Libby accuses Bush of leaking

[mmarsh]

MarinerRhodes

Thats a good point. I have a heard other sources via radio that said similar things. There is also the question of the unnamed star in the CIA Wall of Honor (Agents killed in line of Duty) that dates from just after the Plame affair. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

Since I cannot prove contrary (for the moment, though I will look) I will retract my earlier statement and say there *might* have been agents killed as a result of this. Again this is the sort of thing that probably remains undisclosed as part of the Libby Indictment. I guess we will find out the truth in due time...

But in all in all its a good catch, thank you for the correction.

In other News...

Bush had just admitted HE was responsible for the leak.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/whitehouse.leak/index.html

I was going to ask Phoenix to explain this but it look like he got banned while I was in the subway. Oh well.

PJ24

I assume you didnt see the news yet, but Bush just confessed. So we now know Bush was involved. Thats going to make his promise "to fire anyone involved" rather interesting...

As for me being bias. Your're right I am, but that doesnt mean I'm wrong. I have had listened to the lies, excuses, nastieness, and complete incompetance from this president for so long it has rendered me incapable of being fair and objective to this president. But thats the presidents fault, not mine. Sooner or later comes a time when you can no longer take a person at his word when he consistantly lies to you. In all honesty, Satan would do a better job as president because at least Satan is competant at what he does.

 

[PJ24]

Bush had just admitted HE was responsible for the leak.

No he didn't. Read the article again.

The court documents do not suggest Bush approved the leaking of the agent's identity.

Nor did Bush admit that he did.

Damn that selective reading! :mrgreen: It's weird what blind bias can do.

 

[mmarsh]

No he didn't. Read the article again.

Nor did Bush admit that he did.

Damn that selective reading! :mrgreen: It's weird what blind bias can do.

No its called reading deeper into something rather that taking things at face value. Don't worry, its an ability not commonly found amongst narrow-minded people.

But essentially you are trying to coinvice me that Bush declassified data with no intention of releasing it? Thats one hell of a coincidence! Please, Thats like saying that if a Bank Manager left the safe open and the front door unlocked, he would not necessary know before hand that the bank would get robbed that night. Even Scooter Libby Says Bush told him to leak the data.

see?

http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...7,1,3769252.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

 

[PJ24]

Are you telling me that Bush declassified data with no intention of releasing it? Please!!! Even Scooter Libby says the order to release came directly from Bush. Bush (and mostly likely Cheney) is up to his neck in this.

Show me the proof, that's all I'm saying and have said what? Four times now?

 

[Marinerhodes]

Stop, read, re-read, comprehend what you are reading. Re-read it again without a bias. You will see that at the most it implies is that the POTUS

Court papers released last week said that a former aide to Dick Cheney, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, testified before a grand jury that the vice president told him in 2003 Bush had authorized the release of portions in the National Intelligence Estimate.

Hmm. . I agree with PJ24. Selective reading and comprehension. I guess it depends on what kind of spin you wish to put on it.

I will be home around 1930 EST give or take. Got a racquet ball game or two to play. Give 'er heck boys!!!

 

[mmarsh]

MarinerRhodes

Everybody is bias my friend, the difference is unlike some, I can admit it. Anyone who says they are unbias in politics is full of s***.

Exactly, and one of those portions just happened to include the name of a NOC. Otherwise, how else did Novak get Plame name unless somebody told him? Again, I find it very dubious to claim that Bush released the NIE without telling Libby to release Plame's name. Its a little too much of a coincidence for my taste. Thats why Sen Spector is demanding that Bush explain himself, because right now it looks like the POTUS declassified data used solely to discredit a political rival. Bush says it was to explain Iraq situation to the American people, but I think thats baloney. And as Rabs said, if true he should be hung (politically, of course).

PJ24

As for evidence, how about a witness? The fact that Libby is squealing on Bush is pretty damning evidence. This guy was a member of the inner circle, and he is tesitfying against Bush. Thats pretty damning to me. I guess the Administration thought he would be their Ollie North. If you want physical evidence, how about the recently 'discovered' emails (thought deleted) that tie a connection from Cheney to Libby provided by Karl Rove, who is also cooperating with Fitzgerald.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Roves_cooperation_seen_to_advance_inquiry_0327.html

and

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Rove_Hadley_email_at_crux_of_1216.html


This is really interesting, you have Rove covering Bush (his Boss) by blaming Cheney, and you have Scooter Libby attacking Bush while deflecting criticism against Cheney (Libbys boss). My Conclusion, they are all in it together. Proof again that this administration is terrible, they cannot even get there own stories streight, its pathetic.

 

[PJ24]

As for evidence, how about a witness? The fact that Libby is squealing on Bush is pretty damning evidence. This guy was a member of the inner circle, and he is tesitfying against Bush. Thats pretty damning to me. I guess the Administration thought he would be their Ollie North.

Libby making allegations is not surprising given his predicament. Still though, he's offered no proof to back his claims. His word against the POTUS.

I could make claims that you killed my dog, doesn't mean you did.

If you want physical evidence, how about the recently 'discovered' emails (thought deleted) that tie a connection from Cheney to Libby provided by Karl Rove, who is also cooperating with Fitzgerald.

And this has what to do with the POTUS?

This is really interesting, you have Rove covering Bush (his Boss) by blaming Cheney, and you have Scooter Libby attacking Bush while deflecting criticism against Cheney (Libbys boss). My Conclusion, they are all in it together. Proof again that this administration is terrible, they cannot even get there own stories streight, its pathetic.

So, this is your conclusion based on your bias opinion of the current admin, you dislike it, therefore, anything is good enough. However, you still have no proof. It is impossible to logically argue this as a settled matter without proof. Sharing your opinion on how you believe things played out is one thing, but trying to spin it is fact just ain't gonna work.

 

[mmarsh]

Libby making allegations is not surprising given his predicament. Still though, he's offered no proof to back his claims. His word against the POTUS.

Than I guess its a matter of who you trust. My opinion is that the POTUS has an enormous credibilty problem on a whole range of issues, making his word on this issue rather worthless. I'm sure Scooter is a pretty slimey guy too, but right now I take his word over Bush's, until its proven hes a liar.

Here's a question to you, if Scooter did act alone (or without orders) what could he possible hope to gain from it? Wilson didnt name him, and I don't think Scoot would have taken such a risk without some sort of benefit to himself.

I could make claims that you killed my dog, doesn't mean you did.
Doesnt mean I didn't either (BWHAAHAHAHA :firedevi.

As for the emails, for what we know they seem to point at Cheney rather than Bush. Again, it all depends on what you believe. Do you think its possible the VP acted without consent of the POTUS? IMHO, Possible, but not very likely. Again the timing is too much of a coincidence, Bush declassifies the data and a short time later Plame's name is in the newspaper. IMHO, Bush had to have known, I dont believe in coincidences like that, espically not in Washington DC.

I'm not spinning that facts, like any police detective I am interpreting them and drawing a conclusion. Perhaps this conclusion is wrong, but thats not spinning. If you got any evidence that might exornate either the POTUS or VP by all means show it, but right now the evidence seems to be against the WH, the question is whether there enough of it to get another indictment.

Continue tommorow, bedtime.

 

[PJ24]

Doesnt mean I didn't either

Careful, I travel heavy with much fire support. :mrgreen:

I'm not spinning that facts, like any police detective I am interpreting them and drawing a conclusion. Perhaps this conclusion is wrong, but thats not spinning. If you got any evidence that might exornate either the POTUS or VP by all means show it, but right now the evidence seems to be against the WH, the question is whether there enough of it to get another indictment.

You kinda are. You're trying to make your opinion out to be a factual conclusion. The burden of proof is not on me, nor is it on the POTUS. It's on those accusing him.

Your opinion is that the POTUS authorized it. That's fine, but at this time, there's no proof to say he did, so, we'll just have to wait and see for the real outcome.

 

[Marinerhodes]

Libby making allegations is not surprising given his predicament. Still though, he's offered no proof to back his claims. His word against the POTUS.

Than I guess its a matter of who you trust. My opinion is that the POTUS has an enormous credibilty problem on a whole range of issues, making his word on this issue rather worthless. I'm sure Scooter is a pretty slimey guy too, but right now I take his word over Bush's, until its proven hes a liar.

So we now convict and presume guilt based upon allegations? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Whatever happened to due process? Before you start spouting off saying this happened and that happened, based upon other people's guesswork and suppositions, how about waiting to find out exactly what happened when the investigation comes to a close.

I will again point out some of the dubious sources of your claims. One of which (Unconfirmed Source) clearly states (in the subject line when you google it and within the site itself) that it is:

[SIZE=-1]Unconfirmed Sources Online Edition: Political Satire and Humorous News parodies[/SIZE]

As for your other source rawstory.com:

[SIZE=-1]

The Raw Story is a liberal alternative to the Drudge report, culling news, arts and business reporting from around the world.

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
My question is what sorts of news are they culling? Just the stuff that agree with their views? How can you take any news source serious if they only put up what they want you to see or what they agree with?

Show me something from a reputable (if there are any left) news source such as NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN or any other major news network. I may give the "facts" a bit more credibility.

In your LAtimes link did you see this?

The court filing makes no allegation that Bush — who has vowed to fire anyone in his administration who was involved in revealing the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame — encouraged or authorized the disclosure of her identity.

Or this?

According to the new court filing, Libby testified to a grand jury that Cheney told him Bush had approved the release of information from the CIA's classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Twice removed? He did it on hearsay without seeking permission or the go ahead from any other source? This is like Marinerhodes getting on the stand and saying mmarsh told him that PJ24 said to kill his dog. See what I am getting at?

On to the other point in that quote, it does not say, nor does it say in any other article I have read, that the POTUS or anyone else told him to leak any information regarding CIA operatives in any shape way or form. I guess he took that upon himself. Which is what his butt is in a sling for now. he is playing who flung the poo to see how far it will go before it hits something it will stick to.


I could sit here and poke more holes in your "reading into things" theory but I am tired and I want my snuggly and my warm bed.

I will say this though:
*whispers*
Sometimes. . . if you look too deep. . . you won't be able to see the forest 'cause all the trees are standing in your way.



Until then I will just think a warm front is moving in from all the hotair blowing around and get out my sunblock and head to the beach.

Note: The above comment is not directed at any members, it is directed at the news media and other outlets that don't know crap from shinola.
Unless they feel it applies, if that is the case you are reading too deep into things.

 

[bulldogg]

You're trying to make your opinion out to be a factual conclusion. The burden of proof is not on me, nor is it on the POTUS. It's on those accusing him.

AHA! Perhaps this is a cultural issue PJ and Marsh. The French and American legal system approach the problem of guilt or innocence from diametrically opposed angles. In the US you are innocent until PROVEN guilty whereas in the French court of law you are guilty until proven innocent.

Blessed are the peacemakers and all that.:drunkb:

 

[Ted]

Maybe you should say, in the US you are guilty if the journalists want you to be guilty. O.J. was acquitted of all charges and can't live a normal life since that trail. So once again, and especially in politics, it's about public opinion. Bush might be as innocent as the virgin Mary, but many people believe different.
If all else fails, you just start trail after trail and you get the guy that way. No, kind gentlemen, objectivity might be observed by a judge but he'll be the only one!

 

[mmarsh]

Bulldogg

Thats a good observation, except I am actually American as well (I work abroad), personally I prefer innocent til proven guilty...

Folks

You people are making it out to sound I'm the one judging the administration on this, I dont work for the Feds, nor for the prosecutor,l I am is stating my opinion and providing evidence to back myself up. If you choose not to agree with me, thats fine. But I am not misrepresenting anything.

MarinerRhodes

You may question my sources, and perhaps they are bias, but that doesnt make them wrong. Its for you to decide for yourself what you want to believe. And secondly do you honestly believe the mainstream news is any less bias? They all have an agenda whether its liberal such as the Washington Post and New York Times or conservative such as FOX or the Washington Times. I mean its gotton so bad you have news organizations that have become shills for the White House like FOX and those who will criticize anything Bush says like CNN. (And I did provide the LATimes, which is mainstream, so your doubts of my sources doesnt really convince me).

You still not getting what I saying. Allow me to clarify: I am not saying that Bush admitted that he was the leak, he didnt. What I am saying is that fact that Bush declassified the documents (to which Plame name was part of it) and given the extrodinary timing of both this declassification and the timing to which this information was leaked to the press makes one hell of an amazing coincidence. Given this, I find it unplausible to say that Bush didnt know anything about it. As I said, Imagine a Bank Owner telling the police that yes he left the front door open and the safe unlocked but he had absolutely no clue that someone would rob the bank that night. Its a ridiculous explaination.

Thats exactly what Bush wants us to believe, and given the testimony of Libby and the emails given by Rove seem to support either involovement by either Bush, Cheney, or both. My opinion is that they are guilty, right now I have heard nothing that could rationally explain the presidents action. So yes, my insticts based on the facts so far presented tell me that the president (or someone very close to him, like the VP) is guilty.

Right now, i have heard nothing that prooves Bush's innocence. In fact, in my earlier observation it looks rather like the Bush and Cheney Camps are trying to pin the blame on each other rather than proclaim their innocence.

 

[PJ24]

AHA! Perhaps this is a cultural issue PJ and Marsh. The French and American legal system approach the problem of guilt or innocence from diametrically opposed angles. In the US you are innocent until PROVEN guilty whereas in the French court of law you are guilty until proven innocent.

That would work, except he's originally from the US. :mrgreen:

I think it's just a case of bias, human nature and all. If you dislike something or someone(s), you're more willing to believe something negative about it/them based on little or no proof based on the fact that you dislike them to begin with.

 

[Ted]

Yeah... you just scored a touchdown PJ...... I agree with you 100%, and that happens not very often

 

[mmarsh]

That would work, except he's originally from the US. :mrgreen:

I think it's just a case of bias, human nature and all. If you dislike something or someone(s), you're more willing to believe something negative about it/them based on little or no proof based on the fact that you dislike them to begin with.

Perhaps, but the opposite is true too. If you like someone you are less willing to be open to any sort of criticism of the person no matter how damning the evidence.

 

[PJ24]

Perhaps, but the opposite is true too. If you like someone you are less willing to be open to any sort of criticism of the person no matter how damning the evidence.

Of course that's true, that goes hand in hand. But no one here (in this topic) has been unwilling to criticize in the face of damning evidence since there isn't any evidence to begin with.

Yeah... you just scored a touchdown PJ...... I agree with you 100%, and that happens not very often

Well, we can't be perfect all of the time. :mrgreen:

 

[Marinerhodes]

From the CNN article you posted:

Court papers released last week said that a former aide to Dick Cheney, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, testified before a grand jury that the vice president told him in 2003 Bush had authorized the release of portions in the National Intelligence Estimate.

From the LATimes article you posted:

According to the filing, Libby — before his indictment in October — told a federal grand jury investigating the Plame leak that Cheney had told him to pass on key portions of the National Intelligence Estimate to the media that refuted Wilson's findings.

First it is release of portions, and now in other articles I have read that you have posted it is the document(s). By using a certain turn of phrase that can mean the entire document or only part of the document. Which is it? Part or all? (Edit: reading back through the articles I see they flip flop between the two phrases).

From the LAtimes again:

Even as he was leaking the intelligence information to reporters, Libby was working behind the scenes to have White House officials issue a public statement exonerating him in the summer and fall of 2003, according to the court papers.

According to Fitzgerald, Libby prepared a handwritten statement for White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to tell reporters that Libby "did not leak classified information." He also urged McClellan to say that Libby was not the source for the Novak story that disclosed the identity of Plame and launched the investigation.

Seems to me that Libby was trying to cover is 4th point because he knew he had screwed up somewhere somehow. Whether the POTUS broke the law concerning classified information or not is a point aside from the issue that Libby was at fault for leaking information he was not "authorized" to leak. By the way, if the POTUS (who is CIC for all armed forces and intelligent communities) says it is ok to divulge particular information how is it then considered a leak?


From the ABC website on the story:

"By definition, the president cannot leak," the official said. "He has the inherent authority to declassify something. …It's like accusing a shopkeeper of shoplifting from himself."
In sworn grand jury testimony released today, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby said he received "approval from the president through the vice president" to leak parts of the highly classified NIE to New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

Libby testified Cheney's lawyer, David Addington, told him "presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document."


Other experts agree, at least in part.


"The president has the legal authority because classification is done by his executive order," said Walter Dellinger, the former solicitor general under President Clinton. He said such a move could still have significant political consequence, however.

"But the fact that the president has the raw Constitutional authority to do this does not mean that it's free from criticism or censure because it is an abuse of the classification process," Dellinger said.

So my question is this: Did he actually leak? Or did he cut through a bunch of redtape and declassify a document so that it could get out to the media and other opponents to justify or damn the war in Iraq?

I say he did not leak anything. He may have declassified portions of a document in an irregular way. But illegal? No. Like I have said before, Libby is grasping at straws in the hopes one will hold his weight. He is on the stand for perjury and divulging information that may or may not have gotten CIA operatives killed.

CBS news article on it as well.

 

[Lord Londonderry]

Gosh! Poor George W is having a hard time of it lately.

 

[bulldogg]

I tried.