Wave of Criticism Engulfs Bush Over Leak Case (The Sun)

[kpete]

Wave of Criticism Engulfs Bush Over Leak Case

By JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 7, 2006

The claim that President Bush authorized the release to a reporter of portions of a highly sensitive intelligence summary on Iraq triggered a wave of criticism yesterday from Democrats, who accused Mr. Bush of hypocrisy for publicly denouncing leaks of classified information despite his own alleged involvement in selectively disclosing pre-war intelligence.

In a court filing first reported yesterday on the Web site of The New York Sun, a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, said the former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, told a grand jury that in July 2003 Mr. Cheney advised that Mr. Bush had given permission for the disclosure to a New York Times reporter of findings from a national intelligence estimate about Iraq.

Mr. Fitzgerald's inquiry focused, at least initially, on allegations that White House officials retaliated against a former ambassador critical of the administration, Joseph Wilson, by telling reporters that Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA and played a role in sending him on an official Iraq-related fact-finding trip to Africa.

According to prosecutors, Ms. Plame's status at the CIA was classified and her exposure could have violated the law.

http://www.nysun.com/article/30575?page_no=1

[jamesinca]

1. Wave nothing, we need a tsunami

this thing should be nothing but a tsunami at its smallest. I don't want no wave of criticism.

[fasttense]

2. So why did he lie about it?

If he was authorized to leak the information, why did he then lie about it to the grand jury and federal investigators?

Was he trying to protect the pResident? Was he trying to protect the VP? Is he now lying to cover himself? Why lie if you think you are authorized?

It all sounds fishy to me. I don't understand how this gets Libby anywhere in his defense of lying to a grand jury and federal investigators.

[phiddle]

4. He is now angling for a pardon,

with the not-too-subtle threat that this will go much higher and deeper if it's not stopped.

[Dhalgren]

5. Would this in any way set Libby up for a plea-bargain? I do not

even pretend to understand the niceties of our vaunted legal system, but it would seem that implicating higher ups is a way to sweeten a deal. And at the end of the day, it simply may be the truth that Bush actually did authorize the leak. If that is proved true, Bush must go to prison for a long time - no pardon, no "in consideration of" bullshit! Hard time, Leavenworth, special wing for the thirty or so inmates from his administration - unless he winds up at Spandau, where he really belongs...

[HereSince1628]

3. We also know that from very early in the investigation Fitz learned

who the leaker is, but Fitz hasn't said who that was, and so there is no indication, after so many months, that it was illegal.

Now just WHO could have made a "legal" leak? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.