Did Bush authorize leak of Plame's Identity?

[mattp]

Surprise!

 

Scooter Libby apparently says Bush authorized the leak of Valerie Plame's identity. This story just came out a half hour ago.

 

Liberal Media

[chucK]

I don't think your information is totally correct here. The story is that Bush authorized leaking highly classified information. But the information was related to the national intelligence estimate, not the Valerie Plame thing.

 

For more in-depth info, see here .

[Peter_Puget]

Typical post there Mattp. As a matter of accuracy Libby's claim came out more than 30' ago. Here is a longer piece from the NY Sun that came out much earlier:

 

"Defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was 'pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the vice president thought that it was 'very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out," Mr. Fitzgerald wrote.

Mr. Libby is said to have testified that "at first" he rebuffed Mr. Cheney's suggestion to release the information because the estimate was classified. However, according to the vice presidential aide, Mr. Cheney subsequently said he got permission for the release directly from Mr. Bush. "Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the prosecution filing said.

 

 

 

I think it adds a slightly different twist to the matter.

 

I am glad that you did note that the limited write up in the USA today does show a bias.....

 

PP

[mattp]

Typical post, there, PP. You show your constant manipulative debate of the "facts" and sidetracking of any discussion away from the issue. I simply took a press release, one half hour old, and reproduced it. I noted it was unclear what that press release actually said.

 

You are correct, however, that it specifically has to do not with leaking Plame's identity but with other intelligence.

 

And: USA Today - biased against the President?

[Peter_Puget]

Typical post, there, PP. You show your constant manipulative debate of the "facts" and sidetracking of any discussion away from the issue. I simply took a press release, one half hour old, and reproduced it. I noted it was unclear what that press release actually said.

 

You are correct, however, that it specifically has to do not with leaking Plame's identity but with other intelligence.

Emphasis added!

 

Mattp's earlier post:

 

 

Surprise!

 

Scooter Libby apparently says Bush authorized the leak of Valerie Plame's identity. This story just came out a half hour ago.

 

Liberal Media

 

 

 

Please show where Matt "noted it was unclear what that press release actually said."

 

 

Full quote of Matt's reference:

WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told a federal grand jury that he believed President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

Before his indictment for allegedly lying to that grand jury and to prosecutors, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby testified that Cheney told him to pass on the information and that it was Bush who authorized the leak, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to a July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and reporter Judith Miller of The New York Times.

 

[chucK]

If, in fact, Bush actually did authorize leaking this information, it is probably not a crime, because the Prez (by some accounts anyway) is authorized to unilaterally declassify information. So probably no impeachable offense, darn it.

 

But, IMO (if true) it would show more evidence that the Bush administration cherry-picked in the rush to war by selectively declassifying items that bolstered their case while jealously guarding all other information on the bogus premise that releasing it would jeopardize national security.

[Peter_Puget]

If, in fact, Bush actually did authorize leaking this information, it is probably not a crime, because the Prez (by some accounts anyway) is authorized to unilaterally declassify information. So probably no impeachable offense, darn it.

 

But, IMO (if true) it would show more evidence that the Bush administration cherry-picked to by selectively declassifying items that bolstered their case while jealously guarding all other information on the bogus premise that releasing it would jeopardize national security.

 

Oh please CHuck, who would argue anything else? Do you think any President has acted differently? Should a President act differently?

[olyclimber]

thank goodness today is not going to be another boring day on CC.com!!!

[mattp]

Should a President act differently?

 

Oh PLEEEZE. Of COURSE the president should act differently. We do not elect them to mislead the country into war.

 

Sure the Man may have done it with the Gulf of Tonquin incident, but are you trying to argue that this is or should be what a President does?

 

If you really think ever president cherry picks information and distorts the truth to take us into disastrous war, you obviously must hate America and I suggest you move.

[chucK]

Why yes, I do believe a president shouldn't lie to the public and/or congress in order to sell a war.

 

People oughta at least have the true justifications before we send off our kids to die for the cause.

 

There should be some oversight in starting up a war. It's a serious thing, and it's tough to back out of once it's started. It's that old measure twice, cut once thing.

 

Do you think the President should be able to just lie about something as serious as this?

[Peter_Puget]

Imagine =>

 

The President has a huge amount of classified intelligence information concerning a possible threat by X. The President after reviewing the information comes to the conclusion that X poses a threat to his country. It should be noted that some of his administration came to the opposite conclusion. Some of the classified information clearly did not support the threat scenario. Some did and some frankly was ambiguous. The President having come to his conclusion now has to convey his position to the nation at large. A lively debate takes place. The President decides to declassify info and “leak” some info to the press. Is it at all reasonable to think that he should reveal all the information? Of course not. Since he can only release a small percentage of the info should he would naturally release the information that he felt clearly supported his cause? Yes he is an advocate. There is nothing sinister about this behavior.

 

Note to CHuK: This behavior is not lying.

 

Note to Mattp: Please show where I "manipulat[e] debate of the "facts"" or "sidetracking of any discussion away from the issue" or you "noted it was unclear what that press release actually said"

 

 

 

[archenemy]

I can't even imagine the president having intelligence; much less anything else you wrote after that amusing statement.

[chucK]

Peter,

Under your scenario, I agree that nothing sinister is going on.

 

However, your scenario assumes that it was truly believed by the administration that there was a threat. Information continues to come out that no major threat existed from Iraq, and that the administration wanted to attack Iraq even before they were in office. A threat from Iraq was not the motive.

 

How does your scenario play out if this was instead an effort by our government to strengthen our grip on a very important part of the world. Suppose the administration truly believed this would benefit our country in terms of geo-political power. If this were more of an agressive power-play than an act of self-defense, would you still think there is nothing sinister about selling the invasion of a sovereign country under different pretenses?

 

Do you not believe that it might at least be of some value to get advice from at least the congress that know the true situation when you are committing our nation to a very costly endeavour?

 

Do you think there is any value to the part in the constitution that says only congress has the right to declare war?

[mattp]

PP:

It is clear that the President KNEW that the claim that the aluminum tubes were for a centrifuge was at best doubtful but he said, in his State of the Union Speech, that we KNEW that he had purchased the aluminum tubes for that purpose.

 

Further, just a week ago he said that he had never tried to link Saddam and 911; whereas in his State of the Union Speech he very clearly made a serious attempt to link the two while parsing words so that, if you analyze the text, he did not quite say it directly.

 

Given his lies then and their ongoing cover-up of those lies through lying and manipulating the truth now, is there really any reason to think that your "scenario" has any validity?

[Peter_Puget]

Chuck-

 

In a sense this goes back to our “imminent” argument. Cherry picking data and advocating a position is used everyday in many situations. (eg minimum wage debates) It is in fact a necessary part of virtually any governing process. You and Matt seem to be using is as prima facie evidence of unethical/immoral behavior o the part of this administration.

 

As I repeatedly stated in our earlier discussions, I took the administration to be arguing that its position was that Iraq was not an imminent threat and in that sense wasn’t an act of self defense as commonly understood. So the situation you describe in your second paragraph is closer to what I believe actually happened than the self-defense model I think you are suggesting.

 

In general would like the public motivations to be similar to the private motivations however I do think it would be easy to create hypothetical scenarios in which we would both think out and out lying would be acceptable.

 

As far as Congress I am not quite sure what you are asking. Does Congress ever have 100% the same access to information that the President does? I am sure that they had enough info to make an informed decision.

[Peter_Puget]

Quote from post above:

 

Note to Mattp: Please show where I "manipulat[e] debate of the "facts"" and "sidetracking of any discussion away from the issue" and you "noted it was unclear what that press release actually said"

 

I did change the or's to and's.

[mattp]

Here's your dodge again, PP.

 

I already acknowledged already that I misrepresented the topic of the press release because I didn't really read it. (sound like a familiar move of yours?). In answer to the second part of your counterjab, I find the whole thing all about splitting hairs and being unclear -- maybe you do not.

 

Feel better now? Can you address the questions we are discussing -- whether the President did anything wrong in authorizing the leaks? (And, by the way, if you want to follow a sidetrack why don't you argue that Libby leaked plame's identity all on his own without higher authorization )

[mattp]

PP:

It is not "cherry picking" to say that "we've learned that he has purchased aluminum tubes for processing weapons-grade aluminum" when in fact he had been told that we had learned nothing of the kind. It is lying.

 

It is not "cherry picking" to say something that clearly sounds like you are saying Saddam attacked us on 911, and then to unequivocably deny that you ever said such a thing. And you can't defend this as inadvertent: he did it in the SOU speech and Cheney did it literally dozens of times. They lied then, and they are now lying in saying they never did it.

[Peter_Puget]

Here's your dodge again, PP.

 

I already acknowledged already that I misrepresented the topic of the press release because I didn't really read it. (sound like a familiar move of yours?). In answer to the second part of your counterjab, I find the whole thing all about splitting hairs and being unclear -- maybe you do not.

 

Feel better now? Can you address the questions we are discussing -- whether the President did anything wrong in authorizing the leaks? (And, by the way, if you want to follow a sidetrack why don't you argue that Libby leaked plame's identity all on his own without higher authorization )

 

1) Thanks but I wasn't looking for a dodge. better that you simply respond directly to my questions.

 

2) Didn't I just respond to a bunch of Chuck's questions? Aren't "We" (Peter and Matt) discussing the questions in our posts? Certainly I have asked some questions.

 

So to summarize: in your first post you make an assertion based on not reading a two paragrph article.

 

In your second post you make a series of assertions you cannot support.

 

In your last post you slam me for not addressing the issues at hand. See red above!

[mattp]

I had already answered your question. Now carry on:

PP:

It is not "cherry picking" to say that "we've learned that he has purchased aluminum tubes for processing weapons-grade aluminum" when in fact he had been told that we had learned nothing of the kind. It is lying.

 

It is not "cherry picking" to say something that clearly sounds like you are saying Saddam attacked us on 911, and then to unequivocably deny that you ever said such a thing. And you can't defend this as inadvertent: he did it in the SOU speech and Cheney did it literally dozens of times. They lied then, and they are now lying in saying they never did it.

[chucK]

As I repeatedly stated in our earlier discussions, I took the administration to be arguing that its position was that Iraq was not an imminent threat and in that sense wasn’t an act of self defense as commonly understood.

Here you appear to acknowledge that it is commonly understood that the Prez was making a self-defense argument. Though you do not think any misdirection toward this pretense was being made? Is this an error of the public? Was the press making a bigger case for self-defense than the Prez (who was making none?). Is the prez just a poor communicator? Why the reason for the disconnect between public perception and Presidential statements then?

 

So the situation you describe in your second paragraph is closer to what I believe actually happened than the self-defense model I think you are suggesting.

I do believe the second paragraph (power-play motive) is the correct one, but I believe the administration sold it under the various guises of self-defense and humanitarian.

 

I do think it would be easy to create hypothetical scenarios in which we would both think out and out lying would be acceptable.

 

True belief in an imminent threat would be one situation where I would endorse the ends justify the means. But even then, when you do something like this, you should accept responsibility. When your judgement call turns out in hindsight to be a complete ill-informed blunder, you should be held accountable. Not that this is at all pertinent to the current situation (except for the blunder part), as even you agree that no imminent threat existed or was believed to exist by the President.

 

 

Does Congress ever have 100% the same access to information that the President does? I am sure that they had enough info to make an informed decision.

They should have all the facts, because they are the only ones that have the true authority to declare war. The Prez as commander in chief has some latitude, in a time of war, but as far as invading a sovereign nation without due provocation, that ought to be decided by more than just one individual.

[Peter_Puget]

Matt -

 

I am not saying you are cherry picking. I am saying you are using Bush's cherry picking as evidence that he is telling untruths. I believe this should be relatively clear in my repsonse to Chuck.

 

PP

[Off_White]

reet, Reet, REET, REET.

[Peter_Puget]

Here you appear to acknowledge that it is commonly understood that the Prez was making a self-defense argument.

 

It was a self-defense argument but not as commonly understood by the term. The US action was preemptive. It went against what was commonly accepted as legal self-defense under international law. The US and Australia too made no bones about this. Here is where the word imminent is important. Go back an reread my posts I the various “imminent” threads (and our PMs) Of course there were other arguments made as well.

 

PP

[mattp]

Peter, that "imminent" dodge is worn out. They said that if we didn't act now, we'd likely find proof in the form of a mushroom cloud over New York. And they said this at a time when our Allies, the weapons inspectors, and significant segments of our own intelligence community were saying he had no nuclear weapons and no nuclear weapons program.

 

Further, they said then and I'm told they said it again LAST WEEK that Saddam kicked the inspectors out. That is a straight up lie. Saddam let them inspect wherever they wanted and I believe he even backed down over the "presidential palaces" business in the end but, eitiher way, that didn't affect our allies' and our intelligence community's assessment of his capabilities. When the inspesctors left, it was President Bush or one of our guys who told them they better clear out because we were going to bomb.

PP:

It is not "cherry picking" to say that "we've learned that he has purchased aluminum tubes for processing weapons-grade aluminum" when in fact he had been told that we had learned nothing of the kind. It is lying.

 

It is not "cherry picking" to say something that clearly sounds like you are saying Saddam attacked us on 911, and then to unequivocably deny that you ever said such a thing. And you can't defend this as inadvertent: he did it in the SOU speech and Cheney did it literally dozens of times. They lied then, and they are now lying in saying they never did it.

 

Explain how these are not LIES.