Quote :

"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 Valerie Plame leak that Cheney told him to pass on the information and that it was Bush who authorized the leak, 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."

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/bush_administration

4/6/2006 12:27:54 PM

omg turrrists

4/6/2006 1:23:33 PM

This would be bigger news here if Bush's supporters hadn't abandoned him

4/6/2006 2:49:08 PM

Uhm.

Impeachment?

Or at the very least, permanent disgrace?

Quote :

" THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. And so I welcome the investigation. I -- I'm absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job. There's a special division of career Justice Department officials who are tasked with doing this kind of work; they have done this kind of work before in Washington this year. I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business."

[Edited on April 6, 2006 at 3:26 PM. Reason : *ahem*]

4/6/2006 3:24:21 PM

yeah

this is an interesting turn of events if it turns out to be true

4/6/2006 3:26:08 PM

either bush should be convicted of treason or libby should be convicted of perjury.

4/6/2006 3:31:25 PM

It's not like this will affect anything.

Bush could pee on the pope and write a song about it and it wouldn't affect anything.

4/6/2006 3:32:05 PM

Quote :

"either bush should be convicted of treason or libby should be convicted of perjury. "

4/6/2006 3:33:01 PM

Holy shit.

If it's not true, Libby's going to jail for a long time. Perjuring about the president for fuck's sake.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com//archive/0406061libby1.html

Quote :

"APRIL 6--A former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney told a federal grand jury that President George W. Bush authorized him to leak information from a classified intelligence report to a New York Times reporter. Details of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's testimony were included in a court filing made yesterday by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is prosecuting Libby for perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements in connection with the probe into the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity. According to Fitzgerald's filing, an excerpt of which you'll find below, Libby, 55, testified in 2003 that he provided reporter Judith Miller with information from a classified National Intelligence Estimate after being told by Cheney that Bush "specifically had authorized" him to "disclose certain information in the NIE." Libby also testified that Cheney specifically directed him to speak to other reporters about information in the classified NIE (which addressed Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction programs) as well as a cable authored by Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. The leaking of the classified material was apparently done in an effort to counter claims made by Wilson regarding the White House's justification for invading Iraq. The Fitzgerald filing also notes that Libby told grand jurors that he conferred with David Addington, Cheney's counsel, about the leak directive and that Addington told him "that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document." While both Bush and Cheney have been interviewed by Fitzgerald, it is unknown whether they confirmed or disputed Libby's assertion that he was authorized to disclose findings in classified reports. Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, resigned his White House post last October following his indictment on five felony counts. (7 pages)"

4/6/2006 3:34:45 PM

It seems that Libby said that Cheney said that Bush said it was okay.

It could maybe be that Cheney was lying about Bush's saying it was okay?

4/6/2006 3:41:54 PM

^revised statement then:
cheney should be convicted of perjury and treason.

4/6/2006 3:44:20 PM

Could be. Hard to say without Bush's or Cheney's testimony.

4/6/2006 3:44:22 PM

Quote :

"And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. "

And by taken care of, he means medal of freedom.

4/6/2006 3:47:47 PM

^^^ Can't convict him of perjury. "Executive privilege" was exercised and the motherfucker pussied out of testifying under oath.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040601806.html

Quote :

"Disclosure Legal but Unusual, Experts Say Legal experts say that President Bush had the unquestionable authority to approve the disclosure of secret CIA information to reporters, but they add that the leak was highly unusual and amounted to using sensitive intelligence data for political gain. "It is a question of whether the classified National Intelligence Estimate was used for domestic political purposes," said Jeffrey H. Smith, a Washington lawyer who formerly served as general counsel for the CIA. In court papers filed Wednesday, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald said I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, has testified that Cheney told him that Bush had authorized the leak of secret information from the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in the summer of 2003. Fitzgerald's court filing portrays the leak as part of an effort to discredit former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who contended in a newspaper column that intelligence about Iraq's nuclear weapons program was distorted in the run-up to the U.S. invasion. The court filing says that Libby, who is fighting perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges in connection with the leak investigation, was concerned about the legality of sharing classified information with reporters. But he was assured by David S. Addington, who then served as counsel to Cheney, that presidential authorization to disclose the information amounted to declassification. Experts said the power to classify and declassify documents in the federal government flows from the president and is often delegated down the chain of command. In March 2003, Bush signed an executive order delegating declassification authority to Cheney. Libby understood that only he, Bush and Cheney knew of the declassification when Libby held his first conversation with a reporter in July 2003, the court papers show. In one telling footnote in the filing, Fitzgerald notes that even after Bush authorized the dissemination of the intelligence data, White House national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley was "active in discussions about the need to declassify and disseminate" the information. "There is an institutional interest and ultimately a public interest in having these decisions documented," said Ronald D. Lee, a Washington lawyer and former general counsel to the super-secret National Security Agency. "You can't have a government where everything is sort of done in people's heads.""

Indeed. Weren't the Government in the Sunshine acts one of the greater accomplishments of Republicans back in the 70's?

Must've been a bunch of pansy-ass hippies that thought the government ought to operate with some transparency.

Anyway, I'm very disappointed that this isn't getting more press. Here we have it, in a senior administration official's own hand, that the President and Vice President selectively authorized the release of previously classified information purely for domestic manipulation. And nobody cares.

Legal, but dirty as fuck, IMHO.

IOW - I, also, hope that someday he has the humility to be ashamed of himself.

[Edited on April 7, 2006 at 12:06 AM. Reason : ...]

4/7/2006 12:02:22 AM

Quote :

" unquestionable authority"

i thought the ability to declassify information at will was questioned

4/7/2006 12:19:49 AM

No. The President can declassify information at will. We've also seen that he delegated that authority to Cheney, which is why no one's actually being prosecuted for the leak of Plame's name.

They have the right to declassify a CIA agent's name at will. Just like I have the right to go to a feminist convention and ask "Which one of you cunts is in charge?" It doesn't make it a good idea at all, for very obvious reasons in both cases.

4/7/2006 12:26:00 AM

i honestly dont understand why anyone would want to be a republican anymore

4/7/2006 2:05:16 AM

this isn't THAT interesting

i figured it was obvious from the beginning

4/7/2006 7:37:51 AM

^^So they aren't accidently confused with teh qu33rs.

He's just going to claim Executive Priviledge because he is Commander-and-Chief (or Commander-and-Leak according to CNN) and make sure the O'reily spin machine keeps his drones in line.

Hail Caesar (hardly, more like Hail Nero).

[Edited on April 7, 2006 at 7:42 AM. Reason : It's too early to spell correctly]

[Edited on April 7, 2006 at 7:42 AM. Reason : .]

4/7/2006 7:41:20 AM

im excited about this.

4/7/2006 7:59:02 AM

hahahahah

shortnslim

you might be an alias

but you got some good replies in ya

4/7/2006 9:11:22 AM

Quote :

"He's just going to claim Executive Priviledge because he is Commander-and-Chief (or Commander-and-Leak according to CNN) and make sure the O'reily spin machine keeps his drones in line."

see, that's the thing, everyone's already framing this debate as if we're talking about whether the president had the right to declassify this info. Really, he probably did under some executive order or random clause or what have you. that's not what i'm worried about. What I find ridiculous is the fact that he said he would fire anyone who had leaked this information, and now it turns out it may have been HIM? To not be hypocritical, if it was him, he would have to resign.

4/7/2006 10:34:56 AM

its really not even that cut and dry that he had the ability to declassify this stuff, it would be another new presidential power if its decided he was allowed

4/7/2006 10:46:51 AM

imp3ach imp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3achimp3ach

4/7/2006 11:10:09 AM

Let's not get RevoltNow too excited.

4/7/2006 11:58:49 AM

between delay and this.....

if too much more happens i cant be held responsible for anything that "occurs".

[Edited on April 7, 2006 at 4:09 PM. Reason : e]

4/7/2006 4:09:12 PM

impeach the chimp?

4/7/2006 8:19:49 PM

anything that occurs?

[Edited on April 7, 2006 at 9:16 PM. Reason : ]

4/7/2006 9:15:47 PM

Quote :

"hahahahah shortnslim you might be an alias but you got some good replies in ya"

i mean seriously though, ok there were no weapons of mass destruction, there are like 2 year leak probes that eventually lead back to the president or vice president, the dubai ports thing, the illegal mexican thing, havent a ton of jobs been exported, gas is sky high, the deficet is sky high

now i understand the whole war on terrorism excuse, but i mean seriously

idk, it just seems like bush and most of the other republicans just keep expecting the american people to buy into all their "truths" without listening to anyone elses alternatives

4/7/2006 10:11:02 PM

the president can declassify intelligence at will.

your either with us or against us.

4/8/2006 1:40:39 AM

impeach. yesterday.

[Edited on April 9, 2006 at 7:10 AM. Reason : ^and it can be treason.]

4/9/2006 6:50:38 AM

if they can impeach clinton for getting his dick sucked they ought to impeach bush for stinking up america so bad the last 6 years

4/9/2006 12:54:20 PM

We traded a pothead for a coke fiend. I liked the pothead better.

4/9/2006 1:01:50 PM

Quote :

"idk, it just seems like bush and most of the other republicans just keep expecting the american people to buy into all their "truths" without listening to anyone elses alternatives"

If the democrats had a collection of consistant fucking alternatives, they'd have half a chance.

4/9/2006 1:13:42 PM

i dont understand that either

its like you got republicans that act like they "have a plan" and try to play into that stereotype that democrats dont have a plan

this is how i look at it- republicans had 6 years to get a plan that doesnt suck, and any plan the democrats had, either the republican controlled congress stopped it, or republicans played into that whole "democrats dont have a plan" thing

4/9/2006 4:56:28 PM

Or...

They simply tabled the Democrats' proposals and created a Republican version of the same thing. IOW - stealing it, a la Department of Homeland Security (for good or ill).

4/9/2006 7:24:53 PM

Leaker And Chief has a nice ring to it...

4/10/2006 4:16:56 AM

I want to go to the whitehouse and ask bush if I can go to the restroom.

4/10/2006 4:25:52 AM

impeach. yesterday.

4/10/2006 6:53:36 AM

Quote :

"if they can impeach clinton for getting his dick sucked they ought to impeach bush for stinking up america so bad the last 6 years "

clinton was impeached for lying under oath to the american people. bush lied, but technically not under oath, so we'd have to prove he broke the law.

4/10/2006 7:25:08 AM

Quote :

"Q My question, sir, is -- well, as Anthony eluded to earlier, and as you're aware, we have many students at SAIS who are currently working for or considering working for the State Department, the various intelligence agencies, and such. And how do you respond to the recent report by Prosecutor Fitzgerald that there is, in his words, "evidence of a concerted effort by the White House to punish Joseph Wilson," who himself has a distinguished record of government service. PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. No. I -- this is -- there's an ongoing legal proceeding which precludes me from talking a lot about the case. There's also an ongoing investigation that's a serious investigation. I will say this, that after we liberated Iraq, there was questions in people's minds about, you know -- about the basis on which I made the statements, in other words going into Iraq. And so I decided to declassify the NIE for a reason. I wanted to see people -- people to see what some of those statements were based on. That's what I wanted to see. I wanted people to see the truth. And I thought it made sense for people to see the truth, and that's why I declassified the document. ...And I felt I could do so without jeopardizing, you know, ongoing intelligence matters, and so I did. And as far as the rest of the case goes, you're just going to have let Mr. Fitzgerald complete his case, and I hope you understand that. It's a serious legal matter that we've got to be careful in making public statements about it. (Chuckles.)"

Note: The NIE he's referring to, and the parts he declassified, do not resemble "the truth" one bit.

4/10/2006 2:33:21 PM

i repeat.
declassifying information you know to be false for the purpose of bringing the country into a war should be considered treason.

ill bring the blindfold and cig if someone else gets a gun.

4/10/2006 7:37:41 PM

"should be" ? well, a lotta things should be.

and if it was it would be, and if it were it would be, but as it isn't it ain't. that's logic.

4/11/2006 2:07:19 AM

impeach for treason, yesterday.

4/11/2006 7:19:14 AM

^^i said should be because im too lazy to look up the legal definition. if you feel like doing it go ahead.

4/11/2006 8:44:25 AM

The fallout:

http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=22324

Quote :

"Six in Ten Americans Critical of Bush on Leaks But Bush job approval holds steady at 37% PRINCETON, NJ -- The latest USA Today/Gallup poll finds more than 6 in 10 Americans critical of President George W. Bush on the leak controversy. The more closely people are following the issue, the more likely they are to say he did something illegal rather than unethical. The poll also shows that 37% of Americans continue to approve of Bush's job performance, unchanged from last month. While that is a low rating -- and among the lowest of the Bush administration -- it represents no change in four Gallup polls conducted since the end of February. The leak controversy erupted into the news last week, when a court filing revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, testified that he was authorized to leak classified information by President Bush through Cheney. The president has long been critical of administration officials who have leaked information, and there are still questions as to how this revelation might relate to the leaking of a former CIA operative's name. While most political and legal observers acknowledge that Bush's actions in authorizing the release of classified information were not illegal, there are political implications to the controversy. The poll, conduced April 7-9, 2006, shows that just 25% of Americans are following the matter "very" closely, while another 39% are following the issue "somewhat" closely. Another 36% are not following the issue closely. How closely have you been following the news about George W. Bush's possible involvement with the leaking of certain intelligence information to reporters -- very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all? Very Closely: 25% Somewhat Closely: 39% Not Too Closely: 22% Not at All: 14% No Opinion: * * Less than 0.5% (All results are from 2006 Apr 7-9) Overall, 63% of Americans believe Bush did something either illegal (21%) or unethical (42%), while 28% say he did nothing wrong. Which of the following statements best describes your view of George W. Bush in these matters -- he did something illegal, he did not do anything illegal, but did something unethical, or he did not do anything seriously wrong? All Respondents: Illegal: 21% Unethical: 42% Nothing Wrong: 28% No Opinion: 9% Follow Issue "Very Closely:" Illegal: 37% Unethical: 35% Nothing Wrong: 26% No Opinion: 2% Follow Issue "Somewhat Closely:" Illegal: 20% Unethical: 48% Nothing Wrong: 28% No Opinion: 4% Not Follow Issue Closely: Illegal: 10% Unethical: 41% Nothing Wrong: 28% No Opinion: 21% The more closely people are following the issue, the more likely they are to say Bush did something illegal rather than unethical, though expert opinion suggests that Bush has the authority to declassify information and thus his actions could not have been illegal. The less attentive respondents are more likely to think Bush did something unethical rather than illegal. The percentage of Americans who say Bush did nothing wrong is not affected by how closely they are following the issue. The least attentive group is much more likely to express no opinion (21%) than either of the two more attentive groups (2% to 4%). Views are highly correlated with party affiliation. Sixty-one percent of Republicans say Bush did nothing wrong, while only 18% of independents and 8% of Democrats agree. On the other hand, 30% of Republicans say Bush did something unethical or illegal, compared with 70% of independents and 85% of Democrats. Bush Approval Steady over Past Two Months Despite this newest controversy, Bush's job approval rating at 37% remains essentially where it has been since the middle of February, when Gallup measured a 39% approval. Over the past two months, the president's approval has fluctuated between a low of 36% and a high of 39%. During the previous two months, Bush's approval averaged between 42% and 43%. The current results suggest that the controversy over Bush's role in the leak controversy has not affected his approval rating, except perhaps to help keep it at a depressed level. Whether the issue will hurt the president's popularity in the long run will almost certainly depend on how much more attention the issue is given in the future. Interviewing for this poll began only one day after the first news story on the issue. Typically, for stories to have much of an effect on public opinion, more time is required. It is likely there will be at least some additional news stories on the matter. On Sunday, Republican Senator Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called for Bush and Cheney to speak publicly about their involvement in the CIA leak case. Survey Methods Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,004 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Apr. 7-9, 2006. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls."

I'd wouldn't brag about holding steady at 37% when you've spent the last few weeks on the "Regular Joe American Tour" trying to connect with people.

4/11/2006 11:59:42 AM

60% of republicans see nothing wrong with the president leaking this information?

i blame the media for not covering this.

4/11/2006 2:59:38 PM

You're missing the point a little. Usually at least 70% of Republicans would consider the President raping newborn puppies "no big deal" when polled about it. 61% is comparitively low.

4/11/2006 3:09:07 PM

NO
everyone must agree with me. damn you.

4/11/2006 3:10:19 PM

^^ Yeah. It seems the approval ratings holding steady are the die-hard Republicans who would never change their opinion, no matter what.

4/11/2006 3:37:01 PM