Libby: Bush OK'd Secret Intel Leak

If he had declassified the information, so that it wasn't actually a "leak," why the hell did he rant about finding the person responsible for leaking the information and how if it were found they were from his adminstration that they would be gone?

You apologists are being played for total idiots if you buy this "it wasn't a leak, it was declassified" nonsense.

If it were actually declassified, why didn't Bush just come out and say, "There is no leak here, we declassified that information"? Because at the time, he was denying anyone in the admin had anything to do with it. Now that it is clear they are involved, he suddenly has some new explanation? BS.

This whole "It wasn't wrong to leak it because I declassified it" is totally made up to cover their a$$e$, because they can no longer deny their involvement in releasing the info.

I'd like to say, "How stupid do they think we are? Do they not think we were paying attention when they were calling it a leak?" but then I read this thread and realize some people ARE stupid enough to fall for it.

This is just like when the President said, "When the government talks about wiretaps, well, wiretaps require a court order."

Yes, he was saying that at one time.
 
pgwenthold said:
If he had declassified the information, so that it wasn't actually a "leak," why the hell did he rant about finding the person responsible for leaking the information and how if it were found they were from his adminstration that they would be gone?
Click to expand...
Because. that. is. not. the. information. he. was. talking. about.
 
pgwenthold said:
....
I'd like to say, "How stupid do they think we are? Do they not think we were paying attention when they were calling it a leak?" but then I read this thread and realize some people ARE stupid enough to fall for it.

...
Click to expand...

I felt the same way about the Republican talking point that the case against Libby wasn't all that serious because he was only indicted for lying. I thought they had to be joking with that one, but not only were they seriously putting out that pile of crap as something of value but they continue to spit it out every now and then. And most amazing to me there were some people on this forum that actually bought in to it. I guess the situation is that no matter how ridiculous a particular talking point might seem to some there will always be somebody with the necessary motivation to see something of value in it.
 
Rob Lister said:
The argument is moot since there is no contention that he outed an actively covert agent, or any other type of agent, for that matter.
Click to expand...

moot
adj.
Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Aaron
 
HeavyAaron said:
moot
adj.
Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Aaron
Click to expand...
Heh. Try the second definition: "deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic." Not sure why m-w has the other one first -- in my experience at least the second is more common in the US (whilst the first is more common in the UK).
 
manny said:
Ms. Plame's identity.
Click to expand...

So which of these represents your current view concerning Bush's statements to the effect that he would fire those involved in the Plame leak?

1. Bush was lying.
2. Bush doesn't think Karl Rove actually leaked the information.
3. Bush changed his mind when he found out that Karl Rove leaked the information.
4. Careful parsing of Bush's statements and his press secretary's can be interpretted to mean that he never actually promised to fire those involved.
5. The powers of a Republican POTUS are absolute and any discussion concerning the details of this are moot.
6. Other
 
6. Other

It has not been determined that anyone leaked Ms. Plame's identity.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I agree based on the definition the word "leak" could apply. The reason I brought it up is because generally the word "leak", especially if you are talking about classified information, implies unauthorized disclosure -- and in the case of classified information, that is illegal. We don't know that has occurred at this point. If you are talking about leak in the sense that they (the White House) released the information and intentionally concealed the fact that they were releasing it, I might agree. At the moment, I am not sure there is enough conclusive evidence to to convince me completely, but it definitely seems very suspicious and shady.

This article goes into a little more detail of the recent revelations:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060409/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_q_a;_ylt=At_raD.b0CcHQ1vt2u3kt8yyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
 
I think we can now make pretty good guesses about what has gone on.

I also think one's view of the ethical situation will depend on what one's view of the appropriateness and wisdom of the Iraq war. It is clear that the Bushco used leaks (meaning unattributed dispersal of information not generally known to the public) as part of its overall strategy to mislead the public about the reliability of the information that Iraq had WMD. Bushco leaked sections of otherwise publically unknown documents which supported its case for war and it did not release the information in the same documents which cast doubt on the reliability of the information supporting the case that Iraq had WMD.

If one believes that even at this point in time that the war was a good idea one might tend to see otherwise unethical actions as justified by the overall good those actions did by getting the US and the UK into this war and solidifying support for the war once it had begun. If one tends to believe that the war was a bad idea right from the start then one is likely to see the lies that contributed to the instigation of the war as particularly unethical.

I agree that right now we don't know who made the decision to release the Plame identity. But I don't think there are many suspects left. It seems that there were many leakers (using my definition) in the white house, Libby and Rove among them. I don't think that many people all of a sudden decided to start releasing classified information on their own volition. I don't think Bush would have gone into his we're going to get to the bottom of this mode if he had actually realized that there was a high level decision in place to out Plame. So if not Bush, it seems pretty likely that it was Cheney. And Fitzgeral seems to say basically that in his latest releases.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916_pf.html
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
It is clear that the Bushco used leaks (meaning unattributed dispersal of information not generally known to the public) as part of its overall strategy to mislead the public about the reliability of the information that Iraq had WMD. Bushco leaked sections of otherwise publically unknown documents which supported its case for war and it did not release the information in the same documents which cast doubt on the reliability of the information supporting the case that Iraq had WMD.
Click to expand...

Goes hand in glove with catapulting the propaganda.
President Bush gave a talk at the Athena Performing Arts Center at Greece Athena Middle and High School Tuesday, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY. Bush traveled to Rochester, trying to win support for his proposed overhaul of the Social Security system.

"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
Click to expand...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2005/260505newbushism.htm
 
manny said:
It has not been determined that anyone leaked Ms. Plame's identity.
Click to expand...
No?

(source, my emphasis)
Some claim to be uncertain as to whether Plame was a covert agent. According to USA Today, Plame worked in the Langley, Virginia, CIA headquarters since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, and married Joe Wilson and had her twins. [5] Conservative columnist Max Boot argues that it is very unlikely that a CIA employee commuting to the headquarters building each day would be a covert agent. Columnist Robert Novak wrote that an Agency source said Plame "has been an analyst, not in covert operations." [6] It has been speculated that Plame may have worked in the CIA administration in the office of former CIA Deputy Director of Operations (DDO) James Pavitt. Former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson attempted to clear up the confusion surrounding Plame's status in a column responding to Max Boot: "The law actually requires that a covered person 'served' overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby."[7] It was confirmed that she was a covert operative early in the investigation by acting intelligence officials, setting the matter to rest.[8]
Click to expand...
Plame was a covert opertive and now she isn't due to her name being wide spread in the media. Someone leaked her identity.
 
Upchurch said:
...

Plame was a covert opertive and now she isn't due to her name being wide spread in the media. Someone leaked her identity.
Click to expand...
davefoc attempting to understand the mind of Manny:

1. We don't really know that Plame was a covert operative because of what some columnist wrote. There has not been an official release to that effect. If Plame wasn't a covert agent it wouldn't be possible to leak her status as one.

2. If Cheney had authorized the release of the information about Plame and Bush had authorized Cheney to authorize the release of what he saw fit with regards to discrediting Wilson then the fact that Plame was a covert agent may have been declassified and it was therefore not possible to leak her status under one of the definitions of "leak" that has been put forth.

3. We don't know that Plame's status wasn't already widely known and therefore we don't know that it was even possible to leak her status.

4. Technically, we don't know that anybody in the Bush administration was responsible for providing information about her status to reporters because there has been no official finding to that effect and no person has publically come forth to say that they did in fact provide information on her status to reporters. It is possible that some people have actually done so in grand jury testimony. Have the transcripts of this testimony actually been released?

Note to Upchurch don't expect me to keep this up too long, I'm already dizzy from having spent this brief time rummaging around in the Manny mind.
 
davefoc said:
davefoc attempting to understand the mind of Manny:
Click to expand...
Yes, those are all possibilities, I suppose.

If it is true that the Bush administration declassified Plame's covert status (which it still remains to be seen if that is true). I find it odd that (1) the Bush administration did not simply disclose that in the first place. After all, they had declassified it. (2) I'm surprised that Plame herself was not notified of her declassification. (Or, at least, I assume that she wasn't notified or, if she was, that she would have told her husband about it.)
 
Upchurch said:
Yes, those are all possibilities, I suppose.

If it is true that the Bush administration declassified Plame's covert status (which it still remains to be seen if that is true). I find it odd that (1) the Bush administration did not simply disclose that in the first place. After all, they had declassified it. (2) I'm surprised that Plame herself was not notified of her declassification. (Or, at least, I assume that she wasn't notified or, if she was, that she would have told her husband about it.)
Click to expand...

See my post above. You'd have to be an idiot to believe this "the information was declassified" story.

It's clear that Bush himself didn't believe it 6 months ago. Why should he start believing it now?

OTOH, I don't even believe that Bush COULD declassfy the information if he wanted to. Isn't the identity of covert agents protected by law? It's not like there is a document anywhere that says, "Valerie Plame - CIA agent - *CLASSIFIED*". It's more like there is a law that says, "It is illegal to willfully disclose that a covert CIA agent is working for the CIA."

Thus, in order to clame that someone was authorized to disclose Plame's identity, you would have to either rescind the current law, or create a new law exempting her from the previous. The president doesn't have the authority to create or rescind laws.

Thus, if it is true that the Bush administration released the information on Valerie Plame, then there is no reason to think that the president had the authority to release it. His own actions have acknowledged that.
 
manny said:
6. Other

It has not been determined that anyone leaked Ms. Plame's identity.
Click to expand...
The argument behind this appears to be :

Only classified information can be leaked.

The President de-classifies information by revealing it (through whatever channels).

Bush Minor knew, when he referred to the Plame leak, that there was no such thing. So he could just as easily have promised to throw the leakers to the Moon as fire them, since there was no leak and therefore no leaker.

Why didn't he just say there was no leak? Was he poorly briefed?
 
Upchurch said:
Yes, those are all possibilities, I suppose.

If it is true that the Bush administration declassified Plame's covert status (which it still remains to be seen if that is true). I find it odd that (1) the Bush administration did not simply disclose that in the first place. After all, they had declassified it. (2) I'm surprised that Plame herself was not notified of her declassification. (Or, at least, I assume that she wasn't notified or, if she was, that she would have told her husband about it.)
Click to expand...
Gee, other moderators, ones who don't rely on wikipedia for their information, might object to posters putting words in others' mouths. They certainly wouldn't join the game. I've come to expect better from you, on both fronts, and register my disappointment here.

But no matter. That she served overseas within the last five years is a necessary, but not sufficient condition of her being covert for purposes of the statute. The jury (or in this case, Grand Jury) is still out on that, though her publicly available prior address of American Embassy, Athens St., APO New York, NY 09255 would seem to argue against it, or so sayeth the guys in this article.

But even that is of no matter. Even if it were established beyond any doubt that she were covert (if for example, when Novak ran her name by the CIA guys they had said, "Hey, she's covert, don't be naming her or I'll see you in jail" as opposed to telling him she was "an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative"), it's still entirely possible that her name was not leaked by the administration. It could have come up in some other way.

And even that that is still of no matter, because this story and this thread is only tangentially about Ms. Plame. It's about the President's entirely legal declassification of parts of a document for the entirely legitimate purpose of building public support for an action which he had proposed and engaged in. There's not even a hint of a whiff of a speculation (except by persons who are clinically idiots) that the President declassified Ms. Plame's status.
 
manny said:
That she served overseas within the last five years is a necessary, but not sufficient condition of her being covert for purposes of the statute. The jury (or in this case, Grand Jury) is still out on that, though her publicly available prior address of American Embassy, Athens St., APO New York, NY 09255 would seem to argue against it, or so sayeth the guys in this article.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right. Sure, manny, a covert agent is going to publically announce a foreign address in the place s/he is working.

You'd make a great spy, I bet. Go register with the secret service in the country you're infiltrating, perhaps? And, of course, "APO" means what, Manny?
But even that is of no matter. Even if it were established beyond any doubt that she were covert (if for example, when Novak ran her name by the CIA guys they had said, "Hey, she's covert, don't be naming her or I'll see you in jail" as opposed to telling him she was "an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative"), it's still entirely possible that her name was not leaked by the administration. It could have come up in some other way.
Click to expand...
I think you're working toward a Pigasus? Come on, Manny, anything COULD come up in another way, but here we have admissions from people involved, clear political ramifications of the outing (I mean the outing, not the fallout from the outing), and a demonstrated political agenda on the part of the people who have been accused by some of the rest of the leakers.
And even that that is still of no matter, because this story and this thread is only tangentially about Ms. Plame. It's about the President's entirely legal declassification of parts of a document for the entirely legitimate purpose of building public support for an action which he had proposed and engaged in. There's not even a hint of a whiff of a speculation (except by persons who are clinically idiots) that the President declassified Ms. Plame's status.
Click to expand...

So, it's ok for the president to lie to the people about something this serious? Is that what you mean? If not, what do you mean? There can be little doubt that the leak supported the president's "go to war with the guy who tried to kill my daddy" agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom