Libby court papers: Cheney said Bush OK'd intelligence leak

Caitriona

Something Wicked
CNN

The full Story is also in Ouch! but here is the lead in..

Libby court papers: Cheney said Bush OK'd intelligence leak

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors that his boss said 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.
 
letsee, democrats take back the majority this November, impeachment proceedings begin...
 
...under the banner of the jackass instead of the banner of the bloated pachyderm. 'Cause basically, there ain't much difference between 'em, anymore.
 
And yet, no one seems tor be serious about a Reform Party. I suppose other ideologies might make it unworkable, but you'd think that between dissatisfied Dem's and Rep's we could put together some reform. Worry about the rest of the political land mines after we 'clean up ALL the corruption'. Unfortunately, it seems to be the same old Dem's vs Rep's instead of the public voting the lot of them out of office.

There's not only a power void in Iraq there is one forming here in the US. I'd hate to think that more corrupt Rep's march in AND I hate the prospect of more [just different] corrupt Dem's waltzing into office.

It's time to vote for some we actually believe in, and not just the lesser of two [equally corrupt] evils.
 
^^Unfortunately, although I hate to come across as pushing a conspiracy theory (because of my views on other subjects not least of all), I think the level of corruption that already exists in our political process would make that impossible. Things are already so bad that anything the voters do is either going to be dictated by or cancelled out by the levels of money being injected into "preferred" candidates.
 
The Question said:
^^Unfortunately, although I hate to come across as pushing a conspiracy theory (because of my views on other subjects not least of all), I think the level of corruption that already exists in our political process would make that impossible. Things are already so bad that anything the voters do is either going to be dictated by or cancelled out by the levels of money being injected into "preferred" candidates.

Actually I agree with this. There is just too much power to be 'held' on to in Washington and the world. We're [the voters] just the ones being bent over for taxes.

Here's another bit on this story.. I'm trying to find that actual court documents.

National Journal

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby testified to a federal grand jury that he had received "approval from the President through the Vice President" to divulge portions of a National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons, according to the court papers. Libby was said to have testified that such presidential authorization to disclose classified information was "unique in his recollection," the court papers further said.
Libby also testified that an administration lawyer told him that Bush, by authorizing the disclosure of classified information, had in effect declassified the information. Legal experts disagree on whether the president has the authority to declassify information on his own.

The White House had no immediate reaction to the court filing.
 
Actually, if Bush authorized the leak, it's (1) nothing new, since leaks have been going on since the Madison Administration and (2) not illegal, because as Commander-in-Chief, he can authorize the release of classified information.

He's the President, remember? It's within the scope of his power to do this if he deems it necessary.
 
Yes, that's apparently true. What I must be missing then, is why wasn't this just all explained before we wasted millions of dollars investigating what was 'business as usual'? Hummm???

I mean if no crime was committed and the President had the right to de-classify anything he deemed necessary, then why not just say so 3 years ago and be done with it.

What we have here "looks" like a cover up that never needed to occur. The law was on his side. Either he broke the law, or he just thought he could keep quiet wasting even more $$$$ only to pull the "Well I de-classified it" loop hole out of his magic hat.

Come on... Bush's Executive Powers have been tested in some fundamentally suspicious arenas. Wouldn't you agree? He reminds me of a Mob Boss in Court having a case dismissed on a technicality. Sure it is a legitimate technicality, but do we really want a President who searches around for a technicality so he can have a case for breaking the law dismissed?
 
Well, from what I've been able to see, none of what Libby is talking about involves the outing of Plame, just the releasing of intelligence that would rebut what Wilson said in his NYTimes piece the week before the leak.

The media isn't really pointing that out, but allowing the public to infer that we are talking about the Plame incident, when nothing I've read thus far has actually mentioned that Libby specifically said Bush authorized leaking her name.

And even so, I'm not sure that outing her was wrong. Wilson's getting the job to investigate Nigeria seems to have been handled in less than an above-the-board manner, and outing Plame as his wife strikes me more as whistle-blowing than it does anything else. And Wilson wasn't exactly an impartial investigator into these claims, whether they actually were spurious or not. He doesn't strike me as the man for the job, because his bias made his conclusions suspect.
 
Actually that's not true.. It's up front in the article [the 3rd paragraph], not hidden at the bottom or buried in the middle.

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

What it does say is that Bush and Cheny put Libby into play to leak classified info.

The fact that legally, if Bush OK'ed it, the info automatically becomes de-classified is convenient for the President, but it doesn't make me feel much better.

The leaks were part of the 'march to war' drum pounding. A march that has since been show to have been riddled with mis-information.
 
Caitriona said:
Actually that's not true.. It's up front in the article [the 3rd paragraph], not hidden at the bottom or buried in the middle.



What it does say is that Bush and Cheny put Libby into play to leak classified info.

The fact that legally, if Bush OK'ed it, the info automatically becomes de-classified is convenient for the President, but it doesn't make me feel much better.

The leaks were part of the 'march to war' drum pounding. A march that has since been show to have been riddled with mis-information.

I was referring more to the coverage I saw on CNN this afternoon, while at the gym, and the news briefs on the local ABC affiliate. These seemed to conflate the Plame incident in with Libby's testimony, without calling attention to the fact that the Plame incident was not the subject of his testimony.

As for Bush leaking the info, I'm not sure what to think of it. I know that it's always happened, and sometimes it's for political reasons, but other times it's also because the president at the time felt that it was better for national security to leak the info than to sit on it.

In this case, I can see how Bush might make a case that by leaking the info, he was better able to make a case to the public for the War in Iraq and the actions of the United States in the Middle East, and that he felt that convincing the nation that it was correct to take action was vital to our security.

I'm not defending Bush, because I don't know enough about the particulars of this case to know why things were done. I do know that my reaction upon hearing that Plame was CIA and that she got Wilson the gig was that there was definitely something fishy there that needed to be investigated.

I mean, that's why the media decided to disclose the information, isn't it? Because they saw the potential for a scandal?
 
Bush proudly proclaimed that if there was a leak in his administration he would find it and deal with it. All the time knowing that HE was the leak.

It's no better than "I did not have sex with that woman".

Why aren't all the Repuboheads screaming LIAR LIAR now?

Sickening.
 
Hambil said:
Bush proudly proclaimed that if there was a leak in his administration he would find it and deal with it. All the time knowing that HE was the leak.

It's no better than "I did not have sex with that woman".

Why aren't all the Repuboheads screaming LIAR LIAR now?

Sickening.

No, he was clever. He worded his earlier statement in such a way as to say that he would deal with an illegal leak. Since the leak was legal, as he had the authority to declassify the material, he covered his ass.

Very Clintonian of him.
 
Number_6 said:
No, he was clever. He worded his earlier statement in such a way as to say that he would deal with an illegal leak. Since the leak was legal, as he had the authority to declassify the material, he covered his ass.

Very Clintonian of him.

Politics is all about perception. Perceptually, it looks like he is a hypocrite and subject to political expediencies just like all the other politicians we love to hate. In other words, he is just as bad as all the rest. Except, this particular hypocrite has us bankrupt as a nation and waist deep in a war we can't possibly win..

Like it or not, Clinton left us with a balanced budget and there weren't as many body bags being shipped home to their parents. Yeah, yeah, I know after 9/11 it all changed, well "Bite Me". It didn't change that much.

The fact that he technically didn't break any laws doesn't bail him out of hot water with me, it only means no one can use this crap as a charge in the Articles of Impeachment.

I'm just sayin....
 
As I said, all those Bush defenders in the past are now pulling a Peter (Jesus' disciple, who denied him 3 times before the cock crowed) and denying even aligning with his policies.

Heh. I'm reveling in the political carnage.

And eagerly anticipating a Democratic POTUS in 2008. :D
 
Friday said:
A democratic president automatically equates to a favorable atmosphere for terrorism? How so?

Ask them. Certainly proved true under Carter and Clinton's watches.
 
Back
Top