Bush Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury, page 3

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:46 AM

link

Originally posted by dgtempe
Its time to impeach the SOB and send him back to the farm.

And chase his redneck, ignorant, stupid, arse, all the way with "Dogs".

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:48 AM

link

For what I can see the loophole stands were the president can go on and on giving himself powers to no end to justify the abuse of that same power.

I don't care about technicalities because they are all and the same to justified Abuse of power.

Power corrupts politicians specially when they hold the life of billions of people in their hands.

Once corrupted they care less who falls or who stand.

Funny I never felt threaten by Clinton but I am sure as hell feel threatened by Bush and Cheney and all the cronies and corrupt politicians that falls under them.

This the people that hold our lifes and the future of our nation in their dirty nasty hands.

Arrogant and with disregard of others that they see as below them.

That is what they are.

[edit on 7-4-2006 by marg6043]

CyberianHusky

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 12:18 PM

link

As much as it pains me to say this, I don't believe Bush will even get a slap on the wrist for this. He won't see the inside of a courtroom with the possible exception to discredit anyone who claims he was involved. There is such an elaborate wall of protection around him and I just can't understand why anyone would throw themselves in front of a bullet, real or metaphorical, for this imbecile.

dgtempe

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 12:32 PM

link

Scott Mcclellan is fighting the battle on MSNBC.

It is, therefore i am.

Its declassified infor mation which the president can do. When is it effective?
As soon as he says: "I hereby declare it ok to leak_____________," and poof, its declassified.

Dictatorship at work.

Truthaction

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:22 PM

link

this guy is trying to weasel out of the sentence

imho as always

marg6043

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:54 PM

link

There is a difference between providing declassified information to the public when it's in the public interest and leaking classified information that involved sensitive national intelligence regarding our security,"

www.cnn.com...

So. . . For the power invested by the president and enhanced by the war on terror

Mister Bush can pretty much decided what can be leaked and can not depending if the person involve is one that the husband made bad comments about the administration.

Don’t you love the political game and abuse of power?

I called retaliation.

Tranceopticalinclined

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 03:06 PM

link

i feel as if im Actually living a dreamstate, inwhich this man actually is revealing himself, I mean truely i didnt think he would have the Cohonas, to Rock a spot this big.......the rats are a speakin an the walls are falling....

What else will be reveal in the publics eye?

deltaboy

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:43 PM

link

So far I seen the news media saying the President authorized some info to undercut Wilson who was challenging the Bush Admin about Saddam's WMD. The info was to counter Wilson's claim that Saddam was not looking for Uranium in Nigeria. No where does it say about lets go leak Wilson's wife's occupation back then.

truthseeka

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 08:26 PM

link

Originally posted by DEEZNUTS

You would have fit in to communist Russia just fine. You love to tout the party line in every single post of yours that I have read. Get your head out of the sand. Your opinion isn't always the correct one and you refuse to look at anyone else's viewpoint. Instead you enjoy throwing out insults and calling anyone who doesn't agree with you and idiot. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror.

This guy is dirty. He always has been. Even before he took public office and was running companies into the ground or dodging the draft. He's dirty, dirty, dirty and he will go down as the worst, most destructive President in US history

Fully, man, fully!

Then again, maybe the one thing America was lacking was a dictator. Someone who's above the law, no, who IS the law, and someone who can do whatever he wants. Maybe we can have dictators in terms; that way, Schwarzenegger can live his dream of ruling over the masses, just like Hitler, who he admires...

truthseeka

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link

Boogeyman, that was a funny post.

Seekerof, you think I think Clinton's any better than Bush? Well, he was better at money management, but Bush is better at running the country into the ground, so I guess it cancels out. But, you gotta hand it to Chimp Face, he's been able to succeed where Clinton failed miserably at pleasing the other globalists. For some reason, Clinton couldn't pull off half the snot that Bush has.

And, if you still doubt it, have a look at the 1st quote in my sig...

denythestatusquo

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link

Originally posted by truthseeka
Boogeyman, that was a funny post.

Seekerof, you think I think Clinton's any better than Bush? Well, he was better at money management, but Bush is better at running the country into the ground, so I guess it cancels out. But, you gotta hand it to Chimp Face, he's been able to succeed where Clinton failed miserably at pleasing the other globalists. For some reason, Clinton couldn't pull off half the snot that Bush has.

And, if you still doubt it, have a look at the 1st quote in my sig...

A liberal better at money management? how can that be?

He (Clinton), benefited from the economic policies of Reagan before him.

If Bush is making the globalists so happy then why does the foreign owned main stream media hate him so much?

After all is not the MSM the mouth piece of the globalists?

Seekerof

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link

Bursting Bubbles

Some of you may find this enriching, err, interesting:

No Lawbreaking

But what Bush and Cheney authorized had nothing to do with Valerie Plame. Joshua Gerstein, who broke the story of Fitzgerald’s document in Thursday’s New York Sun, told Crier the information Bush approved for dissemination was unrelated to “the most sensitive information…[the identity of] Valerie Plame or her husband, Joseph Wilson.” Other media outlets also announce this fact.

Reuters: “The court documents did not say that Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Plame's identity.”

The Associated Press: “There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.”

Even the breathless New York Times noted Fitzgerald “stopped short” of accusing Bush or Cheney or any wrongdoing.

Nor have Bush and Cheney been accused of breaking any law. In his Sun article, Gerstein wrote:

The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule…Mr. Bush's alleged instruction to release the conclusions of the intelligence estimate appears to have been squarely within his authority and Mr. Fitzgerald makes no argument that it was illegal.

The Washington Post ran a sidebar indicating, “Legal experts say that President Bush had the unquestionable authority to approve the disclosure of secret CIA information to reporters.”
The Left's Libby Lie

seekerof

[edit on 7-4-2006 by Seekerof]

NinjaCodeMonkey

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link

And your point is what exactly Seekerof? That it's OK to leak classified information in a way that seems lawful and that Bush and Cheney are such nice guys that they would never tell Libby to leak her name. A person died at the time of this leak but due to classification it is not know if the death was related to Plames activities. So lets assume for one minute that it was. You are condoning actions that resulted in the death of this CIA agent. You truly are a class act you know. How would you feel if that agent who died was your father, sister, wife? Will you go into court and defend the people who were responsible for that persons death? I should hope not.

[edit on 7-4-2006 by NinjaCodeMonkey]

rizla

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link

The White-House won't deny Bush authorized the leak, McClelland looking riduculous as he argues technicalities... This could be crippling for the president.

What continues to puzzle me is why people like seekerof continue to support this administration.

Seekerof

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
And your point is what exactly Seekerof? That it's OK to leak classified information in a way that seems lawful and that Bush and Cheney are such nice guys that they would never tell Libby to leak her name.

I think that what I posted up sufficiently answer what you have just asked.

A person died at the time of this leak but due to classification it is not know if the death was related to Plames activities. So lets assume for one minute that it was.

Umm, assumptions are a no-no and I think that it is self-evident as to why. You want to hypothesize then do so, but I will not play the game of "what if" with you.

You are condoning actions that resulted in the death of this CIA agent.

I just mentioned I will not play the "what-if" game.

You truly are a class act you know.

Why?
Because I will not play your game of "what if"?
Dude, when you get some credible sourcings to back your "what if," then will I consider giving due response.

How would you feel if that agent who died was your father, sister, wife?

Stretching that "what if" for all its worth, huh?

Will you go into court and defend the people who were responsible for that persons death? I should hope not.

Let me know when your "what if" becomes fact.

seekerof

[edit on 7-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Seekerof

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link

Originally posted by rizla
What continues to puzzle me is why people like seekerof continue to support this administration.

What continues to puzzle me is why many of you continue to let your blind-hatred and politics interfere with rational thinking. You provide no valid arguments other than to attack someone personally. I defend because some of you simply play the 'hater' role, arguing with nothing but conjecture and 'hater' rhetoric.

seekerof

NinjaCodeMonkey

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link

"What continues to puzzle me is why many of you continue to let your blind-hatred and politics interfere with rational thinking."

You couldn't have explained yourself any better. How can i get sources to link the dead agent to Plame when everything about that person is classified? Do you think i have access to such material or something? Clearly something is clouding your logic, i wonder what it could be?

Seekerof

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
You couldn't have explained yourself any better.

Like children in a playground scuffle, huh?

How can i get sources to link the dead agent to Plame when everything about that person is classified?

Probably because there are none?
What you can do is link the sources that back what you are saying.
While your doing so, bear this in mind--from my source three posts up from this post:

Reuters: “The court documents did not say that Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Plame's identity.”

The Associated Press: “There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.”

These are not the only mainstream sources confirming this. Accordingly, in your game of assumption, you are assuming, despite varying sources, that what Libby says Cheney said Bush said was outing Valerie Plame?

Do you think i have access to such material or something?

My best and humble advice to you, especially in a place like ATS, is to not make assertions or claims that you cannot remotely back up.

Clearly something is clouding your logic, i wonder what it could be?

Try your continued personal attacking of me?
Address what I have said and not me or my mentality.

seekerof

NinjaCodeMonkey

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link

Look on the CIA wall for yourself, there is a star with no name due to classification. He died during a timeline that fits in with the dates of the Plame leak and the other related leak. You are using the classic conservative tactic, attack the people and then play the victim. Do you get paid for this?

I'll respond with some quotes of my own as well.

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity. But it points to Cheney as one of the originators of the idea that Plame could be used to discredit her husband, Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson.

According to Fitzgerald's court filing, Cheney, in conversation with Libby, raised the question of whether a CIA-sponsored trip by Wilson "was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife."

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

[edit on 7-4-2006 by NinjaCodeMonkey]

Seekerof

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
Look on the CIA wall for yourself, there is a star with no name due to classification. He died during a timeline that fits in with the dates of the Plame leak and the other related leak. You are using the classic conservative tactic, attack the people and then play the victim. Do you get paid for this?

Got a picture of that?
Got a link to a picture of that?
If not, you going to pay my trip to see if what you are asserting is truth?
And all this is based upon me giving you due credit that your telling the truth in the first place, correct?

Further, what I get paid is a matter that remains between me, my employers, and the IRS. As such, in coming here and defending that which I have been defending going on nearly 3 three years now is something I would do for free. I find it quite enjoyable to see some people post conjecture after conjecture after conjecture.

There is a saying in life: Actions speak louder than words," which when applied within an internet discussion board environment implies: backup what your assert or claim.

seekerof