The W
Views: 152455211
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
11.7.20 1932
The W - Current Events & Politics - Scooter Libby says Bush OK'd Valerie Plame leak
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.65
Pages: 1
(633 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (8 total)
RKMtwin
Boudin rouge








Since: 1.3.02
From: Denver, Colorado

Since last post: 4272 days
Last activity: 3715 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54
Click Here (comcast.net)

Here's an excerpt:


    Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak
    By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
    60 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

    Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

    There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.

    But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.


As of this posting, the story at Comcast's page has been added to and amended, and CNN is already spinning the story.

I think this is extremely important. I can only correlate the potential of this to when Nixon was linked to the Watergate scandal. But then again, that's just my opinion.

Please discuss.





Left or Right, apathetic or not... VOTE.

Promote this thread!
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 990 days
Last activity: 892 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.59
Nixon's downfall was the cover up. And this story is surprising because? Do you think aides would do thi without at least tacit approval. ANd if the Prez approved it, is it a crime for Rove or Libby or whomever.



Perception is reality
RKMtwin
Boudin rouge








Since: 1.3.02
From: Denver, Colorado

Since last post: 4272 days
Last activity: 3715 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54
Okay, so I should have clarified what I said previously. The point I failed to make was that at least, to some degree, President Bush has complicity in the outing of Valerie Plame. Her outing has the potential to compromise OUR security.

Oh, and who's claiming that I find this story surprising? This is yet another example of what this current administration is all about, in my opinion.

I don't understand what you're saying with the statement, "And if the Prez approved, is it a crime for rove or Libby or whomever." I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but are you insinuating that there's nothing criminal about authorizing a leak of information that eventually led to a covert CIA operative's identity being revealed?

What possible good could have come out of Valerie Plame's outing, or for that matter, anyone else in a position similar to her's? How does that, in ANY way, benefit us? Or am I silly in thinking that this situation could possibly be a vendetta against Valerie Plame's husband for refuting the administration's false claims about Iraq seeking materials for WMDs in Niger? Yeah, I know this has been debated ad nauseum, but it bears bringing up again.

OK. I'm gonna stop now. Otherwise I'll just keep on ranting.

EDIT: Had to clarify myself AGAIN. Apologies.



(edited by RKMtwin on 6.4.06 1206)


Left or Right, apathetic or not... VOTE.

wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 1206 days
Last activity: 191 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.91
This is gonna be interesting. Because at first people are jumping and not reading and saying Bush authorized Plame's outting, like the thread title implies. However the actual news articles are not saying that at all. They are saying Bush authorized leaking some information that would counter what Plame's husband had claimed about the Iraq situation.

So on one hand, this is a big deal in that the President shouldn't be allowed to leak information for political gain and that's basically what this was for. Now it may have been legal, but that don't make it right.

However since Plame is not specifically cited in the information, it's not the huge bombshell some are making it out to be either. Or at least it's not as bad as it could have been for Bush.

I would say that it was wrong for her husband to leak info, just the same as it was wrong for Bush to do it. And with the stance the President has taken on stopping all government leaks he's not looking so good here. Not that he was looking great before, but you know what I mean.

In the end, probably nothing major changes, just gives the Democrats more ammo for the next elections, and something to yell about for the next few weeks but of course do nothing real because they are the Democrats and they don't do anything but complain these days. Yes for good reason, but come on man DO SOMETHING for once.
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 2567 days
Last activity: 2567 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.38
If Libby is to be believed, it was Cheney who told him this information while stating Bush authorized it. If he's correct, that would be a smoking gun against Cheney, not Bush, as Bush's name would still be hearsay and would be dependent upon Cheney being truthful. If you believe Dick Cheney doesn't tells the truth though, you can't cherry-pick and say on this occasion he did.
Regarding Nixon: I think he could have survived the cover-up. Other Presidents have before and since. What destroyed him was having tapes of the cover-up. That's sloppy. Without the tapes, it would have been extremely difficult to get the 2/3 vote in the Senate in '74 to convict him if he was impeached by the House. Republicans could have run on the philosophy that the Democrats were attempting a coup d'etat less than two years after Nixon carried 49 states. Had there been a Democratic tidal wave in the '74 elections, perhaps the numbers would have been possible in the Senate in '75 (wouldn't be worth doing it in '76 with Nixon a lame-duck and the potential of a backfire costing the Democrats the election), but that would have meant putting everything on the back-burner for at least 6 months and the publics attention span doesn't last that long.
RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me








Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 85 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.90
If Libby is to be believed, it was Cheney who told him this information while stating Bush authorized it. If he's correct, that would be a smoking gun against Cheney, not Bush, as Bush's name would still be hearsay and would be dependent upon Cheney being truthful. If you believe Dick Cheney doesn't tells the truth though, you can't cherry-pick and say on this occasion he did.

How much of a smoking gun do you need against LAME DUCKS? Right now, the mid-term Republicans (and most likely 08's) are running from "association to Bush" as fast as rats can desert a ship. Which always happens; no one remembers Reagan's 11th Commandment. Until they need money

The GOP's platform will be hardcore right, religious and half-assed support for a war getting dumber by the day. The way they will win is people are making money. That trumps anything. The Democrats are put in a position (again) of Class Warfare and telling you that higher taxes is what we need. No one wants to hear that, regardless of alleged corruption or the God freaks

Regarding Nixon: I think he could have survived the cover-up. Other Presidents have before and since. What destroyed him was having tapes of the cover-up. That's sloppy. Without the tapes, it would have been extremely difficult to get the 2/3 vote in the Senate in '74 to convict him if he was impeached by the House. Republicans could have run on the philosophy that the Democrats were attempting a coup d'etat less than two years after Nixon carried 49 states. Had there been a Democratic tidal wave in the '74 elections, perhaps the numbers would have been possible in the Senate in '75 (wouldn't be worth doing it in '76 with Nixon a lame-duck and the potential of a backfire costing the Democrats the election), but that would have meant putting everything on the back-burner for at least 6 months and the publics attention span doesn't last that long.

The tapes had nothing to do with it. Nixon lost the Justice vote to give up the tapes, but he was already branded as a "crook" by his closet aides, most of the politicians in Washington who would vote on the matter and anyone dumb enough back then to give him four more years

Speaking of which - the fact that Nixon won in a landslide says a whole bunch about the general mindset of the American voters. You get what you deserve

I think it goes without saying that it's good that Nixon didn't have the last two years of "lame duck" status to get what he wanted done, done

FLEA



Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high

1ryderfakin.com - THE IWC 100! And The Wrestling Dead Pool!! - next cash prize is $200! PLAY TO WIN!!!
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 990 days
Last activity: 892 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.62
    Originally posted by RKMtwin
    Oh, and who's claiming that I find this story surprising? This is yet another example of what this current administration is all about, in my opinion.

    I don't understand what you're saying with the statement, "And if the Prez approved, is it a crime for rove or Libby or whomever." I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but are you insinuating that there's nothing criminal about authorizing a leak of information that eventually led to a covert CIA operative's identity being revealed? (edited by RKMtwin on 6.4.06 1206)


First, the surprising comment is sarcasm as in do you think these guys wipe there butts without approval.

Second, There IS nothing criminal in the leak if the Prez or Cheney (who by executive order has the right) okayed this because they have the authority to declassify documents and infor. Therefore it by defintion wouldn't be a leak. Do not misunderstand, I think it was pretty sleazy but not illegal. What it really damages is his image as a "straight shooter." I didn't vote for him twice but I don't believe this is the downfall of "W."



Perception is reality
RKMtwin
Boudin rouge








Since: 1.3.02
From: Denver, Colorado

Since last post: 4272 days
Last activity: 3715 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54
    Originally posted by DrDirt
      Originally posted by RKMtwin
      Oh, and who's claiming that I find this story surprising? This is yet another example of what this current administration is all about, in my opinion.

      I don't understand what you're saying with the statement, "And if the Prez approved, is it a crime for rove or Libby or whomever." I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but are you insinuating that there's nothing criminal about authorizing a leak of information that eventually led to a covert CIA operative's identity being revealed? (edited by RKMtwin on 6.4.06 1206)


    First, the surprising comment is sarcasm as in do you think these guys wipe there butts without approval.

    Second, There IS nothing criminal in the leak if the Prez or Cheney (who by executive order has the right) okayed this because they have the authority to declassify documents and infor. Therefore it by defintion wouldn't be a leak. Do not misunderstand, I think it was pretty sleazy but not illegal. What it really damages is his image as a "straight shooter." I didn't vote for him twice but I don't believe this is the downfall of "W."


Well, I apologize for my tone and not understanding you.

I suppose that this is yet another incident that frustrates me about this administration. But I'd feel the same way regardless of whether the administration was Republican or Democrat.

I'm still trying to fathom how the release of sensitive infromation could, in any way, have any type of discernable benefit. I can't see how Bush OK'ing such a release is anything but a political maneuver.

And in my opinion, when things like this happen, as a radio show host here in Denver says, "it is not lost on our enemies." Hurricane Katrina is another example of how, in the eyes of terrorists, our nation could be perceived as weak, unstable, unprepared, and so forth. But that's another subject for another time.

President Bush's image as a "straight shooter" also gets hurt when things like yesterday's speech and questions session occur, in my view. Bush tends to have a very flippant attitude whenever his decisions are called into question-- that is, if anyone even gets the chance the way the gentleman did yesterday to hold the President's feet to the fire. Somehow, I feel that this perhaps speaks to Mr. Bush's attitude when it comes to allowing sensitive information and other decisions he's made. He apologizes for nothing, never admits he could possibly be wrong about anything, and I'm sure if he's questioned about this situation, he's already got a justification ready.

I think people have to realize that Bush is a straight shooter ONLY to the very particular constituency(ies) he caters to (hard-right, Christian fundamentalist conservatives, for example). And, while I think he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, he is certainly no fool, and MUCH smarter than how many give him credit for or perceive him to be.




Left or Right, apathetic or not... VOTE.

Thread rated: 5.65
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: The Government Conspiracy of 9/11
Next thread: New Red, Blue Rings found on Uranus
Previous thread: Fish to Land Missing link found
(633 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
http://www.blueoregon.com/2004/10/richie_robb_the.html
The W - Current Events & Politics - Scooter Libby says Bush OK'd Valerie Plame leakRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2020 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.058 seconds.