Where were these **** when Clintoon lied to the American public?

Dems are just Bunch of hypocrites on every issue

Originally Posted by phoenix80

Where were these **** when Clintoon lied to the American public?

Dems are just Bunch of hypocrites on every issue

Who is it that keeps telling Chief to take anger management classes or makes comments concerning them?

On to the topic. . .

I agree that there are protocols concerning the declassification of information. We will have to wait and see what reports come out and what the findings of the investigations are. Hopefully it will be fairly clear cut and things will go apace one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

Who is it that keeps telling Chief to take anger management classes or makes comments concerning them?

On to the topic. . .

Those who are ALWAYS angry and sound pathetic should go to anger management classes, not me cuz I am not angry at all!



But the DemocRATs make me mad!

Okay, lets be serious: what Bush did was to de-classify info and then gave it to Scooter Libby.

There is nothing wrong with it though!

Leak is what MSM is using to discredit president Bush.

they are trying to get the public to believe that Bush gave permission for someone to reveal the Valerie Plame;s name. This whole "leak" thing has nothing to do with that. It's really not a big deal. but the msm is trying to make something of it that it isn't.

Joe Wilson came back from his trip to Africa with a report about Yellowcake. That was classified info, right? Then he signed up with Kerry campaign and released info exactly opposite of what his report was. he is a liar and senate proved his lies.
He was thrown off the Kerry campaign because of this and the MSM never brings this up because it discredits the leftists.
SO, the White House decided to set the record straight, and say what the original report REALLY said. That's this supoosed leak

It isn't a leak if the President reveals information that is not classified any more.

A Good Leak

President Bush declassified some of the intelligence he used to decide on war in Iraq. Is that a scandal?

Sunday, April 9, 2006; B06

PRESIDENT BUSH was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do. But the administration handled the release clumsily, exposing Mr. Bush to the hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy that Democrats are leveling.

Rather than follow the usual declassification procedures and then invite reporters to a briefing -- as the White House eventually did -- Vice President Cheney initially chose to be secretive, ordering his chief of staff at the time, I. Lewis Libby, to leak the information to a favorite New York Times reporter. The full public disclosure followed 10 days later. There was nothing illegal or even particularly unusual about that; nor is this presidentially authorized leak necessarily comparable to other, unauthorized disclosures that the president believes, rightly or wrongly, compromise national security. Nevertheless, Mr. Cheney's tactics make Mr. Bush look foolish for having subsequently denounced a different leak in the same controversy and vowing to "get to the bottom" of it.

The affair concerns, once again, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his absurdly over-examined visit to the African country of Niger in 2002. Each time the case surfaces, opponents of the war in Iraq use it to raise a different set of charges, so it's worth recalling the previous iterations. Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraq threat." The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.

Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing.

As Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out at the time of Mr. Libby's indictment last fall, none of this is particularly relevant to the question of whether the grounds for war in Iraq were sound or bogus. It's unfortunate that those who seek to prove the latter would now claim that Mr. Bush did something wrong by releasing for public review some of the intelligence he used in making his most momentous decision.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895_pf.html

So if I am right the opinions are that A) it remains to be seen if it is true at all. That man saying this has is ass in a sling-shot and will hang unless he can prove he was following orders. Right?
B) If Bush declassifies information, it isn't "legally wrong" to leak it. You could object to it morally, but that is enough to get impeached.

Interesting....

Originally Posted by Ted

So if I am right the opinions are that A) it remains to be seen if it is true at all. That man saying this has is ass in a sling-shot and will hang unless he can prove he was following orders. Right?
B) If Bush declassifies information, it isn't "legally wrong" to leak it. You could object to it morally, but that is enough to get impeached.

Interesting....

It is not even morally wrong, it is morally right!

And he handed out previously declassified info to make the case clear for the people and I don't see any thing wrong with it though.

And hey, dont get excited about Bush impeachment. LoL

How naive... the both house and senate are run by GOP people and that dream will never go through.

Originally Posted by phoenix80

Where were these **** when Clintoon lied to the American public?

Dems are just Bunch of hypocrites on every issue

I was calling for him to be censured by the House and Senate ... I didn't believe that his crime rose to the level of impeachment ... his lie was about sex for a legal proceeding that was dismissed because of lack of evidence and the impeachment proceedings were politically motivated.

At that time, I was pulling for the Democrats so don't use **** (profanity) when you refer to me.

The biggest hypocrite I've seen posting on this forum recently, consistently calls people names instead of discussing an issue.

What is the matter, can't you get past the Clinton years? (At least I can spell the name correctly).

If he authorized the leaking of an under-cover intelligence operative, hang him.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

I was calling for him to be censured by the House and Senate ... I didn't believe that his crime rose to the level of impeachment ... his lie was about sex for a legal proceeding that was dismissed because of lack of evidence and the impeachment proceedings were politically motivated.

At that time, I was pulling for the Democrats so don't use **** (profanity) when you refer to me.

The biggest hypocrite I've seen posting on this forum recently, consistently calls people names instead of discussing an issue.

What is the matter, can't you get past the Clinton years? (At least I can spell the name correctly).

No, I can't get past the Clintoon and other ********s POTUS becuz most of the mess the world got into is due to the incompetent presidents like Carter or Clintoon.

That is a fact and it is up to you to digest this fact not me.

((I did misspell his name intentionally))

Originally Posted by phoenix80

No, I can't get past the Clintoon and other ********s POTUS becuz most of the mess the world got into is due to the incompetent presidents like Carter or Clintoon.

That is a fact and it is up to you to digest this fact not me.

((I did misspell his name intentionally))

I am sorry you have chosen to intentionally ignore the one single person who is MOST responsible for the mess we are in today ... your buddy King George is behind almost every trouble spot we face to day ... the one exception was the 9/11 attack ... and ... even then, he had forewarning that there was a heightened danger that the United States itself was going to be a target for terrorism. As I said, you (like so many Republicans, can't seem to get past the fact that you failed to remove Clinton from office with your politically motivated impeachment proceedings).

SOOOOO - who is living in a pretend world ... you can choose to stick your head in the sand but the rest of us know what the real truth is.