I have just a couple TINY questions....?

[seattlemetal]

If Bush didnt leak anything that he didnt have a legal right to, then WHY NOT JUST SAY THAT TWO YEARS AGO???

if he didnt do anything wrong, Scooter wouldnt have lied and obstructed justice to protect him!

If he didnt do anything wrong, then two years ago when asked if he knew anything he should have said "Oh yeah, I declassified that and authorized the release of info, heres the documents showing I declassified it and why"

instead of LYING TO EVERYONE!!!


WHY would he threaten to fire whoever leaked this info if it was OK for it to come out????

why let millions of taxpayer dollars be spent on an investigation of something that was completely aboveboard and legal that HE did?

Why appoint the special prosecutor HIMSELF?

Why refuse to be put under oath when that prosecutor asked questions??

c'mon...I'm DYING to hear the answers to these questions!

[ananda]

1. No problema

BushInc will just declare outing a covert CIA agent legal, like they're doing with domestic warrantless wiretaps.

One law for Dems (cf. McKinney)...

No law for Reeps.

Sue

[BlueEyedSon]

2. because leaking what he leaked (legal or not) was for revenge

and to support an illegal and immoral military invasion

[kentuck]

3. A worthy question...

If everything was legal, why didn't Bush come forward with the truth immediately?

[pnwmom]

9. Yeah, why did he have to be so darn SNEAKY? Doesn't that make him

look. . . well, kinda

GUILTY!!!

[seattlemetal]

11. Ya THINK????

[shadowknows69]

4. You'll get plenty of speculation on those answers

here at DU but I can almost guarantee we won't hear much of one from the people who should be answering them. BTW welcome to DU!! Have I been around long enough to do that yet?

[RufusEarl]

5. Because he's an idiot!!

That's the easy part! As most here know the plan all along by this admin has been to destroy the federal government, dismantle ever entitlement program on the books and make the federal government a toothless one party rule government.

[hwmnbn]

6. simple questions demand simple answers.......

You nailed the chimp with these queries. They have backed themselves into a corner because their lies contradict each other. I want to see them squirm.



Oh hell, I didn't notice your newness. Welcome to DU, seattlemetal. :hi:

[MissMillie]

7. Valid questions

Especially when it concerns a man who promised to bring back honor and integrity to thw White House.

Welcome to DU

[Chiyo-chichi]

8. Damn good questions.

[longship]

10. Those questions that are *begging* to be asked.

:kick:ed

[melissinha]

12. Because he was running for re-election

He couldn't afford to have people analyzing his motive for war at that time. Same with the NSA spying deal, etc. It would open up a can of worms that would have tilted the elections to Demcorats for sure.... it was only a matter of >2 %

[GOPFighter]

13. This is a perfect example of why this Administration...

...will be known for centuries to come as the stupidest, most incompetent, most immoral, most disgusting administration EVER! Makes me wish I could live to be 300 so I could enjoy every disparaging word written about these clowns in the years to come. :woohoo:

[mwb970]

14. I think about this often.

How horrible this period is going to look in the mid- to far-future! It is going to look like America went insane, or all its citizens fell asleep or were hypnotized or something. The Tragedy Of America will be a theme for everything from historical novels to 3-D miniseries.

Maybe we should write some notes to the Future People so they won't think we were all total idiots.

[Igel]

15. Tiny question, but I haven't seen the answer that makes

your question make sense.

There's an NIE from 10/02. It was partially declassified in 10/02, and more was declassified in 7/03. It's what Libby testified to Fitzgerald that * gave Cheney authorization to allow others to discuss with reporters.

There's Plame's identity, which Fitzgerald was told to investigate. Are they different things?

There's a dissent to a section in the body of the NIE written by the INR. The dissent is apparently based on, among other things, Wilson's trip; the trip originated in a 2/02 meeting. There were notes to the meeting; in 6/03 an INR report outlining how the trip came about was drafted (the usual story goes), based on the notes from the 02/02 meeting--it mentioned Plame's name/ID, according to leaks.

There's the implicit assumption that the INR dissent in the NIE contains information that would identify Plame, as the later INR report did. I can't find assumption that made into an assertion with any supporting documentation. I've seen a few assertions that assume this is the case, and lots of people that dearly want it to be the case, but I haven't found anybody that offers any evidence whatsoever--some point to Firedog's site as proof, but it's evidence only if you assume that the INR dissent is the same as the 06/03 document. That reference reduces to a circularity.

Moreover, Fitzgerald has undoubtedly seen the NIE, or asked if it contains Plame's name; if not, he's a blithering idiot, a claim I've not seen made. If Libby was authorized by Cheney, who was authorized by *, to discuss the NIE and divulge its contents, you'd think that Fitz would maybe have made clear that * authorized the release of Plame's name. This might make the object of his investigation legally dubious, and would clearly mean that *'s quotes about the Plame leak are directly applicable to the NIE leak. Instead, Fitz basically says they're different things, and he's not concerned about the release of the NIE. The prosecutor is treating the release of the NIE document as different from the leaking of Plame's name.

I assume Fitz knows what he's doing.

[seattlemetal]

16. So will the Press ask these questions today? or any day?