Scooter Libby: Bush authorized the leaks
 

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?p...SEZDA&refer=us

couple links for flavor.

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.

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.

Sigh.

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.

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

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

*gasp*
I'm shocked.

*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. :)

this is not surprising, even if true.

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?

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.

you voted for him? this is all your fault!

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.

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

:D

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

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.

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).

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?

Haha you really HAVEN'T been following things too closely!

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

You Burke-ites are so weird.

:D

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?

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

The liberal media at the daily press conference didn't even ask Scotty about it today.

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.

"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?

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

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.

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/relea...0030929-7.html

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.

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

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.

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. ;)

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?

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.

----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.

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.

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.

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.