04-06-2006, 11:56 AM
04-06-2006, 12:04 PM
Never trust a grown man called "Scooter."
04-06-2006, 12:32 PM
The really damning part is that they leaked the portions of the PDB that said what they wanted to get out and sat on the parts of it that cautioned them that their intelligence was bad.
Remember too that Fitzgerald met with the President's personal attorney immediately before Libby's indictment.
"In a court filing late Wednesday responding to requests from Mr. Libby's attorneys for government records that might aid his defense, Mr. Fitzgerald shed new light on Mr. Libby's claims that he was authorized to provide sensitive information to the Times reporter, Judith Miller, at a meeting on July 8, 2003.
"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."
http://nysun.com/timesleak.php
So what's very interesting indeed is what Fitz was told about the leak of that NIE. If Bush testifies that he had not given his permission to leak it then Cheney may be on the hook for leaking classified documents and perjury. Also, Bush may not have had the authority to authorize the release of the NIE anyhow as it was not in the executive line of control - my understanding is that Congress must authorize declassification of a NIE.
Remember too that Fitzgerald met with the President's personal attorney immediately before Libby's indictment.
"In a court filing late Wednesday responding to requests from Mr. Libby's attorneys for government records that might aid his defense, Mr. Fitzgerald shed new light on Mr. Libby's claims that he was authorized to provide sensitive information to the Times reporter, Judith Miller, at a meeting on July 8, 2003.
"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."
http://nysun.com/timesleak.php
So what's very interesting indeed is what Fitz was told about the leak of that NIE. If Bush testifies that he had not given his permission to leak it then Cheney may be on the hook for leaking classified documents and perjury. Also, Bush may not have had the authority to authorize the release of the NIE anyhow as it was not in the executive line of control - my understanding is that Congress must authorize declassification of a NIE.
04-06-2006, 04:04 PM
UAB Band Dad Wrote:The really damning part is that they leaked the portions of the PDB that said what they wanted to get out and sat on the parts of it that cautioned them that their intelligence was bad.
Remember too that Fitzgerald met with the President's personal attorney immediately before Libby's indictment.
"In a court filing late Wednesday responding to requests from Mr. Libby's attorneys for government records that might aid his defense, Mr. Fitzgerald shed new light on Mr. Libby's claims that he was authorized to provide sensitive information to the Times reporter, Judith Miller, at a meeting on July 8, 2003.
"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."
http://nysun.com/timesleak.php
So what's very interesting indeed is what Fitz was told about the leak of that NIE. If Bush testifies that he had not given his permission to leak it then Cheney may be on the hook for leaking classified documents and perjury. Also, Bush may not have had the authority to authorize the release of the NIE anyhow as it was not in the executive line of control - my understanding is that Congress must authorize declassification of a NIE.
Sorry, Band Dad, we are arguing this on the Tiger Board. The President has ultimate authority to classify and declassify information, thus as to the President, it was not a leak, rather a decalssification. However, if the allegations are true, Scooter was very stupid. I would request such declassification in writing as a "get out of jail free" card. Source, 50 USC Section 435.
04-06-2006, 05:11 PM
SMUTiger Wrote:UAB Band Dad Wrote:The really damning part is that they leaked the portions of the PDB that said what they wanted to get out and sat on the parts of it that cautioned them that their intelligence was bad.
Remember too that Fitzgerald met with the President's personal attorney immediately before Libby's indictment.
"In a court filing late Wednesday responding to requests from Mr. Libby's attorneys for government records that might aid his defense, Mr. Fitzgerald shed new light on Mr. Libby's claims that he was authorized to provide sensitive information to the Times reporter, Judith Miller, at a meeting on July 8, 2003.
"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."
http://nysun.com/timesleak.php
So what's very interesting indeed is what Fitz was told about the leak of that NIE. If Bush testifies that he had not given his permission to leak it then Cheney may be on the hook for leaking classified documents and perjury. Also, Bush may not have had the authority to authorize the release of the NIE anyhow as it was not in the executive line of control - my understanding is that Congress must authorize declassification of a NIE.
Sorry, Band Dad, we are arguing this on the Tiger Board. The President has ultimate authority to classify and declassify information, thus as to the President, it was not a leak, rather a decalssification. However, if the allegations are true, Scooter was very stupid. I would request such declassification in writing as a "get out of jail free" card. Source, 50 USC Section 435.
i was wondering if you'd ever find your way over here. i enjoy reading your political posts since u apparently have a lot more knowledge of the subject than most posters.
04-06-2006, 05:35 PM
dfarr Wrote:SMUTiger Wrote:UAB Band Dad Wrote:The really damning part is that they leaked the portions of the PDB that said what they wanted to get out and sat on the parts of it that cautioned them that their intelligence was bad.
Remember too that Fitzgerald met with the President's personal attorney immediately before Libby's indictment.
"In a court filing late Wednesday responding to requests from Mr. Libby's attorneys for government records that might aid his defense, Mr. Fitzgerald shed new light on Mr. Libby's claims that he was authorized to provide sensitive information to the Times reporter, Judith Miller, at a meeting on July 8, 2003.
"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."
http://nysun.com/timesleak.php
So what's very interesting indeed is what Fitz was told about the leak of that NIE. If Bush testifies that he had not given his permission to leak it then Cheney may be on the hook for leaking classified documents and perjury. Also, Bush may not have had the authority to authorize the release of the NIE anyhow as it was not in the executive line of control - my understanding is that Congress must authorize declassification of a NIE.
Sorry, Band Dad, we are arguing this on the Tiger Board. The President has ultimate authority to classify and declassify information, thus as to the President, it was not a leak, rather a decalssification. However, if the allegations are true, Scooter was very stupid. I would request such declassification in writing as a "get out of jail free" card. Source, 50 USC Section 435.
i was wondering if you'd ever find your way over here. i enjoy reading your political posts since u apparently have a lot more knowledge of the subject than most posters.
Thanks, I try. I've lurked over here, but did not want to intrude.
04-06-2006, 05:36 PM
SMUTiger Wrote:Sorry, Band Dad, we are arguing this on the Tiger Board. The President has ultimate authority to classify and declassify information, thus as to the President, it was not a leak, rather a decalssification. However, if the allegations are true, Scooter was very stupid. I would request such declassification in writing as a "get out of jail free" card. Source, 50 USC Section 435.
Yeah, I had seen that by now, I was posting pretty soon after the story broke and speculating. A couple of snippets of interest, lifted from the discussion diary at Kos via Firedoglake:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/th...-question/
" Re: declassification. Prof Foland has given the link to the current Exec Order. http://fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html
It is not the best organized of orders, but as to who can declassify, a part of the info on this is hidden down at the end of the Order in the Definitions.
l)
04-06-2006, 05:53 PM
UAB Band Dad Wrote:[quote="SMUTiger"]
Sorry, Band Dad, we are arguing this on the Tiger Board. The President has ultimate authority to classify and declassify information, thus as to the President, it was not a leak, rather a decalssification. However, if the allegations are true, Scooter was very stupid. I would request such declassification in writing as a "get out of jail free" card. Source, 50 USC Section 435.
Yeah, I had seen that by now, I was posting pretty soon after the story broke and speculating. A couple of snippets of interest, lifted from the discussion diary at Kos via Firedoglake:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/th...-question/
" Re: declassification. Prof Foland has given the link to the current Exec Order. http://fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html
It is not the best organized of orders, but as to who can declassify, a part of the info on this is hidden down at the end of the Order in the Definitions.
l)
04-06-2006, 06:22 PM
If nothing else, it simply looks bad for Bush. When you start leaking government intel to damage your political rivals, you lose the moral high ground in a hurry. As to "...the news reports specifically state that the information Bush declassified (again, not a leak)" it appears that Bush declassified the document, then limited the people who knew it had been declassified to himself, Cheney, and Libby. You can call it "not a leak", but portions of the presidential PDB and the NIE were fed to pliant journalists for reasons of party politics and gamesmanship. It might not an illegal release of documents, but it was damn sure a leak. The whole "look at Wilson's wife" thing was given to half a dozen different reporters in a period of weeks. This information was deliberately leaked to the press.
When is a leak of classified documents not a leak? When the President says so. That, I submit, is no basis to run a nation of laws upon.
" Q Mr. President, beyond the actual leak of classified information, there are reports that someone in the administration was trying to -- after it was already out -- actively spread the story, even calling Ambassador Wilson's wife "fair game." Are you asking your staff is anyone did that? And would it be wrong or even a fire-able offense if that happened?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the investigators will ask our staff about what people did or did not do. This is a town of -- where a lot of people leak. And I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. And I want to know, I want to know the truth. I want to see to it that the truth prevail. And I hope we can get this investigation done in a thorough way, as quickly as possible.
But the Justice Department will conduct this investigation. The professionals in the Justice Department will be involved in ferreting out the truth. These are citizens who will -- were here before this administration arrived and will be here after this administration leaves. And they'll come to the bottom of this, and we'll find out the truth. And that will be -- that's a good thing for this administration. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/...007-2.html
So, have we seen "this investigation done in a thorough way, as quickly as possible"?
"Randy, you tell me, how many sources have you had that's leaked information that you've exposed or have been exposed? Probably none. I mean this town is a -- is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth. That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators -- full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we'll find out."
Need I even comment? I have to love the bit about how the press will protect the leakers... that he authorized, in his own White House.
"During a White House Press Briefing on September 30, 2003 President Bush said the following in response to a question regarding the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity, "... if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." When asked at a post G-8 Summit News Conference on June 10, 2004 if he stood by his statement that he would fire whoever was responsible for the leak, Bush said, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."
Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
I think we now know why a year later he amended the "I'll fire them" statement to "If someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration." Since, of course, it's not a crime if the President says it's not.
At the Dedication Ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence on April 26, 1999, former President George Herbert Walker Bush stated, "Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
According to Title 50, Ch. 15, Subch. IV, Sec. 421 intentionally revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent is punishable by 3-10 years in prison or $15-50k in fines or both."
The bottom line is that in playing political hardball to damage Joe Wilson's credibility, they outed Valerie Plame, who was a CIA NOC. You know what she and the people that were exposed were working on? Tracking sources transfering explosives and nuclear technology to Iran.
This is outright lying to the American people, the whole "if we catch them, we'll fire them" when you have tasked people in the White House to do the leaking is right up there with this bit of presidential straight talk:
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
They are outright, bold face, looking us in the eye and lying. The Republicans ran impeachment at Clinton for a blowjob, is there no one here but me that thinks what the current White House is doing is far worse? That the lies and halftruths they are putting out far outweigh the infamous "It depends on what the meaning of is is"?
When is a leak of classified documents not a leak? When the President says so. That, I submit, is no basis to run a nation of laws upon.
" Q Mr. President, beyond the actual leak of classified information, there are reports that someone in the administration was trying to -- after it was already out -- actively spread the story, even calling Ambassador Wilson's wife "fair game." Are you asking your staff is anyone did that? And would it be wrong or even a fire-able offense if that happened?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the investigators will ask our staff about what people did or did not do. This is a town of -- where a lot of people leak. And I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. And I want to know, I want to know the truth. I want to see to it that the truth prevail. And I hope we can get this investigation done in a thorough way, as quickly as possible.
But the Justice Department will conduct this investigation. The professionals in the Justice Department will be involved in ferreting out the truth. These are citizens who will -- were here before this administration arrived and will be here after this administration leaves. And they'll come to the bottom of this, and we'll find out the truth. And that will be -- that's a good thing for this administration. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/...007-2.html
So, have we seen "this investigation done in a thorough way, as quickly as possible"?
"Randy, you tell me, how many sources have you had that's leaked information that you've exposed or have been exposed? Probably none. I mean this town is a -- is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth. That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators -- full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we'll find out."
Need I even comment? I have to love the bit about how the press will protect the leakers... that he authorized, in his own White House.
"During a White House Press Briefing on September 30, 2003 President Bush said the following in response to a question regarding the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity, "... if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." When asked at a post G-8 Summit News Conference on June 10, 2004 if he stood by his statement that he would fire whoever was responsible for the leak, Bush said, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."
Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
I think we now know why a year later he amended the "I'll fire them" statement to "If someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration." Since, of course, it's not a crime if the President says it's not.
At the Dedication Ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence on April 26, 1999, former President George Herbert Walker Bush stated, "Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
According to Title 50, Ch. 15, Subch. IV, Sec. 421 intentionally revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent is punishable by 3-10 years in prison or $15-50k in fines or both."
The bottom line is that in playing political hardball to damage Joe Wilson's credibility, they outed Valerie Plame, who was a CIA NOC. You know what she and the people that were exposed were working on? Tracking sources transfering explosives and nuclear technology to Iran.
This is outright lying to the American people, the whole "if we catch them, we'll fire them" when you have tasked people in the White House to do the leaking is right up there with this bit of presidential straight talk:
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
They are outright, bold face, looking us in the eye and lying. The Republicans ran impeachment at Clinton for a blowjob, is there no one here but me that thinks what the current White House is doing is far worse? That the lies and halftruths they are putting out far outweigh the infamous "It depends on what the meaning of is is"?
04-06-2006, 08:39 PM
UAB Band Dad Wrote:The Republicans ran impeachment at Clinton for a blowjob,
Funny, I thought it was purgery, subornation of burgery, and obstruction of justice.
Bob Packwood and Clarence Thomas are pikers compared to that walking sexual harrassment suit.
Please, no more rock star presidents.
04-06-2006, 08:49 PM
I'd settle for one that didn't decide the shred the constitution when it got in his way.
04-06-2006, 09:33 PM
Interesting take here from MediaMatters:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604060005
"Ensor reported on April 6 edition of Live From... that "[t]he president does have the right to decide when and how to declassify documents, so experts are saying this was entirely legal," and "the president had the right to order his staff to disclose certain limited information from that classified document." Hume, on the April 6 edition of DaySide, said: "And so far as I understand it -- and I asked the vice president about this back in February -- both he and the president have the legal authority under an executive order signed by the president to make public classified information. So that takes the unauthorized out of it."
In fact, the papers never state that Bush "declassified" the documents but, rather, that he authorized the disclosure of their contents. According to the papers, Libby testified that Cheney "advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE." The papers also state that Libby approached David Addington, then-counsel to the vice president and Cheney's current chief of staff, who "opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document." The court papers further state that Libby testified to the uniqueness of this situation:
Defendant testified that he thought he brought a brief abstract of the NIE's key judgments to the meeting with Miller on July 8. Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium. Defendant testified that this July 8th meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President's authorization that it be disclosed.
In contrast with Ensor's and Hume's summary conclusion that Bush's alleged conduct was legal, National Journal investigative reporter Murray Waas's April 6 article on the court papers seems to suggest that the normal declassification procedures were not adhered to in this case:
Libby also testified, Fitzgerald asserted in the court papers, that "at the time of his conversations with Miller and Cooper, he understood that only three people -- the President, the Vice President and [Libby] -- knew that the key judgments of the NIE had been declassified.
"[Libby] testified in the grand jury that he understood that even in the days following his conversation with Ms. Miller, other key officials-including Cabinet level officials-were not made aware of the earlier declassification even as those officials were pressed to carry out a declassification of the NIE, the report about Wilson's trip and another classified document dated January 24, 2003."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604060005
"Ensor reported on April 6 edition of Live From... that "[t]he president does have the right to decide when and how to declassify documents, so experts are saying this was entirely legal," and "the president had the right to order his staff to disclose certain limited information from that classified document." Hume, on the April 6 edition of DaySide, said: "And so far as I understand it -- and I asked the vice president about this back in February -- both he and the president have the legal authority under an executive order signed by the president to make public classified information. So that takes the unauthorized out of it."
In fact, the papers never state that Bush "declassified" the documents but, rather, that he authorized the disclosure of their contents. According to the papers, Libby testified that Cheney "advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE." The papers also state that Libby approached David Addington, then-counsel to the vice president and Cheney's current chief of staff, who "opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document." The court papers further state that Libby testified to the uniqueness of this situation:
Defendant testified that he thought he brought a brief abstract of the NIE's key judgments to the meeting with Miller on July 8. Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium. Defendant testified that this July 8th meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President's authorization that it be disclosed.
In contrast with Ensor's and Hume's summary conclusion that Bush's alleged conduct was legal, National Journal investigative reporter Murray Waas's April 6 article on the court papers seems to suggest that the normal declassification procedures were not adhered to in this case:
Libby also testified, Fitzgerald asserted in the court papers, that "at the time of his conversations with Miller and Cooper, he understood that only three people -- the President, the Vice President and [Libby] -- knew that the key judgments of the NIE had been declassified.
"[Libby] testified in the grand jury that he understood that even in the days following his conversation with Ms. Miller, other key officials-including Cabinet level officials-were not made aware of the earlier declassification even as those officials were pressed to carry out a declassification of the NIE, the report about Wilson's trip and another classified document dated January 24, 2003."
04-07-2006, 09:18 AM
UAB Band Dad Wrote:I'd settle for one that didn't decide the shred the constitution when it got in his way.
right, b/c its been shredded to pieces.
04-07-2006, 09:33 AM
dfarr Wrote:UAB Band Dad Wrote:I'd settle for one that didn't decide the shred the constitution when it got in his way.
right, b/c its been shredded to pieces.
dfarr, I'm just wondering, have you ever read the Constitution?
A quote from Benjamim Franklin comes to mind:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
That, in a nutshell, is EXACTLY what the Bush administration is doing. Send him and all his cronies to Guantanamo.
04-07-2006, 09:55 AM
UAB Kirksville Wrote:dfarr Wrote:UAB Band Dad Wrote:I'd settle for one that didn't decide the shred the constitution when it got in his way.
right, b/c its been shredded to pieces.
dfarr, I'm just wondering, have you ever read the Constitution?
A quote from Benjamim Franklin comes to mind:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
That, in a nutshell, is EXACTLY what the Bush administration is doing. Send him and all his cronies to Guantanamo.
"The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact"-- Justice Robert H. Jackson
04-07-2006, 10:05 AM
dfarr Wrote:UAB Band Dad Wrote:I'd settle for one that didn't decide the shred the constitution when it got in his way.
right, b/c its been shredded to pieces.
04-07-2006, 10:28 AM
Sarahbelle18 Wrote:dfarr Wrote:[quote="UAB Band Dad"]I'd settle for one that didn't decide the shred the constitution when it got in his way.
right, b/c its been shredded to pieces.
04-07-2006, 10:46 AM
Sarahbelle18 Wrote:dfarr Wrote:[quote="UAB Band Dad"]I'd settle for one that didn't decide the shred the constitution when it got in his way.
right, b/c its been shredded to pieces.
04-07-2006, 11:07 AM
dfarr Wrote:Sarahbelle18 Wrote:[quote="dfarr"][quote="UAB Band Dad"]I'd settle for one that didn't decide the shred the constitution when it got in his way.
right, b/c its been shredded to pieces.
04-07-2006, 11:08 AM
SMUTiger Wrote:Sarahbelle18 Wrote:[quote="dfarr"][quote="UAB Band Dad"]I'd settle for one that didn't decide the shred the constitution when it got in his way.
right, b/c its been shredded to pieces.
04-07-2006, 11:11 AM
Sarahbelle18 Wrote:SMUTiger Wrote:[quote="Sarahbelle18"][quote="dfarr"][quote="UAB Band Dad"]I'd settle for one that didn't decide the shred the constitution when it got in his way.
right, b/c its been shredded to pieces.
04-07-2006, 11:14 AM
dfarr Wrote:Sarahbelle18 Wrote:[quote="SMUTiger"][quote="Sarahbelle18"][quote="dfarr"][quote="UAB Band Dad"]I'd settle for one that didn't decide the shred the constitution when it got in his way.
right, b/c its been shredded to pieces.
04-07-2006, 11:32 AM
Sarahbelle18 Wrote:dfarr Wrote:[quote="Sarahbelle18"][quote="SMUTiger"][quote="Sarahbelle18"][quote="dfarr"][quote="UAB Band Dad"]I'd settle for one that didn't decide the shred the constitution when it got in his way.
right, b/c its been shredded to pieces.
04-07-2006, 11:35 AM
dfarr Wrote:Sarahbelle18 Wrote:[quote="dfarr"][quote="Sarahbelle18"][quote="SMUTiger"][quote="Sarahbelle18"][quote="dfarr"][quote="UAB Band Dad"]I'd settle for one that didn't decide the shred the constitution when it got in his way.
right, b/c its been shredded to pieces.
04-07-2006, 11:49 AM
Sarahbelle18 Wrote:dfarr Wrote:[quote="Sarahbelle18"][quote="dfarr"][quote="Sarahbelle18"][quote="SMUTiger"][quote="Sarahbelle18"][quote="dfarr"][quote="UAB Band Dad"]I'd settle for one that didn't decide the shred the constitution when it got in his way.
right, b/c its been shredded to pieces.
04-07-2006, 01:27 PM
dfarr Wrote:Sarahbelle18 Wrote:[quote="dfarr"][quote="Sarahbelle18"][quote="dfarr"][quote="Sarahbelle18"][quote="SMUTiger"][quote="Sarahbelle18"][quote="dfarr"][quote="UAB Band Dad"]I'd settle for one that didn't decide the shred the constitution when it got in his way.
right, b/c its been shredded to pieces.
04-07-2006, 01:39 PM
Hell, I don't mind if they hijack it to China if dfarr finally posts those pics. <leer>
Actually, I think they are a product of his fevered imagination, but on the off chance I keep going "Post them!"
Won't happen tho.
Actually, I think they are a product of his fevered imagination, but on the off chance I keep going "Post them!"
Won't happen tho.
04-07-2006, 01:53 PM
UAB Band Dad Wrote:Hell, I don't mind if they hijack it to China if dfarr finally posts those pics. <leer>
Actually, I think they are a product of his fevered imagination, but on the off chance I keep going "Post them!"
Won't happen tho.
Are you trying to say dfarr doesn't have the cajones?
04-07-2006, 02:08 PM
Nah, I don't think he lacks in that department. I just don't think the pictures exist and he's trying to mess with Sarah's head.
04-07-2006, 06:04 PM
Back to the leaks - a commenter at the American Spectator said this today and I think it hits the nail right on the head:
"Using legitimate presidential powers (declassification) for illegitimate purposes (to make a political attack) is the very definition of abuse of power."
If it was a legitimate disclosure of sensitive information in the public interest, why didn't the president just call a press conference? Why all the cloak and dagger stuff?
"Using legitimate presidential powers (declassification) for illegitimate purposes (to make a political attack) is the very definition of abuse of power."
If it was a legitimate disclosure of sensitive information in the public interest, why didn't the president just call a press conference? Why all the cloak and dagger stuff?
04-08-2006, 01:33 PM
UAB Band Dad Wrote:Back to the leaks - a commenter at the American Spectator said this today and I think it hits the nail right on the head:
"Using legitimate presidential powers (declassification) for illegitimate purposes (to make a political attack) is the very definition of abuse of power."
If it was a legitimate disclosure of sensitive information in the public interest, why didn't the president just call a press conference? Why all the cloak and dagger stuff?
Far be it for me to point it out, but you are assuming the declassification was to make a political attack. By definition, a political attack would require both a physical and mental component. Looking at the mental component you would have to prove that the President intended to declassify the information in such a way as to politically injure an opponent. In other words, prove intent. That is a tall order.
04-08-2006, 01:35 PM
SMUTiger Wrote:Sarahbelle18 Wrote:[quote="dfarr"][quote="UAB Band Dad"]I'd settle for one that didn't decide the shred the constitution when it got in his way.
right, b/c its been shredded to pieces.
04-08-2006, 01:48 PM
SMUTiger Wrote:UAB Band Dad Wrote:Back to the leaks - a commenter at the American Spectator said this today and I think it hits the nail right on the head:
"Using legitimate presidential powers (declassification) for illegitimate purposes (to make a political attack) is the very definition of abuse of power."
If it was a legitimate disclosure of sensitive information in the public interest, why didn't the president just call a press conference? Why all the cloak and dagger stuff?
Far be it for me to point it out, but you are assuming the declassification was to make a political attack. By definition, a political attack would require both a physical and mental component. Looking at the mental component you would have to prove that the President intended to declassify the information in such a way as to politically injure an opponent. In other words, prove intent. That is a tall order.
First off, I don't accept the need to prove "a physical and mental attack". This was manipulating the press in order to do a hatchet job on a critic of the administration. That is a political attack.
The only court I am a member of is the court of public opinion. I know what I see - several members of the White House inner circle, including the Vice President, pointing members of the press toward "Wilson's wife" within a period of weeks added to the knowlege now that a White House PDB was "declassified" so that it could be fed to Judy Miller tells me that there was an active effort to discredit Joseph Wilson.
The yellowcake documents we got from Italian intelligence were fradulent. This whole area of the justification for entering Iraq is at best very suspect and uncharitably was outright fraud, lies, and cherry picked intelligence.
When I use the term "abuse of power" I'm not using it as though I were a US Attorney investigating a crime. I'm using it as a citizen to describe slimy political moves that look to me to have been directed from the office of the Vice President.
04-09-2006, 07:16 AM
UAB Band Dad Wrote:SMUTiger Wrote:UAB Band Dad Wrote:Back to the leaks - a commenter at the American Spectator said this today and I think it hits the nail right on the head:
"Using legitimate presidential powers (declassification) for illegitimate purposes (to make a political attack) is the very definition of abuse of power."
If it was a legitimate disclosure of sensitive information in the public interest, why didn't the president just call a press conference? Why all the cloak and dagger stuff?
Far be it for me to point it out, but you are assuming the declassification was to make a political attack. By definition, a political attack would require both a physical and mental component. Looking at the mental component you would have to prove that the President intended to declassify the information in such a way as to politically injure an opponent. In other words, prove intent. That is a tall order.
First off, I don't accept the need to prove "a physical and mental attack". This was manipulating the press in order to do a hatchet job on a critic of the administration. That is a political attack.
The only court I am a member of is the court of public opinion. I know what I see - several members of the White House inner circle, including the Vice President, pointing members of the press toward "Wilson's wife" within a period of weeks added to the knowlege now that a White House PDB was "declassified" so that it could be fed to Judy Miller tells me that there was an active effort to discredit Joseph Wilson.
The yellowcake documents we got from Italian intelligence were fradulent. This whole area of the justification for entering Iraq is at best very suspect and uncharitably was outright fraud, lies, and cherry picked intelligence.
When I use the term "abuse of power" I'm not using it as though I were a US Attorney investigating a crime. I'm using it as a citizen to describe slimy political moves that look to me to have been directed from the office of the Vice President.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it as best formulated upon biased thinking and incomplete facts. Such opinions, and no offense is intended, are worthless. What you think is true and what you wish to be true, may not be true. Last I checked we did not try people in the court of public opinion and then sentence them, and that is precisely what you are doing. Let the courts do their job and then make up your mind. Seriously, why are you not hearing more play about this? Because the Democratic powers that be know it will go no where because they haven't a legal leg to stand on, but they will let rest of the left jump around the subject like a yapping terrier because it suits their purposes.
04-09-2006, 11:38 AM
Your opinion, however, is completely unbiased, and not in any way based on what you think or wish to be true.
I think it's simpler simply to agree to disagree before this decends into ad hominem attacks.
I think it's simpler simply to agree to disagree before this decends into ad hominem attacks.
04-10-2006, 07:27 AM
UAB Band Dad Wrote:Your opinion, however, is completely unbiased, and not in any way based on what you think or wish to be true.
I think it's simpler simply to agree to disagree before this decends into ad hominem attacks.
No, I am simply stating the obvious. Let the facts come out before you jump to conclusions. If a wrong were committed, I would want its purveyor punished. But before you go spouting off impeachment, understand the legal intricancies of which you speak.
04-10-2006, 09:20 AM
Please link anywhere I mentioned impeachment or censure. As to court of public opinion vs. more formal proceedings, if Senator Pat Roberts were to quit blocking the long promised phase two of the Senate Intelligence Committee report, perhaps we would have more "facts".
Also as to fact vs. speculation, given that the majority of what I'm talking about comes from the court releasing the warring briefs between Libby's attorneys and Fitzgerald and his staff, I think that there is fairly firm ground there. We're not talking about speculation from some wild eyed blogger here.
Also as to fact vs. speculation, given that the majority of what I'm talking about comes from the court releasing the warring briefs between Libby's attorneys and Fitzgerald and his staff, I think that there is fairly firm ground there. We're not talking about speculation from some wild eyed blogger here.
04-10-2006, 09:38 AM
UAB Band Dad Wrote:Please link anywhere I mentioned impeachment or censure. As to court of public opinion vs. more formal proceedings, if Senator Pat Roberts were to quit blocking the long promised phase two of the Senate Intelligence Committee report, perhaps we would have more "facts".
Also as to fact vs. speculation, given that the majority of what I'm talking about comes from the court releasing the warring briefs between Libby's attorneys and Fitzgerald and his staff, I think that there is fairly firm ground there. We're not talking about speculation from some wild eyed blogger here.
Again, are you familiar with legal briefs? They are no more than the opinion of the lawyer writing them. They deal with facts, but are not necessarily factual. My point is that the left has already jumped to the impeachment conclusion (I am sure you read Daily Kos and have seen such mentioned) without truly knowing the facts of the case, and you are in danger of doing the same. Opinion is fine, but if it is not grounded in facts, it is worthless. Let the facts come out, then judge.
If you note, I have never said whether I think the declassification was right or wrong. I have merely noted that it was legal. You have jumped to the conclusion that I am biased merely because I am pointing to the law. I am not defending Bush here. I am merely saying that the release of classified information is clearly within his authority. Whether it was correct to do so in this case in an entirely different question upon which I have not opined.
Finally, as to Phase Two...is it really necessary? How many inquests are needed? Honestly, if you are continually on a witch hunt, you will find witches, but such discovery does not mean you were or are right.
04-10-2006, 09:57 AM
UAB Band Dad Wrote:Back to the leaks - a commenter at the American Spectator said this today and I think it hits the nail right on the head:
"Using legitimate presidential powers (declassification) for illegitimate purposes (to make a political attack) is the very definition of abuse of power."
If it was a legitimate disclosure of sensitive information in the public interest, why didn't the president just call a press conference? Why all the cloak and dagger stuff?
how is declassifying documents that contradicts what joe wilson wrote in the NY times a political attack? the administration thought that joe wilson didnt tell the whole story in his editorial, so they released the now declassified documents that showed that wilson wasnt telling the whole truth. that seems like its correcting the story. a political attack would have been leaking photos of him w/ a mistress.
04-10-2006, 10:07 AM
Is a President, on the eve of his reelection campaign, legally entitled to ward off political embarrassment and conceal past failures in the exercise of his office by unilaterally and informally declassifying selected - as well as false and misleading - portions of a classified National Intelligence Estimate that he has previously refused to declassify, in order to cause such information to be secretly disclosed under false pretenses in the name of a
04-10-2006, 10:13 AM
[quote="UAB Band Dad"]Is a President, on the eve of his reelection campaign, legally entitled to ward off political embarrassment and conceal past failures in the exercise of his office by unilaterally and informally declassifying selected - as well as false and misleading - portions of a classified National Intelligence Estimate that he has previously refused to declassify, in order to cause such information to be secretly disclosed under false pretenses in the name of a