Libby: Bush OK'd Secret Intel Leak

RANT! If Bush was involved in this he is forever branded as a coward as well as a liar and a fool. He's letting an employee take the heat for something HE authorized? What kind of a leader is that?
He demands absolute loyalty, so of course they will lie for him. Bush has followers who will do anything for him. No fear, no limits.


Hey this new rant thing is great!

But Bush’s spokesman, Scott McClellan, appeared to draw a distinction about Bush’s oft-stated opposition to leaks.

“There is a difference between providing declassified information to the public when it’s in the public interest and leaking classified information that involved sensitive national intelligence regarding our security...”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12187153/
Click to expand...
So there we go. If it was already declassified, why ever are they hanging out poor innocent Libby like this? Why waste all this federal effort trying to find out how the information was leaked if you did it?

A characteristic of lies is that unless kept simple they become more pretzel-like and unmanageable over time. New lies need to be created to assert the truth of the previous lies. An appropriate tactic might be one of distraction, for example accusing someone of calling you a liar to be guilty of obstructing legislation (Harry Reid comes to mind). Another tactic might be asserting authority, along the lines of 'God is good, so whatever God does is good'. (oops, I meant Bush not God.)
 
Kopji said:
If it was already declassified, why ever are they hanging out poor innocent Libby like this? Why waste all this federal effort trying to find out how the information was leaked if you did it?
Click to expand...

What is the it to which you are referring?
 
Why yes and no, same as everyone. Yes, in that it is presumably information from the intelligence report — the National Intelligence Estimate, and no in that the specific details are not addressed.

Nevertheless, it has nothing to do with the Plame outing, if an outing even occured.
 
Well, if it bothers you, consider the reporting.

They're 'making much ado' about something, yet they leave that 'something' out of the story. what does that tell you?
 
But Bush’s spokesman, Scott McClellan, appeared to draw a distinction about Bush’s oft-stated opposition to leaks.

“There is a difference between providing declassified information to the public when it’s in the public interest and leaking classified information that involved sensitive national intelligence regarding our security...”
Click to expand...
Hmm, a nuance. I seem to recall that one of the Bush re-election machine's points of pride in comparison to Sen. Kerry was that their guy (and team) didn't do nuance.
 
Wasn't Libby indicted for lying to the grand jury, not for leaking classified material?
 
Rob Lister said:
What question?
Click to expand...
Q Okay. When was it officially declassified?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, in terms of the timing of when information may have been declassified, that gets into a question relating to the legal proceeding in a filing that was made by Mr. Fitzgerald earlier this week.
Click to expand...
Q Scott, I've got a couple of things here. First, did you have any personal knowledge on July 18th -- when you answered the question that started off this round of questions -- did you have any personal knowledge of discussions between the President and the Vice President about declassifying portions of the NIE?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's a question that gets into talking about an ongoing legal proceeding, and I just can't do that because the policy of this White House is that we are not going to comment on it while it's ongoing. So I'm adhering to that policy, and I would hope that you could appreciate that.
Click to expand...
Q Did the President know that Joe Wilson was married to a CIA agent before Novak revealed it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, this goes to -- go back and look at previous comments, but this goes to an ongoing legal proceeding, and I would encourage you --

Q Did he know? It's a simple question.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- I would encourage you to go and look at the filing that was made just the other night, because Mr. Fitzgerald touches on that subject in the filing.

Q You mean the President did not know?

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I can't get into discussing an ongoing legal proceeding, and that's a question relating to the ongoing legal proceeding.

Q I think it's a very simple, important question.

MR. McCLELLAN: Matt, did you have something?
Click to expand...
Q This inevitably leads to the conclusion that you are not disputing the allegation that the President was involved in the leaking -- or authorized the leaking of classified information. Are you satisfied with that? And is that really in the interests of the American people?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not getting into confirming or denying things, because I'm not commenting at all on matters relating to an ongoing legal proceeding.
Click to expand...
Q I'm not asking you to. I'm asking, did the President say anything about it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I can't get into talking about an ongoing legal proceeding. That relates to an ongoing legal proceeding. I just can't do that.
Click to expand...
Q Okay, but when Judy Miller gets it, it's being provided? Or is it being leaked, because then it's declassified?

MR. McCLELLAN: Now, see, that's something that I cannot and you cannot separate from an ongoing legal proceeding. So I can't get into responding to that specific question, because how can you separate it from the legal proceeding and the filing that Mr. Fitzgerald made. I just can't do that.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060409/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak;_ylt=AhDk_IrkvR2M2igbCMwuylRg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-
Because Bush declassified the intelligence document, the White House does not view Libby's conversations about it as a leak. But that determination is difficult to make without knowing precisely when Bush decided to declassify the information.
Click to expand...
RANT!
Are there truly people that have participated in this thread that can see this statement as something other than a huge pile of horses**t?

When did redefining the English language get added to the powers of the POTUS? The term, "to leak" means to transfer otherwise publically unknown information to somebody with the intent of making that information public. It doesn't matter whether the information was classified or not. If Libby transferred previously publically unknown information to somebody with the idea that somebody would make it public Libby leaked that information. If the president authorized it then the Libby leaked the information with presidential authorization.

At what point do the Bushco apologists in this thread stop parsing and mincing long enough to notice the huge pile of horses**t that is piling up around them?
 
I have a simple view of the "it", but one I think most Americans understand. The "it" is the story broadcast by Robert Novak, and one of the "they" Novak mentioned is apparently George W Bush. (Timeline linked below).

Bush is the one who loudly said he'd get to the bottom of this and fire anyone who leaked confidential information etc etc etc. I might be missing some nuance but I don't see it.

Today's position: Bush leaked the information himself (AND HE IS NOT DENYING IT), so that is defacto declassification. How clever, guess he got me on that one. :rolleyes:

I feel for the Bush supporters this week. Even if you are standing by Bush to show support for the dignity of the office, or love of country or political party, when is enough enough? The WH response is kind of insulting isn't it?

Newsday reports in "Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover" that their intelligence sources confirmed that Valerie Plame was undercover until Robert Novak outed her, quoting Novak as saying:
"I didn't dig it out. It was given to me. They thought it was significant. They gave me the name, and I used it."
linky
Click to expand...
 
The term, "to leak" means to transfer otherwise publically unknown information to somebody with the intent of making that information public. It doesn't matter whether the information was classified or not. If Libby transferred previously publically unknown information to somebody with the idea that somebody would make it public Libby leaked that information. If the president authorized it then the Libby leaked the information with presidential authorization.
Click to expand...

That is not what the term "leak" means. A leak is an unauthorized disclosure of secret information. If the POTUS authorized it, then it is not a leak. If the information was classified, Libby released it, and then the President said "uh oh, better declassify it," that would be a leak.

I can tell you from personal experience it is not that difficult to declassify information as long as your are the classification authority or at a higher level than the authority who classified the information. All it really takes is a signature. People well below the level of the President have that authority, so I am pretty sure the President himself also has it.

And FYI, I am not a Bush supporter. Didn't vote for him, and don't much care for him. But as President, it is not illegal for him to declassify and release information. Might not be a good idea at times, but it is within his power to do so.
 
Some relevant on-line definitions of leak in this context

merriam webster intransitive senses
2 a : to become known despite efforts at concealment b : to be the source of an information leak

merriam webster transitive senses
2 : to give out (information) surreptitiously <leaked the story to the press>

dictionary.com
intransitive senses

3. Informal. To become publicly known through a breach of secrecy: The news has leaked.

transitive senses
2. Informal. To disclose without authorization or official sanction: leaked classified information to a reporter.

as a noun
3. Informal. An unauthorized or a deliberate disclosure of confidential information: “Sometimes we can't respond to stories based on leaks” (Ronald Reagan).

It appears that there is an argument to be made by both sides here based on the definitions of leak available on-line. The merriam webster transitive sense goes exactly to the way that I believe the term is most commonly used. i.e. to give out information surreptitiously. The dictionary.com transitive sense definition fits most closely with the administration's weasling. i.e. To disclose without authorization or official sanction.

With or without the administration's weasling there is no question now that at least the release of some information designed to discredit Wilson's editorial was authorized in some way. That information was released surreptitiously and then the administration stonewalled about the authorization while a grandjury was used to investigate the source of surreptiously released information intended to discredit Wilson. And the administration not only stonewalled about its involvement in authorizing leaks it went on to publically excoriate leakers with the exact intent of misleading the public in to believing that no official authorization of leaking had occurred. Altogether pretty scummy behavior.

But as scummy as the behavior may have been with regard to the shennanigans concerning the Wilson related leaking, the fact is that this was part of a much larger plan by the administration to misrepresent the facts concerning the nature for evidence of WMD in Iraq. And it is those misrepresentations that were used to justify a premptive war that otherwise may not have been necessary.






​

​
 
So, am I to understand from the Republicans here that it all depends on what your definition of "it" is?

Sweet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom