Bush Authorized The CIA Leak, Libby Says

[sinewave]

I'm sure this will elicit the standard "lie/deny" response from Bush, Cheney and McClellan.

Here's the article:

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.

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.

The authorization came as the Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the president and his aides had given for justifying the invasion of Iraq.

Libby's participation in a critical conversation with Miller on July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate," the papers by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stated. The filing did not specify the "certain information."

"Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller -- getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval -- were unique in his recollection," the papers added.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/libby.ap/index.html

 

[jaguarr]

Wow. This has the potential to be the thing that gets Bush impeached.

jag

 

[sinewave]

Wow. This has the potential to be the thing that gets Bush impeached.

jag

don't get your hopes up. i'd love to see that happen but i'm not counting on it. they'll probably find a way to weasel out of it like they do with every other eff-up.

 

[jaguarr]

don't get your hopes up. i'd love to see that happen but i'm not counting on it. they'll probably find a way to weasel out of it like they do with every other eff-up.

I know. And they called Clinton the "Teflon President".

jag

 

[Calvin]

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.

That's probably where they'll get some weaseling out room.

 

[sinewave]

I know. And they called Clinton the "Teflon President".

jag

yup. it's hard to grab a hold of something as slimey as bush and cheney are.

 

[demento]

I'm sure this will elicit the standard "lie/deny" response from Bush, Cheney and McClellan.

Nah, they'll use the trusty old "we can't comment on an ongoing investigation" stall tactic.

 

[jaguarr]

Nah, they'll use the trusty old "we can't comment on an ongoing investigation" stall tactic.

Scott McLelland will blow it at the press conference, though. He always does. He's such a bad liar.

jag

 

[sinewave]

Scott McLelland will blow it at the press conference, though. He always does. He's such a bad liar.

jag

yeah, he's horrible at his job. i can just see his doughy face getting all red and sweaty as david gregory grills him about this. that's good tv!

 

[sinewave]

i guess we know why bush never followed through with his claim to fire anyone who was involved in this leak. he would have had to fire himself, cheney and who know who else. too bad he wasn't under oath when he claimed he didn't know who leaked plame's id.

 

[demento]

Scott McLelland will blow it at the press conference, though. He always does. He's such a bad liar.

jag

C'mon, he doesn't lie! He just doesn't tell the truth. There's a big difference, y'know.

What I'm curious to see is if they start to try to discredit Libby. He is after all, one of the 'good ole boys'.

 

[jaguarr]

I have no doubt they'll try to burn Libby alive and destroy his credibility. Cheney would eat the still beating heart out his own mother's chest if he had to do so to keep her quiet. And McClelland is a liar, I say to you! A liar! Now good day!

jag

 

[sinewave]

C'mon, he doesn't lie! He just doesn't tell the truth. There's a big difference, y'know.

What I'm curious to see is if they start to try to discredit Libby. He is after all, one of the 'good ole boys'.

you know they'll feed some damaging info about something from his past to the press and then claim they didn't. somehow they'll shift the blame off themselves and make it seem like libby masterminded the whole gaff. i mean, come on, we're talking about dick cheney and karl rove here. those two guys aren't going to sit idly by and allow anyone to paint them or bush as anything less than the ultimate american patriots.

 

[sinewave]

I just went out to the Fox News website to see if they had any mention of this story and they do have a copy of it from the Associated Press under their "Latest News Headlines" section, but I noticed that they re-arranged it somewhat. They placed the paragraph starting with "There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity." second in the article, rather than third. It seems like they were trying to emphasize that statement. Is it legal to re-arrange an article from a press service in an attempt to possibly make people misinterpret it? Either way, this is further proof of Fox's slanted reporting style. Since they didn't write the article and it's unfavorable towards their golden boy they tried to skew it ever so slightly to at least attempt to make it seem less damaging.

 

[lazur]

Yeah, because we all know that Libby is the model of honesty .

I wonder what the reaction would be if Libby had said Bush/Cheney had no involvement? Wouldn't you all be calling him a liar then? Is he only a liar when it goes against your hatred of Bush?

Gee, I wonder...

And that's not to say that he is lying. But at this point it's Libby's word against the President of the U.S. Who do you think is going to come out on top? Point is, it'll take more than word of mouth to 'prove' anything. This would be true in ANY Presidency - not just Bush's. I wonder how many people said horrible things about Clinton and his wife during the 90's. TOO MANY TO COUNT.

I wouldn't equate the two at this point.

 

[sinewave]

Yeah, because we all know that Libby is the model of honesty .

I wonder what the reaction would be if Libby had said Bush/Cheney had no involvement? Would you all be calling him a liar then? Is he only a liar when it goes against your hatred of Bush?

Gee, I wonder...

you're very naive if you think bush and cheney had nothing to do with this.

 

[lazur]

you're very naive if you think bush and cheney had nothing to do with this.

I'm not saying they didn't have anything to do with it. I'm not saying they did.

That's the difference between you and me .

Allegations of all kinds are made about every president. But no matter how much the opposition wants them to be true or provable, they usually are not. This is no exception.

 

[demento]

I completely expect the implicated major players to survive this. Approval ratings will sink lower but that will be the extent of it. However, whatever little party support W and crew have left will further erode and he'll be hindered even moreso in accomplishing his agenda.

Win-win, if ya ask me.

 

[sinewave]

I'm not saying they didn't have anything to do with it. I'm not saying they did.

That's the difference between you and me .

Allegations of all kinds are made about every president. But no matter how much the opposition wants them to be true or provable, they usually are not. This is no exception.

you at least have to admit that the fact that libby is claiming it in a high profile case is extremely damning of bush and cheney. not to mention that it's logical to assume that libby would not have leaked the name without the proper authorization from his superiors. it seems like you're attempting to ignore certain things because you refuse to believe that bush would do something illegal.

 

[sinewave]

I completely expect the implicated major players to survive this. Approval ratings will sink lower but that will be the extent of it. However, whatever little party support W and crew have left will further erode and he'll be hindered even futher in accomplishing his agenda.

Win-win, if ya ask me.

yup. that's the way i see it too.

 

[lazur]

you at least have to admit that the fact that libby is claiming it in a high profile case is extremely damning of bush and cheney. not to mention that it's logical to assume that libby would not have leaked the name without the proper authorization from his superiors. it seems like you're attempting to ignore certain things because you refuse to believe that bush would do something illegal.

No, no, not at all. I'm not saying anything of the sort. But it's not unreasonable to believe that Libby wants to take some people down with him.

Whether or not it's true isn't really important. What's important is whether or not it can be PROVEN.

And I don't see how it can be 'damning' unless it can be proven.

 

[Matt]

Bad news for the administration. I still say Cheney is gonna take the fall for this.

 

[KingOfDreams]

Ah yes, the expected passing of the blame. I'm not saying Bush didn't have anything to do with this. In fact, I hope he did as twisted as that may sound. But people still need to own up to thier own faults and stop blaming others.

 

[Matt]

No, no, not at all. I'm not saying anything of the sort. But it's not unreasonable to believe that Libby wants to take some people down with him.

Whether or not it's true isn't really important. What's important is whether or not it can be PROVEN.

And I don't see how it can be 'damning' unless it can be proven.

It is a he said/she said scenario, you know damn well it can't be proven. However, it can be damaging. Look at the Kerry Swift Boat campaign.

Curious however, you were willing to take the words of partisan, Texas veterans who claimed Kerry was a liar about his military record (Even though evidence contradicted that) and yet you aren't willing to accept what Libby says.

 

[sinewave]

No, no, not at all. I'm not saying anything of the sort. But it's not unreasonable to believe that Libby wants to take some people down with him.

Whether or not it's true isn't really important. What's important is whether or not it can be PROVEN.

And I don't see how it can be 'damning' unless it can be proven.

we'll have to wait and see how fitzgerald proceeds from here. it could get very ugly if he decides to bring in cheney and/or bush to testify under oath. ooohhhh, i'm getting a chubby just thinking about that!