Plame UpdateFollow

Yeah, but it is fun watching where it leads. See who's really pulling the strings. Though, I guess it is beneficial to have the President in there, since he really can't rat anyone else out.

What is truly frustrating is the moral high horse that Pubbies stand on when it comes to Clinton bending the truth about having sex. There is no question to them that he lied, but they seem to feel that withholding the truth and refusing to follow through a promise with an action is somehow different from a lie. That's why I can't take 'em seriously when they get on the moral soapbox. Truth is, they'll bend the truth just as readily and for motives that are just as questionable, if not more.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he didn't authorize the leak of Plame's name. He authorized the leak of classified information to counter the criticisms that were being reported about the war and WMDs.

I dunno, does it really matter? The administration is teh DEVIL!!

nothing bad that is inveiled about it will suprise me in the least bit.

Although my take on the whole thing is that the name WAS leaked for the purposes of countering the critisisms.

It won't really lead anywhere. As commander in chief, Bush is authorized to declassify anything he wants.

In fact, in a particularly nasty senate commitee meeting with Gonzalez, the AG was asked, hypotheticly of course, if the president could legally declassify national security information for the sole purpose of descrediting a political opponent.

Answer is: He can.
-----------------------------------------------

yes, he can.

but heres the thorn. the president declassified the document naming Plame in july 18th. Libby dropped the dime on her to the press on july 8th.

while he can declassify what ever he chooses, the information was not declassified before it was released, making it classified material up and untill the 18th. he CAN NOT release classified material before he declassifies it.

and this argument also totaly ignors the intent of the leak, petty political payback and nothing more. that alone is grounds for a defamation of character lawsuit against the president personally, and against this country as it was done by this government.

i hear the impeachemnt drums getting warmed up.......gona be alot of happey people throughout the world when hes gone.

Ya, I just read about the time frame today.

He's in trouble.

Missed this over the weekend.



*cough* No. He's not. Not legally anyway. But in the court of the media... probably.

The documents were "officially" declassified on the 18th. Libby recieved specific permission to discuss some details from the documents for his converstation with Miller. So the dates don't really mean anything. They just sound good to those who don't know that the "official declassification date" doesn't apply in this case (ie: Anyone who just parrots what the media says).

Read the actual indictment and testimony. It's pretty clear what's going on.


What I find *really* amusing is how every single media outlet uses the whole "discussed classified information" and allows the reader to assume this includes Plame's identity as an employee of the CIA. I've read the testimony. I've read the indictments. I've read every single "official" document from the case. Nowhere. Nowhere does it say that the president, the vice president, or anyone else authorized him to leak Plame's identity. Heck. Ij don't believe that her identity is in the documents in question at all.


Red herring guys. The investigation is about who leaked Plame's identity. There's a revelation that Libby was "authorized by the president to release classified information". So you (and the rest of the sheep out there) all assume that the classified intelligence in question is Plames employement.

Um. It's not. You want to know what classified information from that document Libby leaked to Miller? The transcript of Joe Wilsons report to the CIA on his trip. The one where he tells them that the former PM of Niger confirmed that Iraqi agents attempted to purchase Uranium from Niger. Geee... I can't imagine why that might be relevant to debunking Wilson's later Op Ed where he critisizes Bush for claiming that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from Niger...


Fact is that Wilson told the CIA that Iraq tried to buy uranium to Niger. The CIA passed that on to Bush. Bush used it in a speech. Wilson decided to lie about it and pretend that he'd never learned that particular information (actually, he just sidesteps it and argues loudly that "Iraq never purchased uranium from Niger", even though Bush didn't claim more then an attempt). Libby was authorized to pass the report Wilson gave to the CIA to Miller to debunk Wilson's OP Ed. His wife has *nothing* to do with this at all.

Every single media outlet I've read this story through has said that the "leak" didn't involve Plame at all. Want to compare links?

The disclosure is the newest embarrassment for a White House that has insisted it would fire anyone involved in the disclosure of a CIA agent's identity. In this case, however, there is no inference that Bush authorized that disclosure -- Chicago Tribune

The information did not name CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose 2003 exposure triggered an investigation that led to the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. -- CNN

Wednesday's court filing by prosecutors does not allege that Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to reveal the identity of Wilson's wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame. Nor does it suggest that Bush violated the law related to divulging classified information. -- Newsday (Associated Press)

The court documents made public on Thursday were filed by Fitzgerald. They do not say that Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Plame's identity. -- Reuters

Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with wrongdoing in the initial leak of Plame's name. In the new filing, he did not allege that Bush authorized that disclosure, and he said Bush was "unaware of the role" that Libby, then Cheney's chief of staff, played in discussing her name with a number of reporters. -- Washington Post

That document makes no connection between Bush and the leak of Plame's name -- Baltimore Sun

All of those were from the initial break of the story and I've seen the same statement included in stories since Thursday. Maybe you're just easily amused. Or maybe you just make sh[Aqua][/Aqua]it up. I dunno... you tell me.

Edited, Mon Apr 10 19:50:01 2006 by Jophiel

Lol. Yeah. There's those words hidden in there that most folks don't read. Then there's the words that people do hear. Like Dean's comments *about* the "leak":



Hmm... Are you seriously trying to argue he isn't trying to get folks to assume the leak was about Plame? What "political gain" is he talking about? Rebutting a false allegation about the president may fall under the heading of "political gain" in some people's books, but in mine it's called "countering with the truth".

Read the freaking title of the smokinggun article Joph.

I know you're going to use the standard "But the news doesn't technically say that" argument. I'm going to counter with the same thing I always do. Look at the posts about the topic on this page. Clearly, many who posted her did/do indeed assume that the leak in question was Plame's identity.

Shall I list them?



He's charged with leaking Valerie Plame's identity. No question that Bhodi (the topic started) thought the classified intelligence referred to in this testimony included Plame's identity.



Omega's defending (kinda) the president here, but he's also assuming the intelligence the president authorized was Plame's identity.



Two references by Kelvy here. The comment about firing someone was specific to the Plame leak. Not the stuff about Wilson's trip. And I'm pretty sure the whole "jeopordized national security for the sole purpose of discrediting a person..." bit referse to her CIA employment as well, right?



Is that enough? Or do I need to bother quoting shadow?


It's not about what is said. It's about how it's said. While every news report I've *read* (ok. most of them) have included the statement that Plame's identity wasn't among the things leaked by Libby at the request of the President. But every single news broadcast has made a big point of putting Libby's name, the fact that he's charged with revealing Plame's identity, and the fact that Bush authorized him to leak classified documents in the opening bits of their coverage of the issue. The news advertisements alone imply a meaning far in conflict with the actual facts. All you hear is those things. Most people form their opinions on a subject based on that first view. The news folks know this.

Heh. And you know darn well that Howard Dean knows this. There are two things that are amazing to me about this specific topic. First, that Dean managed to put out a big press statement first thing. And secondly, the degree of coverage that consisted of repreating Dean's allegations about the testimony instead of covering the testimony itself. That didn't come about until a day or two later (after that first view had already been firmly put into people's minds).


It's just irritating to me that there's "the truth", and "the common belief", and you've got one side of politics consistently working purely to manipulate what people believe to be true instead of what's actually true. Heck. In an odd sort of full circle karma, that's exactly what started this whole thing. Wilson's Op Ed was pure strawman, with a logic hole a mile wide. But not *one* news agency pointed it out. And even today, after I've pointed out the flaw a dozen times over the last year, most people on this forum *still* don't get it.


I'll repeat it again. Bush didn't lie about the Iraq attempt to purchase uranium. Wilson just wrote an Op Ed piece intended to make people think he did. And it worked. And what's scary is even when the facts are released, do people go "ooooh. Wilson was BSing us". Nope. They spin that into some sort of abuse of power. The "truth" is that Bush said that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Niger. Wilson countered that by stating that Iraq never succeeded in purchasing uranium from Niger. If you don't see the strawman, then there's really no hope for you...

Jophiel if you could throw a couple colourful euphemisms and a dallop of c[Aqua][/Aqua]ockyness I might be able to close my eyes and pretend you were a polish Smasharoo.

http://www.stripgenerator.com/viewEng.php?id=110428

I don't read or listen to news and stuff, I get all my info from you guys arguing.

What the fu[/Aqua]ck do I care? From their dog. Who gives a sh[Aqua]it?

I'm not arguing whether Bhodi or Kelv or my mom thinks Bush was related to the Plame leak. If they can't read an article that plainly states that Plame was not part of the information Bush released, that's honestly not my problem. I pointed out the major print media outlets (AP & Reuters) plus several other publications that all made it abundantly clear that Bush was not being connected to Plame via this story. You said "every single media outlet" was allowing people to make this connection. You were wrong. Completely proven wrong.

My point, my only point and the point you're so desperately trying to dodge is that, in your haste to make sure everyone knew how evil the Liberal Media was, you made an asinine statement with no basis in reality. Hardly the first time you've made authoritive statements that proved completely false and tried to spin your way out and it won't be the last, I'm sure.