Bush authorized leak of Iraq intelligence estimate, indicted ex-Cheney aide says

Joeychgo

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
6,044
Reaction score
193
Location
Chicago, IL
President Bush authorized the leak of secret intelligence to the New York Times to help defend the war in Iraq, a former top White House aide has said.

The claim comes from Lewis Libby, the former chief-of-staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Mr Libby is facing trial for allegedly obstructing an investigation into a different leak.

He is accused of lying to prosecutors investigating who revealed the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame to the press.

Ms Plame's husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, wrote a high-profile article in the New York Times in July 2003 casting doubt on a key White House claim about Saddam Hussein's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Mr Libby says in court papers filed on Wednesday that Mr Cheney then told him to pass information from the classified National Intelligence Estimate to Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter.

First Bush link

Mr Bush approved Mr Cheney's instruction, the vice-president told Mr Libby, according to the court papers.

The lawyer prosecuting Mr Libby does not claim Mr Bush broke the law.

But Mr Libby's testimony marks the first time he has put the president into the frame of events surrounding leaks from the White House to the press over the Iraq war.

No-one has been charged with a crime over the leaking of Mrs Plame's name to reporters.

Mr Libby is charged with lying to investigators and obstructing the investigation.

He resigned as chief-of-staff to Mr Cheney after he was charged and is due to go on trial in January 2007.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4885100.stm

Published: 2006/04/06 17:39:44 GMT
 
I heard about this on the radio while i was working, I am going to wait and see what unfolds.
 
pepperman said:
...I am going to wait and see what unfolds.


heh heh...like you have any OTHER choices in the matter. :D

I've got news for you people: Bush can authorize leaks. He's the Boss.

"The lawyer prosecuting Mr Libby does not claim Mr Bush broke the law."
 
fossten said:
heh heh...like you have any OTHER choices in the matter. :D

I've got news for you people: Bush can authorize leaks. He's the Boss.

"The lawyer prosecuting Mr Libby does not claim Mr Bush broke the law."


President Bush on Sept. 30, 2003, talking with reporters after meeting with business people at University of Chicago.

Listen, I know of nobody - I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.

And again I repeat, you know, Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations. You've heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information - outside the administration. And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would.

And then we'll get to the bottom of this and move on. But I want to tell you something - leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we've had them - there's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.


Similar statement posted on the WHITE HOUSE WEBSITE

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action


I have ONE question.

If the allegations from Lewis Libby prove to be true, is the President not caught squarly in a lie? After all, he is quoted on the White House Website, a pretty reliable source I would think, that he didnt know of anyone in his administration who leaked the information. That would be a direct lie if he was the one who ordered the leak. Correct?

And if so, then what?
 
Joeychgo said:
I have ONE question.

If the allegations from Lewis Libby prove to be true, is the President not caught squarly in a lie? After all, he is quoted on the White House Website, a pretty reliable source I would think, that he didnt know of anyone in his administration who leaked the information. That would be a direct lie if he was the one who ordered the leak. Correct?

And if so, then what?

Btw, that was 3 questions but who's counting.


I have ONE question.

Exactly what information are we talking about that was leaked?
 
Joeychgo said:
President Bush on Sept. 30, 2003, talking with reporters after meeting with business people at University of Chicago.




Similar statement posted on the WHITE HOUSE WEBSITE




I have ONE question.

If the allegations from Lewis Libby prove to be true, is the President not caught squarly in a lie?...

No. By Presidential Executive Order 13292, the President of the United States is authorized upon an intelligence panel review to de-classify any information he sees fit. If it's de-classified and released, then it's not leaked.
 
Then why was there an investigation into who leaked the information? If it was declassified, (which is nothing but an assumption) then there shouldnt have been an investigation - because no crime was committed. True?

If it was declassified before the information was disseminated, fine. But there was then nothing to investigate because it was legal to disseminate it.
 
....we're going to get stuck in another nuanced legal quagmire. All of these so-called "scandals" around Bush are all legal, yet highly technical. So, now what we'll see is people polarize the issue with NO understanding of the technical nature of the situations, on both sides of the aisle.

And all of those investigations ultimately found nothing ilegal happened. Scooter was indicted not because of what he did in the White House, but because his statements were inconsistant on the stand. And, it's even doubtful he'll be convicted of perjury.
 
Joeychgo said:
Then why was there an investigation into who leaked the information? If it was declassified, (which is nothing but an assumption) then there shouldnt have been an investigation - because no crime was committed. True?

If it was declassified before the information was disseminated, fine. But there was then nothing to investigate because it was legal to disseminate it.

I believe you're wandering around in search of a thought, and you're missing the point. This is hilarious, that everyone's getting their panties in a wad over this. This is like the argument that Bush and Cheney have hijacked our foreign policy. Hell-ooooooooo! They are in charge, they get to do that.

Scooter Libby was testifying, and he said he was AUTHORIZED to "disseminate" information by the President. The buck stops with the President, and therefore, Libby committed no crime.

As far as whether or not an investigation should have happened, ask Ronnie Earle about that.
 
Joeychgo said:
Then why was there an investigation into who leaked the information? If it was declassified, (which is nothing but an assumption) then there shouldnt have been an investigation - because no crime was committed. True?

Can anybody tell me what information was leaked? I love this. Nobody even knows what is being argued about. Just another 'pin the tail' exercise.

What great is, Libby walks free and clear.

And what about Rove? Guess the Lefties have forgot about him just like Bush forgot about Osama, eh!:rolleyes:
 
MonsterMark said:
Can anybody tell me what information was leaked? I love this. Nobody even knows what is being argued about. Just another 'pin the tail' exercise.

What great is, Libby walks free and clear.

And what about Rove? (whispers) ...ROVE... Guess the Lefties have forgot about him just like Bush forgot about Osama, eh!:rolleyes:

LOL
 
Where were you, Joey, when all THIS happened?

ILLEGAL TRANSFER OF US BALLISTIC MISSILE TECHNOLOGY TO CHINA
WINSTON MIDEAST ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY - April 7, 1998
Part 1: CHINA SENT NUCLEAR-CAPABLE MISSILES TO SAUDI ARABIA
Part 2: "SAUDIS MAKES NICE WITH IRAN" & IRAN HAS NUKES

Emanuel A. Winston, Middle East analyst & commentator

In the NY TIMES of April 4, 1998, Jeff Gerth with Raymond Bonner exposed a manipulation wherein the US government and 2 major American arms companies transferred Ballistic Missile technology to China. As a Grand Jury was investigating whether 2 American companies (Loral Space & Communications and Hughes Electronics) gave China space expertise that significantly advanced Beijing's ballistic missile program, President Clinton approved of this transfer 2 months ago. (1)

Clinton undercut a Grand Jury investigation in order to protect what? or whom? Gerth also exposed the huge $2.5 million contribution made by Loral and Hughes to the Democratic Party since 1991. (2)

The Gerth/Bonner NYT article tells us that this China transfer investigation began as a result of an incident 2/15/96 when a Chinese rocket with an American satellite blew up. The Chinese asked the American company, Loral, to find the problem, requiring an illegal transfer of US technology to China.

While the Gerth/Bonner article speaks of 1996, this may be the tip of the iceberg. Bill Gertz of the WASHINGTON TIMES 8/4/96 wrote an investigative article about the Chinese exporting missile parts to Syria in violation of the (MTCR) Missile Technology Control Regime.(3) This was based upon statements by the CIA that the recipient was the Syrian Research Institute in charge of developing missile production capabilities for Middle East nations. In common English, it means that Syria is acting as both a research and procuring agent for itself and other Arab nations, particularly Iran. But that isn't the real mystery, nor the full story as I wrote August 4, 1996 in "CHINESE MISSILES". (4)

In November 1991, Syria signed an agreement with China to purchase a 30 kilowatt nuclear reactor, supposedly for research. Nuclear proliferation experts KNOW that acquisition of such "research" reactors is often step one in building a nuclear weapons program. In September 1991, the US Arms Control & Disarmament Agency said Syria was developing a "nuclear program with suspicious intentions". (5)

Various American corporations and governmental interests wanted to supply Saudi Arabia with advanced Ballistic Missiles. The problem was that Congress wouldn't approve transfer of such nuclear-capable missiles as the Pershing, among others. But, Saudi Arabia did take delivery of Ballistic Missiles that were nuclear-capable from China called the SS2 Silkworm. That was surprising because, at that time, China was thought not sufficiently advanced technologically to deliver a high quality, debugged, reliable system. Countries like Russia, America, France had taken years through exhaustive testing and failures to develop similar long range missiles that worked.

A big question is: "Which of the major nations supplied China in the mid to late 80's with technology, so advanced that Saudi Arabia (a sophisticated arms buyer) accepted delivery of an operational system from a relatively unproven supplier?" The Soviets wouldn't give China its best because China was a probable threat. A French sale through China would be exposed too soon, causing major diplomatic problems. Which country and on whose authority was such an illegal transfer made?

The finger points to the US as the likely candidate for a covert transfer of technology to China and then on to Saudi Arabia as a fully operational missile system. At that time China was assessed as not having the technology to ship a tested and de-bugged missile. Unproven Chinese technology for fuel mixtures, telemetry, engine metals, et al couldn't meet the test of a reliable synergistic missile system - or so the experts thought. Nevertheless, they were shipped and there was an outcry in the US that Saudi Arabia had purchased nuclear-capable missiles. The Saudis denied this but refused to lift the metal shrouds (casings). If they had, the inspectors would probably have identified US-made components.

At that point in time, Reagan was President, Bush was Vice President (formerly DCI: Director of Central Intelligence) and Casper Weinberger was Secretary of Defense. Weinberger came to government from Bechtel, a corporation deeply involved in Arab military and civilian projects, known to be exceptionally pro-Arab. Weinberger's consistent hostility toward Israel has yet to be examined in light of his withholding vital information from Israel while assisting Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations. Many American Arabists in Washington were and are connected to major corporations who owed a great deal of their cash flow to oil rich Arab nations.

When something critical is exposed in Washington, a pre-prepared plan usually springs into action to provide "credible deniability". Perhaps both former Pres. Bush and his brother then working in China could tell Congress more about this illegal transfer of US technology and how it was possible to circumvent Congress to help a client like Saudi Arabia who was then an immense source of ready cash. To avoid discovery transfer technology to a third country who had a military style government where military secrets fell into a black hole and never came out. China would be a natural selection, particularly in the age of the "new understanding" initiated by Richard Nixon.

A fall guy was needed. Shortly after delivery of the missiles was exposed, the rumor was floated that Israel had assisted the Chinese to build the missiles for Saudi Arabia. It was no secret that Israel was selling China some armaments. A layer of some truth wrapped around a large lie provides excellent cover. The problem with that particular rumor was that, at the time Israel was having her own development problems with long range missiles. It would be highly unlikely for Israel to transfer flawed information to China and thus have China complete development and ship a fully operational system to Saudi Arabia - still in a declared state of war with Israel. Saudi Arabia was not only Israel's direct enemy; it funded terrorists to attack Israel and transferred technology received from American, other Western democracies, to other radical Arab States.

Israel relied upon tested American systems, knowing (by contract) that transferring them without US approval would cause immediate cessation of US aid and technology. That leads to the question: Was Israel being set up as the fall guy as was shown in the Iran/Contra hearings? Was the transfer a direct America-to-China deal? Only one way to find out - Congress could hold hearings - not very likely. But, if it did - would they exonerate the guilty as in Iran/Contra? Leaking the rumor that it was Israel is a key clue that leads us back to the White House, State and Defense Departments. Regretably, neither the Congress nor the Justice Department considered missile proliferation a topic worth investigating.

If China was to be the third party "cut-out" then the US would have to transfer both technology and actual missile components. This would require US corporations supplying the technicians to assemble and bench test the components. Missile systems are synergistic so components respond to each other within a narrow band. Making a hybrid missile with different parts usually leads to operational failure. It's just not acceptable technical protocol. If China received an operational missile, it would have to be the organic whole. They only changed its outer shell or shroud because that could be seen and identified.

Weinberger, as Sec. of Defense could have authorized such a transfer. Congress can no longer ask Ronald Reagan if he was consulted but they can investigate George Bush's knowledge and culpability. Congress should ask: "If President Bush pre-pardoned Casper Weinberger so he wouldn't be called ILLEGAL TRANSFER OF US BALLISTIC MISSILE TECHNOLOGY TO CHINA pg. 3 to testify in the Iran-Contra hearings, who would now protect Bush from these questions?"

Did Casper Weinberger, a close supporter of Saudi Arabia act as the broker between the US, Saudi Arabia and China? Was then VP Bush knowledgeable about this technology transfer, in effect, squaring the triangle? Perhaps it was inevitable that Jonathan Pollard discovered these anti-Israel operations in US intelligence agencies computer files in 1984 and 85. What were Casper Weinberger's motivation and actions, given his close connections with Saudi Arabia through Saudi Prince Bandar? Was Casper Weinberger dismissed by President Reagan, possibly for the same reason that caused the US intelligence agencies to fight so hard to keep Pollard in prison?

Weinberger could answer these questions. He had the power as Sec. of Defense to transfer technology without Congressional approval. There were many covert transfers of materials and weapons under Weinberger. Recall that Weinberger transferred the capability to build America's new M1A1 Abrams tank to Egypt without seeking Congressional approval until much later. Remember Iran/Contra and the excellent cover-up hearings? Training and arming future enemies is not all that unusual for the US. Today the Moslems America trained to sabotage, bomb, and plan attacks in Afghanistan against the Soviets have returned to the US and other nations using their skills to terrorize their former host government. Witness their bombing of the World Trade Center. The Saudis and Americans were bombed in 1996 with 19 dead in Dahran while Clinton and Sec. of Defense Perry talked about fighting terrorism. The Saudis have since refused to provide the US with the information on that bombing which points to Iran.

Iraq-gate (covert transfer of money, technology, weapons to Iraq) was also covered up and washed clean on orders from Clinton through our Justice Dept. (Read: "The Spiders' Web" by Alan Friedman) (6) Before he left office President Bush pardoned Weinberger so he wouldn't have to testify before a Grand Jury. Unless he's subpoenaed, we'll never know what he could have told about America's covert transfers of technology and the men who gave the orders.

What may have been intended as a limited covert transfer of technology to China for transhipment to the Saudis has become a flood of missiles from China not to just Saudi Arabia but now Syria, Iran and any Third World country with the money to pay to China. A Chinese envoy recently bragged that its missiles could now hit Los Angeles. (7)

American troops may ultimately face these missiles - as well as Israel - as in the Gulf War. Remarkably, during the first SCUD attack by Saddam against Israel, Casper Weinberger, in a radio interview broadcast in Israel at 4 AM, January 16 said: "It's a shame that Israel is being hit by nerve gas." Apparently, Weinberger knew for some time that Saddam had missiles and artillery shells loaded with nerve gas that could be used against Israel. Of course, that was at a time Weinberger had withheld life and death information to Israel only to have it exposed by Jonathan Pollard.

Speaking of SCUDS - Egypt has taken delivery of SCUD C missiles and mobile launchers from

North Korea in addition to massive re-armament with US weapons which tells Intelligence agencies analysts that Egypt is preparing not for peace but for war.

If the US covertly transferred of US missile technology to China, it had to come only from the highest authority. George Bush and Casper Weinberger could no doubt shed a great deal of light on the matter - if forced to do so. That is, if there are any remaining records left. Recall that James Baker, before leaving the White House, tasked former Justice Department prosecutor, Joseph di Genova with pulling the hard drives and disks from all the White House computers, including all the electronic memory of the President's plane: Air Force One.

If there was an illegal transfer of US technology to China for Saudi Arabia, this crime has far greater implications. China has been shipping advanced missiles for to radical Third World nations like Pakistan (discovered in 1992). (2) They have promised to stop - but continue regardless of their commitments. Congress, then and now, diddles with occasional hearings but with little effort to find the answers and correct the problems.

President Clinton scuttled a Grand Jury investigation of the recent China transfer. We have seen Clinton's Justice Department dismiss the Bush transfer of $5 billion US taxpayers' dollars to Saddam Hussein from the Department of Agriculture funds as acceptable. The question arises as to whether George Bush as former DCIA (Director of the CIA) would have had the power to assemble files on his opponents, much the same as did J. Edgar Hoover. If you recall, Hoover used the power of his office as head of the FBI and those voluminous files for decades to blackmail Congressmen and other politicians to do things his way - or else risk exposure.

No one is more susceptible to exposure that Bill Clinton. Personal scandal has only increased his popularity. The American people seem to be saying: "As long as you run the country so we are economically secure, we'll give you a pass on your personal peccadilloes." But a scandal regarding national security issues is a different story. Chinese money flowed into the Clinton campaign.

'Follow the money trail'. For example: Why did Arab money flow into Clinton's two gubernatorial runs for office? Why support an obscure candidate from a small unimportant state? Why was Arkansas often described as a center for trans-shipment of drugs? Why is President Clinton following the Bush/Baker foreign policy?

Sadly, one day American soldiers, cities in the Middle East and Europe will be exposed to hard-hitting missiles with support telemetry and NBC (Nuclear, Biological & Chemical) warheads that destroy cities. Thank the Chinese, the Saudis, those who assisted them (America?) and the countries to whom they shared and shipped such catastrophic weapons.

Part 2: "Saudis Make Nice with the Iranians" (8) will demonstrate the connections of Ballistic Missiles transferred between China to Saudi Arabia and the growing close relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran - now that the Iranians have nukes. (9 & 10)

Footnotes
1.. "Companies Are Investigated for Aid to China on Rockets: But officials say Administration undercut inquiry by approving a similar deal" & "US Probes Rocket Advice to China" by Jeff Gerth with Raymond Bonner NEW YORK TIMES 4/4/98 & INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE 4/6/98

2. "Missile Inquiry Clouds America's China Policy" by Jeff Gerth INT'L HERALD TRIBUNE 4/14/983.

3. "Chinese Export Missile Parts to Syria" by Bill Gertz WASHINGTON TIMES 8/4/96

4. "Chinese Missiles" by Emanuel A. Winston JEWISH PRESS August 9, 1996

5. US ARMS CONTROL & DISARMAMENT AGENCY September 1991

6. "The Spider's Web: Secret History of How White House illegally armed Iraq" by Alan Friedman Bantam 1993

7. "Confronting Terrorism Means Giving up a Frontier Mentality" by Georgie Anne Geyer SUN TIMES 8/2/96

8. "Saudis Make Nice with the Iranians" by Elaine Sciolino SUNDAY NEW YORK TIMES 4/12/98

9. Series by Steve Rodan in JERUSALEM POST "Iran Missile said near Completion" 4/8/98 "Iran has Four Nuclear Bombs" 4/9/98; "Iran Paid $35 million Nuclear Weapons" 4/10/98; "MK Elul Says Israel, US have known of Iranian Nukes for Years" 4/12/98

10. "Iran's Strategy & Nuclear Capabilities" 1/20/9 & "Iran's Nuclear Weapons - Update" 4/30/92 by Yossef Bodansky & Vaughn Forrest, US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TASK FORCE
 
fossten said:
Where were you, Joey, when all THIS happened?

a. 2 wrongs DONT make a right. Dont try to defend Bush by saying Clinton did somethins as well.

b. Where were YOU fossten? Probably screaming about Clinton as loud or louder them I am about Bush.

monstermark said:
Exactly what information are we talking about that was leaked?

The National Intelligence Estimate.

The Democrats and others critical of Bush claims that George Bush leaked the material to the media in July 2003 in order to strengthen the case for the invasion of Iraq since he was under pressure because no weapons of mass destruction had been found.

Libby stated he was ordered by Vice President Cheney to leak the information, and that VP Cheney told him the order to do so came from president Bush directly.

The leak of the NIE resulted in the discloure of CIA Agent Valerie Plame's identity.

I guess I know what im debating.


I could care less about Bush ordering the material leaked. As fossten said, he's the boss and he legally can do so. I take issue with him publicly proclaiming that he would fire anyone involved in the leaking of intelligence related to the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame.

IT WAS HIM and CHENEY!

To be fair, Bush lated changed his position when he said: "If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." I speculate the reason for changing his wording was because someone reminded him that the order to leak the information came from HIM.
 
Joeychgo said:
a. 2 wrongs DONT make a right. Dont try to defend Bush by saying Clinton did somethins as well.

b. Where were YOU fossten? Probably screaming about Clinton as loud or louder them I am about Bush.



The National Intelligence Estimate.

The Democrats and others critical of Bush claims that George Bush leaked the material to the media in July 2003 in order to strengthen the case for the invasion of Iraq since he was under pressure because no weapons of mass destruction had been found.

Libby stated he was ordered by Vice President Cheney to leak the information, and that VP Cheney told him the order to do so came from president Bush directly.

The leak of the NIE resulted in the discloure of CIA Agent Valerie Plame's identity.

I guess I know what im debating.


I could care less about Bush ordering the material leaked. As fossten said, he's the boss and he legally can do so. I take issue with him publicly proclaiming that he would fire anyone involved in the leaking of intelligence related to the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame.

IT WAS HIM and CHENEY!

To be fair, Bush lated changed his position when he said: "If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." I speculate the reason for changing his wording was because someone reminded him that the order to leak the information came from HIM.

Your side gets it wrong again, Joey. When will you stop believing everything they say?

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Friday, April 7, 2006 11:31 p.m. EDT

CNN Flub: President Bush Authorized Valerie Plame Leak

CNN initially reported on Thursday that newly released court documents covering Scooter Libby's testimony showed that President Bush personally authorized the leak of CIA employee Valerie Plame's name to the press.

Here's how CNN broke their bogus bombshell:

CNN's JIM CLANCY: "A major story breaking now out of Washington right now. According to court papers that were filed by prosecutors, I. Lewis Libby, Scooter Libby, who was a key man in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, has alleged that U.S. President George W. Bush was the man who authorized the leaking of the name of a CIA operative and the wife of a former ambassador.

"Now - that former CIA operator, Valerie Plame, was unmasked to journalists." [END EXCERPT]
In fact, the so-called leak authorized by Bush had nothing to do with Plame - but instead covered Iraq war intelligence that was mostly already in the public domain.

CNN eventually realized its error and issued an on-air correction, forcing liberals coast-to-coast to cancel their planned impeachment parties.


I don't know what you're so angry about. Libby disclosed the information, he resigned. (same result as firing)

You are spouting Democratic talking points about this. At least you admit it. The truth is that the Bush administration released information to refute FALSE claims by the liar Joe Wilson, who was trying to discredit the administration by making up falsehoods about the motives for going into Iraq. It is perfectly within any administration's perview to defend itself, and it is perfectly with the President's authority to disclose any information he so chooses.

The point I'm trying to make about Clinton is, yet again, lost on you, but I'll try again:

Which disclosure of information hurt our country's national security more:

Disclosing the name of a former covert agent (no longer covert status) who's already been outed by her husband, or giving away supersecret nuclear missile guidance technology to a malevolent government like the Chicoms in exchange for campaign donations?

I wonder if you can be intellectually honest about this.
 
What I take issue with is all the BS. I dont believe a word that comes out of this administration's collective mouth, and Im not the only one apparantly. The latest poll has a 36% approval rating. Bush ordered the leak, yet spoke like he knew nothing about it. Its a lack of credibility. In the coming year am I suppose to just take GW's word on things as he drags us into yet another war with IRAN?

And before you say it, we're not talking about Clinton or anyone else.

For the record, I came up with my talking points all on my own.
 
Joeychgo said:
The leak of the NIE resulted in the discloure of CIA Agent Valerie Plame's identity.

I do not believe that is true. I'll have to research it more but I do not believe the NIE 'leak' (haha, a President cannot leak); he can choose to release classified information as EVERY OTHER President in the last 50 years has done, but it is NOT illegal and it is not a leak, led to any outing.

Show me where it says the NIE disclosure led to the outing of a non-secret secret agent?

More disinfo from the lying brigade, er, MSM.

Bush is a decent, honorable man and he is vilified.
Clinton was a selfish, lying, sexual assaulter and people worship him.

Go figure.

Another 211,000 jobs added last month. 31st consecutive month of jobs expansion.
Economy growing at 3.5%, which I might add is faster than any other industrialized country.
Unemployment down to 4.7 percent. Even lower than Clinton's average.
No attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.
Military casualties in Iraq at record low/month.
S&P hits record high. Stock market rebounds.
Inflation remains low.
We're talking about sealing off the border.
Record spending by the government for education.

If any of this was reported in the media, do you really think that Bush's numbers wouldn't be reversed. Again, all the polls show is how good they are at manipulating the truth. If a Democrat were in office, these EXACT same people would be proclaiming how great the President is. The peace and prosperity we are all enjoying now is from the unselfish sacrifice of a few who openly choose to keep us all safe, blah, blah, blah.

I have to go throw up now. Later.
 
Joeychgo said:
In the coming year am I suppose to just take GW's word on things as he drags us into yet another war with IRAN?
Is there another man (or woman) in this world willing to attempt to prevent a nuclear catastrophy?

Please name them. Thanks.

Drags us into another war. Give me a break. He might actually save all of our lives and those of the world. But that is just too heady to think about. Bush saving the world. What a concept.
 
fossten said:
CNN eventually realized its error and issued an on-air correction, forcing liberals coast-to-coast to cancel their planned impeachment parties.

My favorite line.

They are so brazen it is ridiculous.

Thank God for the Internet. Without it, we would be in a world of hurt and all these lies would go unchallenged.
 
MonsterMark said:
Is there another man (or woman) in this world willing to attempt to prevent a nuclear catastrophy?

Drags us into another war. Give me a break. He might actually save all of our lives and those of the world. But that is just too heady to think about. Bush saving the world. What a concept.


Know what Bryan.... I think Iran is a considerably dangerous country, and we have alot more reason to go to war with them then we did Iraq.

MY problem isnt going to war with Iran... My problem is that Bush shot his wad in Iraq for NOTHING and nobody trusts him now.

Bush doesnt have enough credibility with the congress, american people or the world for that matter to open an Ice Cream Stand, much less start another war. And the problem with that is that Iran is a war we probably SHOULD fight.
 
MonsterMark said:
Bush is a decent, honorable man and he is vilified.
Clinton was a selfish, lying, sexual assaulter and people worship him.


Your kidding right? Bush is every bit a liar. Please!

Have I defended Clinton? No. He lied and shouldnt have. But he has nothing to do with Bush.

Quit trying to muddle the issue. Bush pretended he knew nothing about the leak, and he WAS the leak. Thats makes him a LIAR. Period, end of story.
 
Joeychgo said:
...In the coming year am I suppose to just take GW's word on things as he drags us into yet another war with IRAN?...

Joey, you can't bash the President by predicting that he'll do the very thing you think he should do. First he DRAGS us into a war with Iran (never mind Iran's posturing, threats, and imminent nuclear arsenal). Then you say we SHOULD go into Iran? You're just mad because Bush is the one to do it, and you can't stand that he'd be right in this case.

Well, I guess if you hate enough, you can do whatever you want, no matter how much those actions defy logic.

Joeychgo said:
I think Iran is a considerably dangerous country, and we have alot more reason to go to war with them then we did Iraq.

MY problem isnt going to war with Iran... My problem is that Bush shot his wad in Iraq for NOTHING and nobody trusts him now.

Bush doesnt have enough credibility with the congress, american people or the world for that matter to open an Ice Cream Stand, much less start another war. And the problem with that is that Iran is a war we probably SHOULD fight.

WELL, MAKE UP YOUR MIND. SUPPORT BUSH OR DON'T. YOU CAN'T DO BOTH. IT WOULD BE IDIOTIC.
 
Gee, Joey, even your own "footsoldiers" in the media are starting to disagree with you:
Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Sunday, April 9, 2006 1:25 p.m. EDT

Wash Post: Nothing Wrong with Bush 'Leak'

The Washington Post has broken ranks with the rest of the press over the media fiction that President Bush's recently revealed decision to authorize Lewis "Scooter" Libby to leak prewar Iraq intelligence somehow constitutes a new scandal.

In a stunning editorial headlined "The Good Leak," the Post said Sunday:

"There was nothing illegal or even particularly unusual about [Bush's decision]; nor is this presidentially authorized leak necessarily comparable to other, unauthorized disclosures that the president believes, rightly or wrongly, compromise national security."

Instead, the paper says that, if anyone has behaved unethically in the entire Leakgate fiasco, its Bush's accuser, former Iraq ambassador Joe Wilson:

"Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately 'twisted' intelligence 'to exaggerate the Iraq threat.'"

But as the Post notes: "The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."

The Post says that Leakgate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has provided additional evidence of the Bush accuser's duplicity.

"Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative . . . [But] after more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge."

Predictably, the Post's dismissal of the latest Leakgate "bombshell" didn't rate a single mention on the Sunday chat shows, which instead continued to cover the development as earth-shattering news.
 
fossten said:
WELL, MAKE UP YOUR MIND. SUPPORT BUSH OR DON'T. YOU CAN'T DO BOTH. IT WOULD BE IDIOTIC.


I think you misunderstood his point. He's sees that Iran is a probable threat and that a war with Iran may only be the way to resolve that threat. He just doesn't have the confidence in Bush leading the charge, as do many Americans in light of how Iraq is unfolding. That’s what I got out of it at least, I could be wrong.
 
fossten said:
Wash Post: Nothing Wrong with Bush 'Leak'

The Washington Post has broken ranks with the rest of the press over the media fiction that President Bush's recently revealed decision to authorize Lewis "Scooter" Libby to leak prewar Iraq intelligence somehow constitutes a new scandal.

Wow!

This was written in the Post? On what page? Buried deep or on Page 1?

If Page 1, I may have to get a subscription.

Imagine the trouble they are in with their peers writing an article like this.

Stunning.....

I don't suspect we'll hear anything from our friends on the Left about this article. They might be too busy burying their heads in the sand.

AH,,, I figured it out. Come clean with the truth on Sunday when you know the news cycle on Monday will be fully engulfed in the immigration issue and the marches. See, you never can trust the libs, even when they try to tell the truth.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top