The president himself, it seems, was involved in leaking selected parts of a top-secret

[rodeodance]

Monday, January 29, 2007

Maybe they protested too much

ADVERTISEMENT


Advertise Here


Ads by Google
2008 Political Buttons
Presidential Campaign Pins, Buttons Stickers & From All Eras
www.ronwadebuttons.com
Hottest Diet in USA
Lose 20 lbs in 3 weeks! As seen on Oprah & 60 Minutes.
www.WulongforLife.com
George W Bush Humor
Videos, bloopers, songs, jokes, & hilarious cartoons. Broadband.
www.heavy.com

The Bush White House piously denounced leaks of classified information even as the president and his aides were assiduously leaking secrets that would help make their case.

Inside the Beltway, this kind of two-facedness is well within the standards of acceptable hypocrisy, but it may be a shock to some of the president's more ardent supporters who took the White House's mock outrage at face value.

The probe that culminated in the perjury-and-obstruction trial of "Scooter" Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Cheney, originally set out to determine who leaked the identity of a CIA agent married to a Bush administration critic. The answer, now that the case has come to trial, appears to be: Who didn't?

The source of the leak to columnist Robert Novak was then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, by any definition a senior Bush administration official. And Cheney's staff drew up plans for leaking the identity of agent Valerie Plame and debated to whom to give the leak - The New York Times or The Washington Post (both regularly denounced by the White House for printing leaks), Time or Newsweek, maybe NBC?

The president himself, it seems, was involved in leaking selected parts of a top-secret National Intelligence Estimate, supposedly one of the government's most closely guarded documents. With a straight face, the White House explained that the president wasn't leaking; he was declassifying...........

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070129/EDIT/701290304/1003&template=printpicart

[bullimiami]

1. We need a constitutional amendment and law that provides that

government employees are under oath at all times in their official duties.
Jail time for lying on our dime.

[reprobate]

3. I believe that the law already exists. Can't remember where, but there was a

discussion last year right here on DU that brought up that very point. it was pointed out that all government employees were considered to be speaking under oath whenever they were engaged in their official activities.

Since the State if the Union is a constitutional mandate, the opinions were that Fuzzybrain was considered under oath and therefore when he spoke untruths to the American congress he committed a 'high crime or misdemeanor'. So said the lawyers on the board at the time.

[TheMadMonk]

4. It's implicit in their oaths of office.

What is needed is a congressional act or judicial clarification which makes it absolutely explicit.

Their one and only recourse should to be the right to stand mute (either on fifth amendment grounds, or grounds of national security (which should be then tested in camera)).

[Nevernever]

2. Isn't it all part of the "MSM-News Cycle?"

Leak misinformation to the media, then after the media-whores run with it, use their stories as corroberation for the aforementioned failed policies? Sound familiar? Bueller?...Bueller?