Scooter Libby: Bush authorized the leaks

[chinaski]

selectively leaked classified info from the National Security Estimate about Saddams wmds to Judy Miller and others. "Its just flat wrong to assume I wanted war".

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aTAo1LZSEZDA&refer=us

couple links for flavor.

[cartman]

Kinda takes all the wind out of his "I consider this a serious matter, and those inside my administration who leaked this info will be dealt with" if the testimony is true.

[dawgfan]

The administration is taking the stance that the President (and Vice President) have the authority to leak classified information - that by doing so, they are "de-classifying" it.

[NoMyths]

Sigh.

[QuikSand]

And a collective *shurg* shall be visible among the electorate.

[Swaggs]

And a collective *shurg* shall be visible among the electorate.

That's what I was thinking.

This seems like it should be an important and (in my opinion) damning piece of information, but somehow, I suspect it will go largely unnoticed to the greater part of the population.

[rexallllsc]

Kinda takes all the wind out of his "I consider this a serious matter, and those inside my administration who leaked this info will be dealt with" if the testimony is true.

When is the last time anyone took something he said seriously?

Osama #1 priority, WMD's, etc. etc.

[Draft Dodger]

*gasp*
I'm shocked.

[CamEdwards]

*shurg* :D

A serious question, however. Libby's accused of perjury, of lying under oath. Yet it looks like the majority of the people posting in this thread are willing to take him at his word, as long as it reflects badly on the president.

I guess it's more of a statement than a question, actually. :)

[sachmo71]

this is not surprising, even if true.

[cartman]

When is the last time anyone took something he said seriously?

Osama #1 priority, WMD's, etc. etc.

I forgot to add my sarcasm tag.

I see three possible outcomes of this:

#1-Libby made up the VP authorization, and therefore committed perjury to the grand jury. This is the best outcome for the administration, since it points to a "loose cannon" defense they can use to absolve themselves of blame.

#2-Cheney did authorize him to leak the info, but never asked the President. In this case, Cheney would have to rely on the Presidential Order that gave the VP the authority to go through the channels to declassify the info. But if this is the case, why say that the President said it was ok?

#3-Bush did tell Cheney it was ok for his staff to reveal the info. The is probably the worst scenario of the three. Bush's statements that the leak was a serious matter, etc. all point to a charade to try and brush the situation away. If he did declassify the info, why did he never acknowledge it, allow the reporters to sit in jail, and spend money and time on the investigation, if for no other reason than to not have to admit he was the one ultimately behind the release of the information?

[rexallllsc]

*shurg* :D

A serious question, however. Libby's accused of perjury, of lying under oath. Yet it looks like the majority of the people posting in this thread are willing to take him at his word, as long as it reflects badly on the president.

I guess it's more of a statement than a question, actually. :)

Here's a serious question for you: Why would you take what the President says as truth?

[CamEdwards]

Here's a serious question for you: Why would you take what the President says as truth?

Who said I was?

I have no idea what the eventual outcome of this case will be. Maybe the Bush critics will get their wish and this time next year we'll be looking at President Cheney. Maybe Libby will be aquitted of all charges and Rush Limbaugh will run for President.

But I do tend to give the guy I voted for the benefit of the doubt. It's the idealist in me.

[Draft Dodger]

But I do tend to give the guy I voted for the benefit of the doubt. It's the idealist in me.

you voted for him? this is all your fault!

[Swaggs]

*shurg* :D

A serious question, however. Libby's accused of perjury, of lying under oath. Yet it looks like the majority of the people posting in this thread are willing to take him at his word, as long as it reflects badly on the president.

I guess it's more of a statement than a question, actually. :)

I'm asking honestly, because I don't follow these things as closely as I once did, but has the White House press secretary commented on this yet?

It would seem to me, that the White House should be able to come right out and say that Libby is either telling the truth or not telling the truth.

[cartman]

Maybe the Bush critics will get their wish and this time next year we'll be looking at President Cheney.

I think Cheney would have the same reaction as Silvio when Tony was in the hospital if he actually became President...

:D

[rexallllsc]

But I do tend to give the guy I voted for the benefit of the doubt.

GW had that from me after 9/11. Sad how he squandered all of the good will so quickly.

[albionmoonlight]

A few random comments.

One of the more interesting things, from a constitutional scholarship perspective, that has come out of this whole mess is the authority with which the administration is cloaking Vice President Cheney. Thoughout the nation's history, we have had clashes between the President and the other branches of government. The President has always relied on his authority as a named actor in the Constitution cloaked with a variety of powers to exempt himself from restrictions that would normally apply to executive branch actors. The Vice-President, by contrast, has been called the most powerful man in the world without a job description. His grounding in the Constitution is very weak. He's the president of the Senate and he takes over if the President is removed. That's it. This administration discusses the President and Vice President in the same breath when talking about their powers viz a viz the law and the other branches of government. But the assumption upon which that equating is based does not rest on history or the text of the constitution.

I am not smart enough to say what the limits of the Vice President's powers are relative to the law and the other branches of government. But I do think that, after the political BS of all of this has passed, people much smarter than I will write some interesting articles on the constitutional implications of it all.

Second, I cannot share your idealism, Cam. I don't care who the president is. Or the prime minister. Or the King. Or the Dear Leader. I would trust no one (not even myself) to govern effectively without checks on absolute authority. I do not give government the benefit of the doubt. I have seen too many examples of waste, power grabs, and outright illegal behavior whenever government actors have been allowed to operate unsupervised and unchecked.

I am somewhat suprised that, as a memeber of the media--and the conservative media at that, you are willing to give a leader the benefit of that doubt.

[CamEdwards]

I think Cheney would have the same reaction as Silvio when Tony was in the hospital if he actually became President...

:D

If I watched the Sopranos, I'm sure I would find that very amusing. :)


GW had that from me after 9/11. Sad how he squandered all of the good will so quickly.


Sad for you, perhaps. I doubt he's losing any sleep over your lack of support.


I am somewhat suprised that, as a memeber of the media--and the conservative media at that, you are willing to give a leader the benefit of that doubt.

I've always been an idealist. And again, I'd be more willing to trust that leader than a guy facing five felony counts (including perjury).

[John Galt]

I've always been an idealist. And again, I'd be more willing to trust that leader than a guy facing five felony counts (including perjury).

I guess I find it strange to discount Libby's credibility in favor of Bush when Libby's earlier lies were obstensibly intended to protect Bush and Cheney from allegations of misconduct.

[CamEdwards]

I guess I find it strange to discount Libby's credibility in favor of Bush when Libby's earlier lies were obstensibly intended to protect Bush and Cheney from allegations of misconduct.

According to whom?

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm asking honestly, because I don't follow these things as closely as I once did, but has the White House press secretary commented on this yet?

It would seem to me, that the White House should be able to come right out and say that Libby is either telling the truth or not telling the truth.
Haha you really HAVEN'T been following things too closely!

[cartman]

I've always been an idealist. And again, I'd be more willing to trust that leader than a guy facing five felony counts (including perjury).

I'd buy this argument, except for the little fact that Libby made these statements before he was indicted.

[Toddzilla]

I've always been an idealist. And again, I'd be more willing to trust that leader than a guy facing five felony counts (including perjury).Except for the fact that this "leader" of whom you speak should be facing multiple felony counts as well - for this, plus the illegal wiretapping, plus something else swept unde rthe rug that I can't think of.

[rexallllsc]

Sad for you, perhaps. I doubt he's losing any sleep over your lack of support.


No, sad for the country. His approval rating is at an all-time low.

[CamEdwards]

Except for the fact that this "leader" of whom you speak should be facing multiple felony counts as well - for this, plus the illegal wiretapping, plus something else swept unde rthe rug that I can't think of.

Watch it Todd... they know where you live. :p

[CamEdwards]

No, sad for the country. His approval rating is at an all-time low.

Dola: actually, as of today it's at 43% (according to Rasmussen). His low was 40%.

[John Galt]

According to whom?

Well, what other motive did he have to lie about finding out about Plame's employment status and the decision whether to leak her identity? Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought Libby's lies only make sense if he is protecting Cheney or Bush.

[Subby]

You Burke-ites are so weird.

:D

[CamEdwards]

Well, what other motive did he have to lie about finding out about Plame's employment status and the decision whether to leak her identity? Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought Libby's lies only make sense if he is protecting Cheney or Bush.

But if, as cartman said, these new revelations were made prior to the indictments, then it REALLY doesn't make any sense. On one hand he was lying to protect Bush and Cheney, but on the other hand he said Bush authorized him to talk about classified information?

[MrBigglesworth]

Dola: actually, as of today it's at 43% (according to Rasmussen). His low was 40%.
Every other poll in the world has him below 40%. FoxNews poll out today has him at 36%, a new low for that poll.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm asking honestly, because I don't follow these things as closely as I once did, but has the White House press secretary commented on this yet?

It would seem to me, that the White House should be able to come right out and say that Libby is either telling the truth or not telling the truth.
The liberal media at the daily press conference didn't even ask Scotty about it today.

[John Galt]

But if, as cartman said, these new revelations were made prior to the indictments, then it REALLY doesn't make any sense. On one hand he was lying to protect Bush and Cheney, but on the other hand he said Bush authorized him to talk about classified information?

The lies seem clearly intended to stop the investigation (tell me if you disagree). And stopping the investigation seemed to be about protecting the higherups (unless I'm missing something).

I think your last statement conflates legal authorization with just being told to something. Cheney (as better explained by albionmoonlight) illustrates that difference most clearly. Cheney may have told Libby to leak the information (Plame stuff or the intelligence documents), but it is far from clear that he has the legally authority to do that.

So, to me, it seems odd to not trust Libby now because of his lies when his lies seem to have been designed to protect Bush and/or Cheney. But maybe I'm still missing something.

[rexallllsc]

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if that person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of"

We all thought that he meant he'd fire the person - Maybe Georgie meant that he was going to throw him a party?

[Butter]

Dola: actually, as of today it's at 43% (according to Rasmussen). His low was 40%.

Wow! What a difference! That's definitely not someone just splitting hairs for the sake of the argument right there.

[Bonegavel]

Isn't it established that Libby isn't under fire for outting Plame (as she wasn't under cover) but for perjury?

[John Galt]

Isn't it established that Libby isn't under fire for outting Plame (as she wasn't under cover) but for perjury?

He is in trouble for perjury, but the perjury largely revolves around his statements about Plame during the investigation. As for the statement that he isn't in trouble because Plame wasn't covert, that claim seems to be contrary to statements made by the prosecutor in this case.

[Toddzilla]

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if that person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of"

We all thought that he meant he'd fire the person - Maybe Georgie meant that he was going to throw him a party?
Scott McClellan:

“There's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the vice president’s office as well."

White House Press Briefing, 9/29/03
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html

[Axxon]

If I watched the Sopranos, I'm sure I would find that very amusing. :)



Sad for you, perhaps. I doubt he's losing any sleep over your lack of support.


I've always been an idealist. And again, I'd be more willing to trust that leader than a guy facing five felony counts (including perjury).

So you're saying that the president has no real concern for eroding public support? I'd bet you're wrong on that one but if you're right, that's scarier than anything alleged in this thread.

For the record, I'm really hoping these allegations are proven wrong. Not because I support this president, which I do not, but because I support the office of president and if this is proven true it will, among other things, erode the public confidence in the position and I think that would be a really bad thing.

[Axxon]

Every other poll in the world has him below 40%. FoxNews poll out today has him at 36%, a new low for that poll.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Yeah, but that's foxnews, a notoriously liberal media outlet.

[CamEdwards]

So you're saying that the president has no real concern for eroding public support? I'd bet you're wrong on that one but if you're right, that's scarier than anything alleged in this thread.

For the record, I'm really hoping these allegations are proven wrong. Not because I support this president, which I do not, but because I support the office of president and if this is proven true it will, among other things, erode the public confidence in the position and I think that would be a really bad thing.

After Harriet Meirs, his immigration proposals, support for McCain/Feingold... yeah, I'm pretty sure the President doesn't really care what the left OR the right think about the job he's doing.

[CamEdwards]

Scott McClellan:

“There's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the vice president’s office as well."

White House Press Briefing, 9/29/03
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html

BTW, that's a good find. Like I said, I have no idea how this will all turn out.

[Toddzilla]

BTW, that's a good find. Like I said, I have no idea how this will all turn out.I saw it on C&L - credit where credit is due and all that. Tally one for the nutso Lefty blogosphere. ;)

[Flasch186]

im surprised that this falls along party lines. Grand Jury testimony has been held up as something to not take lightly but now, all of a sudden, it is?

The spin on this is insane, at first it was the WH had nothing to do with it, then it came from the VP's office and perhaps a rogue aide, then it was Cheney's office but he had not anything to do with it, then it slowly became that "Cheney is authorized to declassify stuff" but Bush never knew anything, and now this......

at each step of the way the administrations defenders have been right on board with each new spin. Why cant people admit that a wrong is a wrong no matter who does it or what color tie they have on?

[MrBigglesworth]

Isn't it established that Libby isn't under fire for outting Plame (as she wasn't under cover) but for perjury?
Plame was covert. It's just hard to prove that he knew she was covert without a letter or email from him that says, "I know she's covert." And since Libby would not want such a letter or email going to the prosecutor, he would make every effort to cover it up. And that is why he is in trouble: lying to cover up what was done.

[Flasch186]

----as an aside, I saw a clip just now of Bush getting a question at a speech that was, well im sure not planted.....

Bush is NEVER better than when he is winging it. When his handlers have a hold of him is when he is unconfident but when they just let him go, he is never a better speaker.

[MrBigglesworth]

----as an aside, I saw a clip just now of Bush getting a question at a speech that was, well im sure not planted.....

Bush is NEVER better than when he is winging it. When his handlers have a hold of him is when he is unconfident but when they just let him go, he is never a better speaker.
I think Bush sounds like a bumbling idiot when he speaks without a telepromptor.

[Flasch186]

I think Bush sounds like a bumbling idiot when he speaks without a telepromptor.

I think he sounds like he believes what he is saying...whether or not I agree with him is different, but at least he believes it.

[Axxon]

After Harriet Meirs, his immigration proposals, support for McCain/Feingold... yeah, I'm pretty sure the President doesn't really care what the left OR the right think about the job he's doing.

That sounds like a noble answer but it scares me when the president feels no accountability to his constituency. I want a president who doesn't cater kneejerk to either the left or right but I don't want one who only represents a dwindling minority and feels that it doesn't matter.

I guess, to me, idealistically, I want a president who cares about all his constituency and makes his decisions based on what is best for his entire constituency, not just his voting base.

I don't want someone who only caters to his voting base and I really don't want someone who bases his decisions merely on personal gains as opposed to the will of the people. I'd prefer he cater to his base over that actually. At least there is some accountability.

Of course, Bush does feel the job would be easier if he were a dictator. Guess, he figures it's time to act like one. SHRUG.

This is all predicated on your opinion of course. I really feel you're off base. I think the man cares personally and it's one of the few redeeming qualities he possesses as far as I'm concerned.

[st.cronin]

I think he sounds like he believes what he is saying...whether or not I agree with him is different, but at least he believes it.

I agree with flasch. When Bush is on his game (which is, honestly, not that often) he's among the best speakers I've ever heard.

[ISiddiqui]

Not that often? Try like hardly ever!

[MrBigglesworth]

I agree with flasch. When Bush is on his game (which is, honestly, not that often) he's among the best speakers I've ever heard.
This reminds me of my favorite stat ever put up on the big screen at Citizen's Bank Park: "Chase Utley is hitting .571 in 35 of his last 60 AB's"

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I think Bush sounds like a bumbling idiot when he speaks without a telepromptor.

You should check out a film called Journeys With George. It's a documentary filmed by Alexandra Pelosi (Nancy Pelosi's daughter) who was part of the Bush press corp in 2000. It's pretty entertaining really, and the guy is clearly a great schoozer. I agree with you that he's one of the most awful public speakers I've seen, but when it comes to small talk he's very natural and engaging and funny. He had the press corp eating out of his hand. It was really an interesting film.

[KWhit]

I agree with flasch. When Bush is on his game (which is, honestly, not that often) he's among the best speakers I've ever heard.

Are you high?

[yabanci]

This reminds me of my favorite stat ever put up on the big screen at Citizen's Bank Park: "Chase Utley is hitting .571 in 35 of his last 60 AB's"

great post.

[Glengoyne]

Is the general perception here that GW told Libby to "out" Plame? That seems like what some of the rhetoric here indicates.

Perhaps it is because Libby is in hot water regarding the Plame affair, so the assumption that every revelation associated with him is related to the alleged "outing".

I'm reading this as saying that Bush authorized Libby to share essentially different portions of the intelligence estimate that Joe Wilson had previously leaked. Is that the wrong impression?

[Flasch186]

Is the general perception here that GW told Libby to "out" Plame? That seems like what some of the rhetoric here indicates.

Perhaps it is because Libby is in hot water regarding the Plame affair, so the assumption that every revelation associated with him is related to the alleged "outing".

I'm reading this as saying that Bush authorized Libby to share essentially different portions of the intelligence estimate that Joe Wilson had previously leaked. Is that the wrong impression?

I think the impression each gets is based on what one wants to think or hear, partisanly perhaps or learned from past experiences or perceptions. Like I said before, when this spin control started from the white house( Which is what gets me fired up more than anything, is how it is like peeling back an onion instead of upfront honesty) Bush wanted to "hunt down" the leaker...now maybe it wasnt a "leak" at all. Reminds me of when Clinton said, "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is." horse crap

[MrBigglesworth]

You should check out a film called Journeys With George. It's a documentary filmed by Alexandra Pelosi (Nancy Pelosi's daughter) who was part of the Bush press corp in 2000. It's pretty entertaining really, and the guy is clearly a great schoozer. I agree with you that he's one of the most awful public speakers I've seen, but when it comes to small talk he's very natural and engaging and funny. He had the press corp eating out of his hand. It was really an interesting film.
I have seen that actually, though several years ago now. I would agree with you, I'm pretty sure the first time I saw it was around the time of the beginning of the Iraq war and I thought, "He seems like a cool guy, no wonder everyone likes him". Then I caught some of it again some months later, after it became clear what a debacle Iraq was, and thought, "What an idiot". I was never a huge fan of Bush (I was all for a McCain/Bradley showdown in 2000, and ended up voting for Gore), but I think when I saw the real world consequences of having a stereotypical 'frat boy' in the White House, it changed my perception of things. I don't think it can ever be said with a straight face again that you don't have to be smart to be president.

[Glengoyne]

I think the impression each gets is based on what one wants to think or hear, partisanly perhaps or learned from past experiences or perceptions. Like I said before, when this spin control started from the white house( Which is what gets me fired up more than anything, is how it is like peeling back an onion instead of upfront honesty) Bush wanted to "hunt down" the leaker...now maybe it wasnt a "leak" at all. Reminds me of when Clinton said, "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is." horse crap

Well I'm honestly not trying to split hairs here. I'm trying to understand what Bush apparently told Libby to "leak". From what I read it was selected information contained in the National Intelligence Estimate, from which Joe Wilson had already leaked his own selected pieces of information.

That seems to be distinctly different from the "leak" the President was talking about in the press conference that a lot of folks, including you, are discussing.

I mean, this wasn't Libby declaring that Bush told him to out Plame as a CIA operative in retaliation for her husband's actions. This seems to be Bush telling Libby that if Wilson wants to take pieces of that Classified document public, then lets give him a dose of his own medicine.

Now even that is not the attitude I'd like to see the President have regarding Classified information, but it doesn't seem to be the specific thing people are talking about here.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I love this prior quote from Bush:

"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things."

He added that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information."

(CNN.com Feb. 11, 2004)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

This seems to be Bush telling Libby that if Wilson wants to take pieces of that Classified document public, then lets give him a dose of his own medicine.

Now even that is not the attitude I'd like to see the President have regarding Classified information, but it doesn't seem to be the specific thing people are talking about here.

I have to correct you. Wilson didn't make any part of a classified document public.

[MrBigglesworth]

This seems to be Bush telling Libby that if Wilson wants to take pieces of that Classified document public, then lets give him a dose of his own medicine.
I don't know if you are trying to defend Bush or not, but the whole problem with this new revelation is that Bush leaked classified information for political gain, which is exactly what according to you seems to have happened (and plus, Wilson didn't leak parts of the NIE). That's not right, and they knew it wasn't right. If it was all on the up-and-up, they would have held a press conference with the declassified NIE, not go through all this cloak-and-dagger stuff. The reason they did have to go through Judy Miller is because they just wanted to release the stuff that made Bush look good, and bury the parts of the NIE that disagreed with the incorrect assessments of Iraq.

[beatle]

I said in 2000 that Bush will go down as the worst president in history. Sad to say for the People, it looks like I am right!

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Interesting stuff on NBC news' David Gregory report on msnbc.com.

On July 18, 2003, Whitehouse press secretary Scott McLellan says that NIE document was declassified "today" in response to a specific question about when it had been declassified. In Libby's testimony, he says he was told to leak about 10 days before that.

This week, when McLellan was asked about this, he says, "well, I actually meant it was released to the public" that day on July 18, 2003. Very convenient. However, since he had already been talking prior to that about its release to the public, that statement rings false. He was very clearly asked "when was it DECLASSIFIED."

I am guessing that Bush did not authorize the leak by Libby (hence the reason the Whitehouse hasn't confirmed Libby's testimony). But what is key here is that Libby actually testified that VP Cheney TOLD him the president ok'd the leak. I'm betting Cheney didn't have such authority from the president when he told Libby. This would also fall in line with the mumbo jumbo Cheney was spouting offer many months ago that he had the power to declassify information -- to cover his ass since the president didn't authorize the leak.

Of course, this pure conjecture on my part. But it is fun nonetheless. I see Cheney here as the real culprit, not Bush. But I hate seeing Bush covering for the guy -- he ought to dump him and move on.

[Glengoyne]

I have to correct you. Wilson didn't make any part of a classified document public.

It was my understanding that the information the Wilson disclosed to the press, his report and so forth, were classified information and part of a NIE report(if that is the correct terminology)

[chinaski]

It was my understanding that the information the Wilson disclosed to the press, his report and so forth, were classified information and part of a NIE report(if that is the correct terminology)
Wilson said that Bushs' statements about the Niger Uranium claims were absolutely false, they were suspected forgeries all along, no one on any level ever gave them credibility. Im not sure how that involves the NIE report? Wilsons trip was not classified.

This is great timing btw.....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2125630,00.html



The Sunday Times April 09, 2006

'Forgers' of key Iraq war contract named
Michael Smith

TWO employees of the Niger embassy in Rome were responsible for the forgery of a notorious set of documents used to help justify the Iraq war, an official investigation has allegedly found.

According to Nato sources, the investigation has evidence that Niger’s consul and its ambassador’s personal assistant faked a contract to show Saddam Hussein had bought uranium ore from the impoverished west African country.

The documents, which emerged in 2002, were used in a US State Department fact sheet on Iraq’s weapons programme to build the case for war. They were denounced as forgeries by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) shortly before the 2003 invasion.

The revelation spawned a series of conspiracy theories, most alleging that the British, Italians, or even Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, had had a hand in forging them to back the case for war.

The story was still reverberating around Washington last week with claims that President George W Bush had authorised the leaking of the identity of a CIA agent whose husband cast doubt on the Niger link.

According to the sources, an official investigation believes Adam Maiga Zakariaou, the consul, and Laura Montini, the ambassador’s assistant, known as La Signora, forged the papers for money.

They allegedly concocted their scheme as reports reached western intelligence agencies, including MI6, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to buy uranium ore, known as yellowcake, from Niger. The agencies had no evidence he had succeeded. The pair are alleged to have copied a real contract to look like an agreement with Iraq under which Niger would supply Saddam with 500 tons of yellowcake.

The story of the fake deal had begun with a meeting in a Rome bar in February 2000 set up by Antonio Nucera, an officer in the Sismi, the Italian intelligence agency, between two of his former agents, Rocco Martino and Montini.

However, unknown to the Sismi, Martino, a former policeman turned spy, had been working for the French intelligence service, the DGSE, since 1996. He was controlled by the DGSE head of station in Brussels, who paid him a retainer of between £1,050 and £1,400 a month.

“Nucera asked if I was interested in meeting a person who worked in an African embassy and who had been able to supply [Nucera with] documents and information, including the embassy’s cipher,” Martino told an investigating magistrate during an Italian inquiry.

Montini is understood to have agreed to work for Martino, who paid her £350 a month as a “sub-agent”.

In the spring of 2000, she handed him a document relating to a visit to Niger by Wissam al-Zahawie, the Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican. Martino passed it to his French handler.

The French, who were watching for an attempt by Saddam to obtain uranium from Niger, showed great interest and told Martino they wanted more information. Martino asked Montini if she could get a copy of a contract for Niger to supply Iraq with uranium.

“Martino told me that if he was able to obtain a copy of a contract then he would have earned a lot of money from an unspecified ‘intelligence’ organisation,” she told the magistrate.

The lure of the money was apparently too much. “She was [the ambassador’s] trusted personal assistant. The consul Zakariaou . . . needed money. He would help her forge the documents,” the Nato sources claim.

Martino passed the contract to his French handlers, but they spotted it was a fake and refused to pay.

Some time in 2002, however, they obtained another apparently incriminating document, the source said. This was a letter purporting to be from al-Zahawie relating to a visit to Niger in 1999 to discuss the possible supply of uranium. This did not constitute evidence that Niger had agreed to supply yellowcake but it did indicate Saddam was trying to obtain it.

The letter, deemed “credible” by the Butler inquiry into Iraq intelligence, appears to be the evidence that led to Bush’s claim in January 2003 that the British had “learnt that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”.

The French passed copies to MI6 with caveats to protect their source. The British could tell the CIA Iraq had tried to obtain yellowcake from Niger but not about the actual letter.

In the autumn of 2002, Martino passed the documents allegedly faked by Zakariaou and Montini to an Italian journalist. She then took them to the American embassy and they were passed on to Washington.

After the IAEA had dismissed the forged documents, the Americans disowned all the Iraq-Niger uranium claims. But the latest allegations are unlikely to end the row.

This springs from the mission of Joseph Wilson, a former American ambassador, who was sent to Niger to check the uranium claims.

Wilson dismissed the possibility of Iraq obtaining uranium and publicly attacked Bush’s claims. The White House retaliated, with officials briefing journalists that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent. Naming an undercover agent is illegal in America.

Last week, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, a former aide to Cheney, told the inquiry into the leak that the vice-president ordered the briefings and that Bush had authorised them.

Zakariaou, now a Niger representative to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation in Rome, said: “If you really want the truth you must look somewhere else. You should deepen your inquiries elsewhere."

this actually deserves its own thread.

[MrBigglesworth]

I am guessing that Bush did not authorize the leak by Libby (hence the reason the Whitehouse hasn't confirmed Libby's testimony).
Hold on, I'm not following your logic. Assume Bush didn't authorize it. Libby testifies that he did. Doesn't Bush say flat out that he did not? After all, that is Libby perjuring himself. He may have some loyalty to Libby and not want to have him be convicted, but is he going to do that in the face of the political shitstorm, especially after Libby throws him under the bus?

Now assume Bush is guilty, he did authorize it. Doesn't he say, 'no comment'? After all, he can't deny it, because if Libby has hard evidence, Bush is screwed. He can't say that Libby is telling the truth, because then he admits to leaking classified information for political gain.

Besides, all the right-wing spinsters are saying that if Bush authorizes something, it's de facto not leaking. Why would that be the tactic if Bush were innocent? Wouldn't the tactic just be to call Libby a liar? After all, he is under indictment for perjury. It would be a lot easier than trying to twist yourself into a 'if Bush does it it's fine, if someone else does it it's a felony' pretzel, isn't it?

[st.cronin]

Doesn't Bush say flat out that he did not? After all, that is Libby perjuring himself. He may have some loyalty to Libby...

Even as far outside as we are, I can't begin to imagine a scenario where Libby still has any affection from Bush.

[MrBigglesworth]

Even as far outside as we are, I can't begin to imagine a scenario where Libby still has any affection from Bush.
My quote was in regards to Bush having loyalty to Libby, not Libby having loyalty to Bush. Is that what you mean?

[st.cronin]

My quote was in regards to Bush having loyalty to Libby, not Libby having loyalty to Bush. Is that what you mean?

What I mean is: I picture Bush working out in his gym, boxing gloves on, muttering "fucking Libby" every time he punches the bag.

[MrBigglesworth]

What I mean is: I picture Bush working out in his gym, boxing gloves on, muttering "fucking Libby" every time he punches the bag.
Do you say that because you think he is mad Libby is blaming him, or mad that Libby got caught?

[st.cronin]

Do you say that because you think he is mad Libby is blaming him, or mad that Libby got caught?

I don't know: My point is no matter how you slice it, I don't think Libby will ever be working for the Bush clan again.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Hold on, I'm not following your logic. Assume Bush didn't authorize it. Libby testifies that he did. Doesn't Bush say flat out that he did not? After all, that is Libby perjuring himself. He may have some loyalty to Libby and not want to have him be convicted, but is he going to do that in the face of the political shitstorm, especially after Libby throws him under the bus?

Now assume Bush is guilty, he did authorize it. Doesn't he say, 'no comment'? After all, he can't deny it, because if Libby has hard evidence, Bush is screwed. He can't say that Libby is telling the truth, because then he admits to leaking classified information for political gain.

Besides, all the right-wing spinsters are saying that if Bush authorizes something, it's de facto not leaking. Why would that be the tactic if Bush were innocent? Wouldn't the tactic just be to call Libby a liar? After all, he is under indictment for perjury. It would be a lot easier than trying to twist yourself into a 'if Bush does it it's fine, if someone else does it it's a felony' pretzel, isn't it?

You're misssing a key point here. Libby did not say Bush actually ok'd the leak. He said Cheney TOLD him that Bush ok'd the leak. That's a big difference and what my analysis is based on. The no comment right now is to protect Cheney, not Bush.

That's my theory. Bush doesn't confirm he ok'd the leak because he can't -- it didn't happen. And he can't deny it because if he did, Cheney goes down.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

It was my understanding that the information the Wilson disclosed to the press, his report and so forth, were classified information and part of a NIE report(if that is the correct terminology)

No, that is not correct. Joe Wilson did disclose any classified information. Otherwise, he would be facing prosecution right now.

[Vegas Vic]

I wonder what would happen if a special prosecutor was given $50 million and unlimited time to investigate this stuff? Tell him to feel free to go off on a tangent if he reaches a dead end in one area of the investigation. He could even put Bush under oath and ask him if he lied about the number of times he's been arrested or if he's ever used cocaine. If there's any inconsistency in Bush's testimony, congress could implement impeachment hearings.

Nah, I guess that would be too much of a witch hunt by the democrats. The republicans would never do something like that to a democratic president.

[MrBigglesworth]

You're misssing a key point here. Libby did not say Bush actually ok'd the leak. He said Cheney TOLD him that Bush ok'd the leak. That's a big difference and what my analysis is based on. The no comment right now is to protect Cheney, not Bush.
Ah, I see where you are going with it.

[Chubby]

Clearly, in a time of war (by the way, let me know when we actually declare war), we need to authorize Palpatin.... I mean, Bush new temporary powers.

Nothing bad could come from that, right?

[st.cronin]

Clearly, in a time of war (by the way, let me know when we actually declare war), we need to authorize Papatin.... I mean, Bush new temporary powers.

Nothing bad could come from that, right?

What new powers?

[Chubby]

What new powers?

I hope you just forgot to put in the sarcasm tags.

It begins with Patrio and ends with Act.

[Glengoyne]

No, that is not correct. Joe Wilson did disclose any classified information. Otherwise, he would be facing prosecution right now.

He went to a foreign country on the behest of the CIA, and then gave the CIA a report of his findings. If I understand correctly, he was debriefed by the CIA and the result was a report, a NIE, National Intelligence Estimate. That IS classified. In fact, the Novak(or Novack) story that started this whole thing mentioned that the administration wanted to declassify Wilson's report to the CIA.

I've wondered in the past why Wilson "got a pass" on this, and have come to the conclusion that somehow Wilson's trip and conclusions weren't "classified", but that his CIA debriefing was classified. An odd distinction, but that seems to be the only thing that makes sense. Reports have referred to his report to the CIA as classified a number of times.

The NIE, has been declassified and includes bits of information like the CIA's summary indicating that they didn't find Wilson's findings definitive nor profound.

[st.cronin]

I hope you just forgot to put in the sarcasm tags.

It begins with Patrio and ends with Act.

Are you sure you're in the right thread?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

You're almost there. NIE was a very broad report regarding Iraq's weapons capabilities, of which the Niger/yellowcake issue was a small part of. Wilson's debriefing to the CIA was included in a separate CIA intelligence report along with comments and conclusions from the agents that debriefed him. That report was classified and parts included in the NIE. However, Wilson was not a CIA agent nor does what he know or did classified. Think about it like the CIA coming to you to investigate something involving your neighbor because you have good contacts with him. If you agree, you do it but there's no restriction on you speaking to people about what you did (in essence, by involving you they are not classifying the operation). The CIA would like it that you don't speak about it, but you can. Here Wilson didn't speak about it until he saw what was the Whitehouse lying and selling the country on a uranium story he knew to be false.

Here is a response from Joe Wilson in response to a Jonathan Alter article on msnbc.com:

"Just read your article on Rove's perhaps losing his security clearance. In it you suggest that I almost certainly disclosed classified information but don't have a security clearance to lose.

I suggest you reread the article I wrote. I was very careful not to disclose names of sources or anything that could be remotely termed classified. The names of my sources were disclosed by the SSCI report.

I suppose you could argue that the trip itself was classified, but then if you read my book you would have learned that I made it clear to the CIA that I would not undertake a clandestine operation and would have to clear it with the State Department and the ambassador in Niger, both of which I did.

While the trip was discreet it was by no means secret. By the way, the book itself was cleared by the NSC, State and the CIA before it was published.

I would never have talked about the trip itself had the administration not misused the information. In fact, I tried for several months to get the administration to correct the record to no avail before writing the article myself. When I did write the article I did not even mention the two other reports that had been submitted by our ambassador on the ground and by a four-star Marine Corps general, even though I was aware of them, since the rules covering them may have been different than those covering me.

I would appreciate your correcting the impression you have left with your readers.

Sincerely,

Joe Wilson"

[MrBigglesworth]

What new powers?
There is no doubt that the administration is claiming they have new powers. Just with the NSA scandal, they've declared themselves above Congress with anything having to do with national security. That's not my opinion either, that's fact.