[Rumor]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ail/components

http://feeds.feedburner.com/reuters/topNews?m=22575

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/cia.leak/

The real question:

Is Libby trying to get himself out of trouble by laying the blame elsewhere?

Or

Was it ordered by GW and when it went wrong, Libby became the fall guy?

[black bear theory]

i haven't kept up much on this story. how did libby get the info? he didn't have access to classified info himself, except what was passed down through cheney? or cheney's superior?

is that correct?

[dcmacdaddy]

b_b_t

According to the Post article, Libby revealed in his grand jury testimony that he was given the OK to talk about the National Intelligence Estimate to the press, as it related to Iraq's potential nuclear threat, by Cheney. Apparently the "smoking gun" is that Libby verbally asked Cheney, and Cheney verbally confirmed to Libby, that permission to reveal the classified information in the NIE was granted by Bush--The only person who could do so unilaterally.

Now, a sitting President is certainly authorized to make such exceptions. So, the act of doing so on Bush's part is not in and of itself a problem. What makes this so problematic is the "why" of Bush making such an exception. The assumption is that it was done in an attempt to dis-credit the claims by Joseph Wilson that the "Yellow cake" claims made by Bush were a fabrication, a known fabrication, to attack the messenger as it were.

So, Libby's statements would seem to confirm assumptions that discussing Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative was an attempt to dis-credit Wilson. What is interesting in all of this is that Libby is seeking classified documents from the White House that would refute this claim--in essence denying that the discussions of Plame's identity as a CIA operative was politically motivated--but the White House is refusing to reveal those documents.

from the Post article.

Libby, who was indicted last year for allegedly lying to the FBI and a grand jury about what he said to reporters about his contacts with the media, wants the materials because they will show that his misstatements were innocent and did not stem from an orchestrated administration campaign to discredit Wilson, according to his court filings.

<speculation mode>
I think the reason why the White House would balk at releasing these materials is because it would do one of two things, a) show that the White House knew its claims about Iraq were false or b) show that others in the White House were talking about Plame when they shouldn't have been. I think the White House is revealing that some un-ethical behavior went on to keep from revealing that a lot more un-ethical, and possibly illegal, behavior was going on. In other words, after getting caught tell the cops you stole two bottles of beer from the convenience store when in fact you stole a whole truck-load of beer.
</speculation mode>

[Krusty]

Sorta sad when you consider Dubya, back in 2003, claimed he was trying to get to the bottom of the leak. "I want to know the truth" , "If anyone in my administration ..." etc. etc. If Libby's assertion is true, Dubya has carried on a multi-year, multi-incident, bald face lie to the American people. Not even Zimphire-esque semantic shenanigans could defend it as not being an outright, wanton lie.

A brief history of Dubya's various comments on the leak ... from "I'll fire anyone in my administration who leaked the info" to "I'll fire anyone who broke the law". Of course, a President, he can argue that he has the authority to declassify info on the fly and therefore no law was broken.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Sorta sad when you consider Dubya, back in 2003, claimed he was trying to get to the bottom of the leak. "I want to know the truth" , "If anyone in my administration ..." etc. etc. If Libby's assertion is true, Dubya has carried on a multi-year, multi-incident, bald face lie to the American people. Not even Zimphire-esque semantic shenanigans could defend it as not being an outright, wanton lie.

A brief history of Dubya's various comments on the leak ... from "I'll fire anyone in my administration who leaked the info" to "I'll fire anyone who broke the law". Of course, a President, he can argue that he has the authority to declassify info on the fly and therefore no law was broken.

Well thats it then, Bush must now kick his own ass.

[moodymonster]

So who leaked the info that revealed the identity of a covert CIA agent?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

So who leaked the info that revealed the identity of a covert CIA agent?

Richard G. Armitage. At the time he was Under-Secretary of State.

[Jawbone54]

This so-called "covert" CIA agent and her husband had long ago revealed her position.For those grasping for straws

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

This so-called "covert" CIA agent and her husband had long ago revealed her position.For those grasping for straws

Whether or not Plame had already been outed is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The crux of this issue is that, if Libby is telling the truth, then Bush DID know all about where the source of the info given to Novak came from even though he pretended for 3 years that he didn't ... repeating again, and again, and AGAIN that the leak source was unknown to him and that he'd discipline whomever did it. Basically, taking every direct question put to him about the issue and giving an answer he knew to be false when he was giving it.

[hyteckit]

Which finger?

[mr. natural]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Which finger?

This one:



The same this smirking chump has always been giving to us.

[Kevin]

Hasn't given it to me. Speak for yourself.

[ironknee]

denial denial denial

[Kevin]

[subego]

Heard Tony Blankley make a good point despite the fact he's an ass.

What was Valerie Plame's name doing in a National Intelligence Estimate?

[Busemann]

I did not have sexual relations with that woman!

I did however leak her identity and endanger her life as part of vicious political payback.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Sorta sad when you consider Dubya, back in 2003, claimed he was trying to get to the bottom of the leak. "I want to know the truth" , "If anyone in my administration ..." etc. etc. If Libby's assertion is true, Dubya has carried on a multi-year, multi-incident, bald face lie to the American people. Not even Zimphire-esque semantic shenanigans could defend it as not being an outright, wanton lie.

And it is also shedding more light on the BIG lie.

E.g.,

Mr. Fitzgerald, in his filing, said that Mr. Libby had been authorized to tell Judith Miller, then a reporter for The New York Times, on July 8, 2003, that a key finding of the 2002 intelligence estimate on Iraq was that Baghdad had been vigorously seeking to acquire uranium from Africa.

But a week earlier, in an interview in his State Department office, Mr. Powell told three other reporters for The Times that intelligence agencies had essentially rejected that contention, and were "no longer carrying it as a credible item" by early 2003, when he was preparing to make the case against Iraq at the United Nations.

Iraq Findings Leaked by Cheney's Aide Were Disputed

According to Mr. Fitzgerald's motion, Mr. Libby testified that he was directed by Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush to describe the uranium allegations to Ms. Miller of The Times as a "key judgment" of the National Intelligence Estimate. ...

In fact, the estimate's key judgments, which were officially declassified 10 days after Mr. Libby's meeting with Ms. Miller, say nothing about the uranium allegations. ...

In an interview with The Times in 2004, a senior intelligence official involved in drafting the estimate said the uranium allegations were excluded from the key judgments because the drafters knew there were serious doubts about their accuracy.

[mania]

even Republican Senator Arlen Spector is not happy with bush (from cnn)

"I think that it is necessary for the president and the vice president to tell the American people exactly what happened," Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, told "Fox News Sunday."

Wilsons take.

"Several months before the State of the Union address, the White House and the Senate were advised, don't use this information [on Niger]; it is baseless," said Wilson.

"If you then use the information, you are twisting intelligence to support political decisions that have already been made," Wilson said. "And in July, when you selectively leak pieces of the national intelligence estimate, and when you attribute pieces in the body to key judgments, you are furthering that disinformation campaign. That's what Mr. Libby did."

My personal realization that it was all a sham was when Powell told the UN that Iraq had drones that could deliver bio weapons. Is a sham, was a sham, always will be a sham.

[BRussell]

It's not like we didn't know this two years ago. But half the country + a few % don't seem to care, so what are you gonna do?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Wow, a political thread implicating that Bush and the Republicans covered up some aspects of the War On Terror...and after a few days, abe has yet to post in it.

I can only draw one conclusion: there must be some truth to it.



greg

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I can only draw one conclusion: there must be some truth to it.

Looks like there is truth to it .... in fact, looks like it is completely true. Several news agencies are now reporting that administration officials are confirming that it was Bush who authorized the information release.

Same guy who initiated a probe to find the source of the leak ... ends up being the guy who authorized the leak in the first place and is "found out" by his own probe. What a fun way to waste our time and tax dollars.

Never fear though. With this admission comes the beginnings of the official talking points about why its "OK". Once the talking points have been firmly established (I give it until Monday AM ... pretty early in the day, I'm sure), we'll see the usual suspects in the forum begin using that as a foundation for departure into their own special versions of why this isn't complete hypocrisy and utter dishonesty on the part of the administration.

No matter how big the turd this administration craps down, there is a faction that will break out the Tostitos and begin munching away on it. THAT you can count on.

[Kevin]

Or that this is one of the many thousands of accusations made by you anti-Bush zealots that might actually be legitimate.

You throw enough rocks at a church, you a bound to break a window.

What you have here are those that are willing to see how this plays out before knee-jerking and jumping the gun.

[ironknee]

the great thing is bush is stuck in office for the next 2 + years, no place to hide...his dishonesty is coming back to haunt and destroy him and his supporters LOL

I LOVE IT

[Kevin]

That says more about you....

[mania]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Never fear though. With this admission comes the beginnings of the official talking points about why its "OK". Once the talking points have been firmly established (I give it until Monday AM ... pretty early in the day, I'm sure), we'll see the usual suspects in the forum begin using that as a foundation for departure into their own special versions of why this isn't complete hypocrisy and utter dishonesty on the part of the administration.

No matter how big the turd this administration craps down, there is a faction that will break out the Tostitos and begin munching away on it. THAT you can count on.

Spot on Krusty. Spot on. I just love the spin and then always going back to 'it was the right thing to do'. so Machiavellian.

[ironknee]

of course it says about me...i wrote about how i feel man