Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   White House: "The President authorized declassification of documents." New York Times, Washington Post, etc.: "BUSH LEAKED CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS"   (opinionjournal.com) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

729 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Apr 2006 at 6:38 PM (17 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



182 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2006-04-07 3:09:23 PM  
Yeeeeeeeaaaaaah. He authorized the declassification then let Scooter Libby be indicted after a 2 year investigation for...giggles?
 
2006-04-07 3:12:21 PM  
Pic of submitter:
[image from urbanites.plus.com too old to be available]
 
2006-04-07 3:14:14 PM  
It's said that the Ship of State is the only ship that leaks from the top.

Actually, I never heard that until listening to NPR today.
 
2006-04-07 3:18:27 PM  
From the article...

David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, ...opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.

So now this administration claims the right to, at their own unchecked discretion, divluge national secrets and then say, "It's okay, because George did it???"

I got nothin'. George, come and get my house keys whenever you're ready.
 
2006-04-07 3:24:15 PM  
People are turning this into the criminalization of politics rather than just recognizing that going after a political opponents wife is little more than a frat prank.
 
2006-04-07 3:25:22 PM  
I'm sure when Hillary Clinton is president and releases sensitive information for political gain (especially if that political gain turns out to be a huge mistake), I'm sure Republicans will be just fine with it.
 
2006-04-07 3:27:07 PM  
Doggie McNugget: I'm sure when Hillary Clinton is president and releases sensitive information for political gain (especially if that political gain turns out to be a huge mistake), I'm sure Republicans will be just fine with it.

And I'm sure the Democrats will be completely outraged.
 
2006-04-07 3:28:44 PM  
Ultraspin: Isn't just an admission of guilt couched in convienient verbage?
 
2006-04-07 3:28:54 PM  
Reminder: The root of all of this bullshiat is a false claim that Iraq attempted to buy nuclear materials.

You do remember the triumphant success story that is Iraq, right?
 
2006-04-07 3:30:04 PM  
How much did that investigation cost? I'm sure all of you fiscal conservatives are interested.
 
2006-04-07 3:30:16 PM  
Valerie Plame wasn't doing anything important anyway. I mean, who cares if a large covert op dealing with Iran's nuke program was blown for political revenge. Its not like Iran's nuke ambitions are a threat or anything to be worried about.
 
2006-04-07 3:32:06 PM  
And I'm sure the Democrats will be completely outraged.

I would be, yes.
 
2006-04-07 3:32:18 PM  
somebody please give bush a blowjob so we can impeach him

 
2006-04-07 3:32:36 PM  
If Bush declassified information for political purposes, I can't say I approve of it, but, no matter who the President is, I believe that it is ultimately the President's prerogative to decide what is and what is not "classified" information for purposes of national security. (Also, there are a number of degrees of "classified," but that is another matter altogether.) And I would prefer that the President, an elected official and the Commander-in-Chief, have the final say rather than some unelected intelligence analysts. I'm not saying Bush may not have abused his authority, but I think if this is true, it was well within his Executive powers.
 
2006-04-07 3:32:37 PM  
Remember when Katrina hit New Orleans and George Bush didn't do anything about it?

Remember when Bush flew on an OMG Fighter Jet and declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED in Iraq?

Remember when Dick Cheney SHOT A MAN IN THE FARKING FACE?!

These aren't just bad people...these are massive idiots...
 
2006-04-07 3:33:01 PM  
Dear Bush Voters:

How's that decision lookin' now?
 
2006-04-07 3:33:28 PM  
Ah, moved over here have we...

waits for vernonFL and the others to show up...

But follows the current Pentagon strategy of Blitzkrie...errr Preemptive Strike:

NO, you're all trolls trying to bail out a sinking ship that will, hopefully, take you down with it.
 
2006-04-07 3:35:07 PM  
monstera: somebody please give bush a blowjob so we can impeach him


Ewwwwwwwww.
 
2006-04-07 3:35:26 PM  
Nabb1

So basically, the President should be like an Emperor?
 
2006-04-07 3:35:57 PM  
*giggle* Even the pope is only infallible in matters of faith and church doctorine. Not even Kruschev could have kept a straight face with this story.

Can anyone picture Nikita Kruschev trying to explain the "law is defined by my actions" doctorine to the politburo, without breaking into a fit of hysterics?

Did I miss anything?
 
2006-04-07 3:37:45 PM  
The punchline is that he did all this over a war that he then goes on to lose.
 
2006-04-07 3:39:25 PM  
monstera: somebody please give bush a blowjob so we can impeach him

I'll go down on his daughters, will that work?
 
SSP
2006-04-07 3:40:35 PM  
Leaker-In-Chief

Yesterday, a court filing disclosed that President Bush specifically authorized Vice President Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby to disclose classified information in an effort to discredit Joseph Wilson, a former CIA adviser whose criticisms undermined the administration's case for war. According to the 39-page document submitted by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald on late Wednesday night, Libby testified that Cheney "advised him that the President had authorized [Libby] to disclose relevant portions" of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (N.I.E.), the key CIA document that the administration used to persuade Congress and the American public into war. The court filing "for the first time places Bush and Vice President Cheney at the heart of what Libby testified was an exceptional and deliberate leak of material designed to buttress the administration's claim that Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear weapons." While the document does not address the issue of whether Bush was personally involved in specifically leaking Valerie Plame's identity, it is clear from the timing of the leak authorization by President Bush that he was personally involved in the administration-wide effort to smear Joseph Wilson by any means necessary.

BUSH AUTHORIZED LEAKING DESPITE REPEATED ASSURANCES TO THE CONTRARY: Throughout the past two and half years, while the investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity has been ongoing, Bush has made numerous public statements indicating his desire to crack down on leakers. For instance, on September 30, 2003, Bush said, "There's just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is." He added, "I want to tell you something -- leaks of classified information are a bad thing." And on October 28, 2003, the president said, "I'd like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information." Bush never indicated that he was engaged in leaks, instead casting "himself as a disinterested observer, eager to resolve the case and hold those responsible accountable." The new revelations by Fitzgerald, however, demonstrate Bush was personally authorizing highly-sensitive intelligence leaks and has therefore been engaged in a cover-up about the extent of his own involvement in the leak case. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, "The president has always stood so strong against leaks. If he leaked himself, he should explain why this is different than every other leak."

BUSH WAS INVOLVED IN THE CAMPAIGN TO SMEAR WILSON: "The White House did not challenge the prosecutor's account of Bush's and Cheney's role in orchestrating the effort to discredit Wilson yesterday." Previously, the administration claimed it had not engaged in a smear campaign against Wilson. Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's attorney, previously claimed that the facts were being spun "in an ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to try to get them to report negative information about Plame." But Fitzgerald made clear that Libby's disclosure took place as the result of "a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate" Wilson's claims, adding, "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson." Bush has now been placed at the center of those efforts. (The Progress Report has previously documented why Wilson was smeared -- simply put, because his public criticisms of the administration set into motion a series of events that were not only politically damaging but began to expose how the nation was misled into war. See our timeline.) "If the disclosure is true, it's breathtaking. The president is revealed as the leaker-in-chief," said Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA). While it is clear that Bush was engaged in the campaign to "punish" Wilson, it is unclear what knowledge he had of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. At the very least, Bush should now be asked when he personally learned of Plame and whether he authorized the leak of her covert identity.

N.I.E. BOLSTERED WILSON'S ARGUMENT: Libby testified that he was given specific authority by the president to "disclose certain information in the N.I.E." to former New York Times reporter Judith Miller and others. The administration decided to disclose only "relevant portions" for a very obvious reason -- disclosure of the full N.I.E. would have undermined the administration's argument and bolstered Joseph Wilson's. Recall, Wilson attacked Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was acquiring uranium from Niger to build a nuclear weapon. Wilson wrote in July 2003, "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat," specifically stating he saw no evidence of a uranium transaction. The N.I.E. bolstered Wilson's claim. The CIA gave "low confidence" to the uranium claim and said "we cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore." The estimate further said the intelligence on Iraq's uranium acquisition was "inconclusive."

BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S DEFENSE FULL OF LEAKY HOLES: At the heart of the White House and Libby's defense of their actions is the claim that a March 2003 executive order allows both the president and vice president to unilaterally declassify intelligence documents. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated yesterday that Bush has "inherent authority to decide who should have classified information." The White House maintains Bush's decision to disclose classified information means he declassified it. But it was unclear if that was the President's intention in this case. First, the action to leak the October 2002 N.I.E. was apparently done "without notifying Cabinet officials or others in the administration, including the CIA authors of the National Intelligence Estimate," raising questions about whether a real declassification ever occurred. Moreover, as Fitzgerald writes in the court filing, then-deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was engaged in a process to get the N.I.E. officially declassified at the same time Libby was leaking classified portions of the N.I.E. to reporters. On July 18, 2003, the administration decided to officially disclose the contents of the full N.I.E. at a White House press briefing, "suggesting the information had not been declassified until that time." Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, argued on National Public Radio yesterday, "At a minimum, it is grossly improper for the president to order a subordinate to disclose a highly classified document to an uncleared reporter and then have that document treated as continuing to be classified."

CASE AGAINST LIBBY NOT AFFECTED: The new disclosures do not affect the legal case against Scooter Libby. Libby is on trial for having allegedly lied to FBI investigators and the federal grand jury about how he learned of Plame's identity. As special prosecutor Fitzgerald said at his October 2005 press conference announcing the indictments against Libby, "At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true. It was false." The court filing reasserts that the "central issue at trial will be whether defendant lied when he testified that he was not aware that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA prior to his purported conversation with Tim Russert about Mr. Wilson's wife on or about July 10, 2003." - American Progress Report

Here is the 39 page incriminating document

/conservatives, if you don't know what you are talking about, then STFU
 
2006-04-07 3:41:50 PM  
Action Replay Nick: So basically, the President should be like an Emperor?

It is within his power to declassify documents and taking that away from the president could cause problems in the future. He should be held accountable for the manner in which he does so however, in this case going against national security for personal gain.

I don't think the man was supporting Bush's use of the policy so much as the executive powers outlined in this country. Bush is not Emperor as congress can impeach him. The reaction to him leaking doucments like this should not be pulling the power for him and future presidents but intead actually electing a congress that will take this man on.
 
2006-04-07 3:42:46 PM  
I'm sorry...let mer get this stright...the president, the guy responsible for the illegal wiretaps on americans....he tells one of his jag-offs to disclose the idenitity of an undercover agent. unpossible.
 
2006-04-07 3:43:20 PM  
So because it's classified the instant that he leaks it makes it unclassified because he leaked it because it's him doing the leaking.

Doesn't this sort of cognitive backflipping give you a headache? How much more painful is it to admit that the guy you support did something wrong?
 
2006-04-07 3:43:27 PM  
Action Replay Nick: So basically, the President should be like an Emperor?

No, you are reading my comment way too broadly. Historically, the Executive Branch is given extremely broad powers and discretion on issues of "national security." If the President choses to declassify intelligence, I think it would be within his authority to do so.
 
2006-04-07 3:43:59 PM  
One of the interesting things about declassifying documents is that the department that originated the document has to be notified first. Clearly the President didn't follow the standard protocols because the CIA only learned about it when they would have read Novak's column.
 
2006-04-07 3:44:44 PM  
The whole incident was a mighty fine use of "executive powers", exactly the kind of thing you can feel extremely proud of as an American.
 
2006-04-07 3:46:27 PM  
PhysicsJunky

Yeah, but what are we talking about here? The information, once it's leaked by the President, is no longer classified? And he doesn't have to make it known that he is in fact the one who's doing the declassifying?

I don't like that one bit. In fact, that seems like the total opposite of national security. It seems incredibly dangerous.
 
2006-04-07 3:46:52 PM  
Nabb1: No, you are reading my comment way too broadly. Historically, the Executive Branch is given extremely broad powers and discretion on issues of "national security." If the President choses to declassify intelligence, I think it would be within his authority to do so.

When a document is declassified, it's made available to the public at large. In this instance, the document was only made available anonymously to Judith Miller.

It was only later on they covered their tracks by making it generally available.
 
2006-04-07 3:47:40 PM  
Didn't I hear him say he would fire anyone involved with the leak?
 
2006-04-07 3:48:33 PM  
Additionally, there's another subtlety to this story that isn't getting as much attention:

The President and Vice-President were interviewed by Fitzgerald about the leak. Did they admit to their roles or did they lie?
 
2006-04-07 3:48:37 PM  
Mugato,

He was tricking us all along. There was no leak. Only the declassification of information he's legally allowed to declassify.

Also, our president is an alcoholic cokehead. Just wanted to throw that out there...
 
2006-04-07 3:48:40 PM  
Vanilla, vanella, chocolate, strawberry, Let's call the whole thing off.
 
2006-04-07 3:50:14 PM  
Occams_Electric_Razor: Did they admit to their roles or did they lie?

Ooooh... good question.
 
2006-04-07 3:50:38 PM  
The President and Vice-President were interviewed by Fitzgerald about the leak. Did they admit to their roles or did they lie?

Casts an all to obvious explanation on the "We refuse to testify under oath" thing doesn't it?
 
2006-04-07 3:53:34 PM  
Tigger: Casts an all to obvious explanation on the "We refuse to testify under oath" thing doesn't it?

Whether you're under oath or not, lying to a special prosecutor gets you in deep trouble.
 
2006-04-07 3:55:28 PM  
Feingold: This is your cue
 
2006-04-07 3:56:33 PM  
So he declassified information, but pretended it was still classified and put Libby in the position of having to lie; he also caused a grand jury investigation to waste lots of time and money investigating something that didn't need to be; he outed a CIA operative, ruining her career and putting at risk the lives of her overseas contacts, which actually serves to weaken the security of our nation ... am I missing anything? Did I get something wrong here? Am I reading too much or too little into something?

This are real questions. I've honestly "been out of the loop" so far as the whole Plame affair goes, so much of this is news to me.
 
2006-04-07 3:57:20 PM  
Here's the deal, kids. The President of the United States took steps to reveal classified information, not because he thought it was in the country's security interests to do so, but purely for political purposes. Technically legal or technically illegal, it's pretty much undisputed that this is what he did.

Now, maybe I'm slow or something, but I'm having a difficult time figuring out how that's OK for any politician. I'm having a difficult time figuring out how this sort of behavior is something that, in the words of Dubya's own campaign promise, would "restore honor and dignity to the White House."

Any of you Bush-lovers want to take a crack at explaining what I'm missing about this, since I'm obviously too simple-minded to figure it out for myself?
 
2006-04-07 3:58:44 PM  
Cyberluddite

You will note that the resident loons are absent today.

Presumably there is a limit to intellectual dishonesty at which point they simply ignore the issue.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2006-04-07 3:59:39 PM  
Valerie Plame wasn't doing anything important anyway

What does that have to do with anything? In the documents released this week Bush isn't accused of authorizing any information about her to be revealed.
 
2006-04-07 4:00:09 PM  
ArcadianRefugee: am I missing anything?

Well, maybe a $200+ Billion dollar war for reasons that turned out to be a big steaming pile of BS. But other than that you pretty much covered it all pretty well.
 
2006-04-07 4:00:42 PM  
I turned on good ole Rush for about 30 seconds today. In that time I heard him spout the talking point...

"This is a non-story."

Even Rush has got to be tired of trying to sweep Georgie's shiat under the carpet.
 
2006-04-07 4:01:03 PM  
PinocchioDeBergerac:

So now this administration claims the right to, at their own unchecked discretion, divluge national secrets and then say, "It's okay, because George did it???"

[Knocks on your very empty head]

Ummmmm yeah, it just happens to be his job to decide which document get declassified or not.
 
2006-04-07 4:01:51 PM  
Nabb1: If the President choses to declassify intelligence, I think it would be within his authority to do so.

For sure. If it was to be de-classified, it should have been made public. Not de-classified so they could legally slip sensitive information to someone under the table for political purposes.
 
2006-04-07 4:05:35 PM  
BIldo

I refer you to Crooow's post immediately after yours.
 
2006-04-07 4:06:06 PM  
Croooow!:

If it was to be de-classified, it should have been made public. Not de-classified so they could legally slip sensitive information to someone under the table for political purposes.

First, I would think that by giving the information to a reporter, they were making it public.

Second, what is the information, that Iraq was pursuing uranium in Niger? That was given to the public in his SOTUS.
 
2006-04-07 4:07:08 PM  
Bildo: [Knocks on your very empty head] Ummmmm yeah, it just happens to be his job to decide which document get declassified or not.

[Knocks on your very empty head]

Ummmmm yeah, you forgot to add ". . . for purely political purposes, rather than for national security interests."

Though it seems that the members of the Dubya Cult are just fine with that for some reason. I'm not. Because I'm a patriotic American.
 
Displayed 50 of 182 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.