Scooter Libby: Bush authorized the leaks

[ISiddiqui]

Not that often? Try like hardly ever!

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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-]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

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]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

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]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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/newspap...125630,00.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]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

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]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

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]

Originally Posted by Chubby

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]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

What new powers?

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

It begins with Patrio and ends with Act.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

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]

Originally Posted by Chubby

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]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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.