ONCE AGAIN prove that Bush is a lying sack of sh*t? If so isn't that worthy of being impeached? He certainly dragged our nation into a war with Iraq on false pretenses (WMD that didn't exist...and there was PLENTY of U.N. inspector evidence to prove that there wasn't any) so I would say this isn't the first MAJOR lie he has been responsible for. Is that not enough reason to impeach? Is spying on our citizens not enough reason to impeach him? What is? Sleeping with an intern and lying about it is? Is that how this cr*p works? | ||
| Fruitcake Citizen Username: Fruitcake Post Number: 277 Registered: 9-2003 |
He wasn't sleeping. He was wide awake and sitting up. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1908 Registered: 3-2004 |
I believe "they" call it sitting in an "erect" position. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1094 Registered: 9-2004 |
From here- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364 x863042 An interesting article "Was it illegal for President Bush to leak classified secrets to Bob Woodward" touches on the subject: <snip> President Nixon famously stated during the Watergate era that when a president does something that means it's not illegal. The courts disagreed and Nixon was forced to resign. But was Alterman correct in his assessment of President Bush's culpability? HNN asked Steven Aftergood, editor of Secrecy News, a newsletter published by the Federation of American Scientists, what he thinks. He told us that Alterman's conclusion that Bush had violated the law "can't be taken at face value," adding, "though I suppose it is within an opinion columnist's editorial license." He went on: There are several specific categories of classified information that are protected by statute -- communications intelligence, identities of covert agents, nuclear weapons design information, and some others. Those statutes are binding on the executive branch as well as on everyone else. More at this link: http://hnn.us/articles/1753.html And also: From Executive Order 13292 Sec. 6.2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall supersede any requirement made by or under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. "Restricted Data" and "Formerly Restricted Data" shall be handled, protected, classified, downgraded, and declassified in conformity with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and regulations issued under that Act. (b) The Attorney General, upon request by the head of an agency or the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, shall render an interpretation of this order with respect to any question arising in the course of its administration. (c) Nothing in this order limits the protection afforded any information by other provisions of law, including the Constitution, Freedom of Information Act exemptions, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. This order is not intended to and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, officers, employees, or agents. The foregoing is in addition to the specific provisos set forth in sections 3.1(b) and 5.3(e) of this order." (d) Executive Order 12356 of April 6, 1982, was revoked as of October 14, 1995. link: http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html Then an excerpt from the National Security Act of 1947 as ammended: TITLE VI - PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION PROTECTION OF IDENTITIES OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES UNDERCOVER INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS, AGENTS, INFORMANTS, AND SOURCES SEC. 601. <50> (a) Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (b) Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (c) Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than three years or both. (d) A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment. http://www.iwar.org.uk/sigint/resources/national-security-act/1947-act.htm | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7041 Registered: 10-2001  |
This thread is a joke, right? The President authorized the leak? How in the world can he do that? He can declassify which is what he may have done here..That's about it...For the record, based on Wilson's nonsense, they had no choice but to discredit his attempted slander. libs..  | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3392 Registered: 3-2004 |
There you go gnashing your partisan teeth. Bet they're pretty broken up by now. Why, straw, you're as loyal as...Libby. If you had to reveal your true name, would you be so loyal? I wonder... | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 173 Registered: 6-2002 |
This all raises some interesting questions, sure. But, for the first time, I think I agree with Straw. The President does seem to have a right to declassify most information. So, if what we hear now is true, Bush is probably legally OK. So for all you Bushies, I will say it now: Bush will not be convicted and go to jail over the "leaks". Phew, glad thats over. Now...what about the lies, the campaign to discredit any critic in the most vicious way possible, "fixing the facts" to go to war, data mining domestic calls and emails, etc. Did you vote for this? Its not what he does thats illegal, its what he is doing that he made legal that worries me. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1074 Registered: 10-2004 |
And what was the result of the 'declassifying' the said document? Our whole anti nuclear CIA front company is no longer operating. There are loose nuclear weapons and loose uranium floating around in Russia and elsewhere that we can no longer track. That in itself is why the CIA asked for the investigation into the leak. The funny thing is why the president steadfastly stuck to his story about finding the leakers of any classified information. He LIED again and again and again. His whole governance is one lie after the other and finally some republicans are realizing that his administration is almost over and they cant go on lying to us all without repercussion. Then again the name of Valerie Wilson did not have to be disclosed and is probably not included in the 'declassifying' alibi. There may be more to come. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3224 Registered: 9-2001 |
Bingo, Kendalbill. That is the issue. Legality is not at stake here, I think--but morality is. Presidents from Johnson through Bush have used their discretion to determine what to declassify. But that does not exempt them from harsh criticism over their use of that discretion. In this case, Bush and Cheney's sneaky, back-alley declassification smacks of a personal vendetta at the least, and possibly more lying and cover-ups at the worst. If Wilson was so bald-facedly wrong on his facts, why didn't they send Powell to a press conference with the evidence and make Wilson look like an idiot? They sure had no problem sending Powell to the UN with false information, making HIM look like an idiot! Why resort to snide, backhanded leaks to the press through Libby? This puts the Administration in a very poor light and casts doubt on everything they have said in the past about telling the truth and not sanctioning leaks. I was horribly upset, embarrassed, and critical of Clinton when he repeatedly lied about Monica. I am far more upset, embarrassed, and critical of Bush for his lies, distortions, and "thousands of mistakes" in the prosecution of this war. As the bumper stickers say, "When Clinton lied, no one died." | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1617 Registered: 10-2004 |
ESL, you actually cared about the Clinton scandal? I'm sorry but that was possibly the most idiotic reason to try to impeach a president I ever saw. Infidelity is an issue for the President, his wife, (if you believe then God), and tabloid covers. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3228 Registered: 9-2001 |
Alley: I cared deeply about the embarrassment he caused the nation, and about the fact that the President lied under oath (especially when facing the truth would have pushed this back into the realm of personal family matters, rather than lying and thereby politicizing the problem). I think the impeachment was a Starr chamber dog-and-pony show by the GOP that wasted millions of dollars and further embarrassed the nation, and served absolutely no purpose except to stoke partisan flames. It was a further disgrace in an already disgraceful situation. But I was, and still remain, embarrassed and upset about Clinton's behavior as well. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1619 Registered: 10-2004 |
I was more irritated that it became (WAS MADE INTO) a political issue in the first place. Why did he lie under oath? Who cares, the better question is why was he under oath about that subject matter in the first place. Did his wife put him there? His priest? That's so stupid. That definitely was more embaressing than what he did. | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 174 Registered: 6-2002 |
ESL- I totally agree. I think that the memoirs that will be written about the tone of this White House will horrify people. And it is not true that every president did it...you would have to go back to Nixon to find a President that abused his resources to silence critics. That is not to say, Straw, that it is illegal. It is to say that it is very, very wrong. In Nixon's term, we had Republicans like Howard Baker that could see what was happening. Up to now, we haven't had anyone be that courageous-- but as the disclosures continue, I think you might see some Republicans (Specter? Hagel? Graham?) take on their President. Alleygater, I am disgusted by Clinton's behavior in the Oval office. The idea of the President running around like Groucho after interns should sicken everyone. And I was able to get over the right's vendetta that resulted in the impeachment by my knowledge that his behavior left Gingrich, Delay and company a very easy target. Oh- and also knowledge that Clinton executed a retarded man for political gain, ruined discussion of Single payer health care for a generation, etc. But why even make the comparison? At least Clinton was competent. |
