Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Prove Bush lied about CIA leak

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
MellowOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-22-06 05:42 PM
Original message
Prove Bush lied about CIA leak
Edited on Sat Apr-22-06 05:43 PM by MellowOne
Scooter is fingering him as the source of the leak but Bush's claiming he declassified information so it's legal. What's a convincing rebuttal when Republicans friends make this claim?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rzemanfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-22-06 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. There is a procedure for declassifying-which was NOT followed.
Somewhat like starting a war and then asking Congress to declare one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillZBubb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-22-06 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. I don't have the exact quotes, but Bush said:
at the time the leak become an issue that it was a serious problem, that he didn't know who was responsible, that he wanted as much as anyone to get to the bottom of it, and that he'd fire...etc. etc.

So, if he had already declassified the information, why this charade? He either lied about declassification, or he lied about not knowing. Either way, he's a liar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Waya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-22-06 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Typical Bush*t....
Blowing the cover of a covert Agent is ILLEGAL....even when done by the President....He can't just call it declassification and therefore it's legal....

Wiretapping is legal ....if you get a warrant...without it it's a crime.....The Devil's in the Details........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-22-06 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. In a nutshell, that's it
Whether he had the authority to do so or not is irrelevant. I don't think he did, but that's beside the point.

Furthermore, if the leak, declassification or whatever it is was done for the benefit of national security, why didn't Bush come forward and personally make the disclosure? At a press conference or during a televised address? Why the deception about not knowing anything when he obviously knew?

Where I come from, by the way, a deception is a type of lie. Maybe it's different in Texas. It was probably different in the home of Mr. & Mrs. G. H. W. Bush, given the way they raised their sons.

In any case, why all the cloak and dagger about Mrs. Wilson? Why did she have to be brought into this? The questions at hand were:
  • Did Saddam attempt to buy yellow cake in Africa?
  • More specifically, did Saddam attempt to buy yellow cake in Niger?
  • Was Ambassador Wilson mistaken in reporting that Saddam did not make such an attempt in Niger?
  • If not, was there an actual attempt by Saddam to buy yellow cake in Niger or some other African country which Mr. Wilson was not sent to investigate?
The answers to those questions appear to be No, No, No and No. However, if they were anything else, a simple and straightforward explanation from Mr. Bush would have served everybody much better. It is also curious that no one outside Mr. Bush's inner circle knew that the NIE had been "declassified" until earlier this month. Do we classify declassifications now?

The fact that Mr. Bush made an erroneous assertion about an attempt by Saddam to buy yellow cake in Africa in the 2003 SOTU might normally be written off to human error, except that Bush and his people got nothing right in their case for war against Iraq. There were no weapons; there was no reconstituted nuclear program; there were no working relationships with international terrorists. The problem for the Bush regime posed by Wilson's story that by July, when it ran in The New York Times, no one was asking the above questions. Rather, there was only one question that was being asked:
  • How did these idiots, who seemed to know so many specific facts about Iraq weapons, weapons programs and terrorist connections, manage to get them all wrong?
The reason, one might say, is because they weren't looking for facts, they were looking for talking points.

Almost all the evidence that has come to light since Wilson's revelations in The New York Times support that point of view.

Related thread: With Drumheller's story, defense of the regime becomes untenable]/i] started just before noon PDT by your humble servant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-22-06 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. He lied to the investigators
and his statements are part of the official record. Since he denied having anything to do with this or knowing anything about this leak in public, we can assume that he said the same thing in private, therefore he lied.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-22-06 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. It reallly doesn't matter--Scootie is being charged with obstruction and
perjury, not leaking, not declassifying.

Ya don't lie to the Feds, they make ya pay. So, unless Scooter wants to do some serious time until (and of course, IF) Monkeyboy can find a politically astute moment to pardon him, he's gotta cough up some good news for the Feds like a cat with a ten pound hairball. It had better be good, too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-22-06 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. I think it will all be a matter of "back-dating" the de-classification
It WAS classified at the time it was leaked - there are multiple sources for this. This is no different than somebody trying to backtrack and change all the relevant dates. This is called "lying" and "obstruction of justice" among other things. Plus, please do not accept their argument that the President can declassify at whim - there are finite, written procedures to be followed. Of course that is of no consequence if you believe inthe Divine Right of Presidents as Bush and his minion Gonzales present.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greenman3610 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-22-06 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
8. dont go for the red herring
the red herring is that bush leaked the info from the
NIE. It's a no win argument if you're talking to someone
that believes the pres can kill, wiretap and torture. Of course
he can declassify.
The real issue is, it was all part of a larger pattern of
lying and misleading the people, he only released the
info that supported his position.
Have your friend watch 60 minutes tomorrow
night and understand that Bush knew full
well that he was lying to us all.

anyone else may want to weigh in with
all the other heads ups Bush got from
various intel committees pre-war that
the WMDs were not there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-22-06 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
9. Scooter does not claim Bush authorized Plame leak or declassified
Edited on Sat Apr-22-06 07:08 PM by Garbo 2004
her CIA status. (Scooter in fact has claimed he did not leak her identity to the media but that the media gave him the information.)

The exposure of Plame's CIA identity is not the same as the NIE info which Bush said he declassified (authorized to leak) with an imperial wave of his hand. Interestingly the NIE info was not publicly released (rather than just whispered into Judy Miller's ear) until after, as I understand, the usual decassification procedure was followed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC