Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Libby implicating Bush and VP--on msnbc NOW

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:49 AM
Original message
Libby implicating Bush and VP--on msnbc NOW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:50 AM
Original message
breaking news msnbc --David Shuster reporting this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
2. talking of information from Fritz court docs now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. I am surprized that the media is covering this (a little late)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. says when Pres gives out Classified info, it is essentially DE-classified
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. WHAT is David's take on this?? Is it good or bad for the
preznit in Schuster's opinion??? Not ours
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #11
34. Bad (not illegal)----big big PR problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #34
56. Not Illegal
Edited on Thu Apr-06-06 11:20 AM by atreides1
Under Executive Order 13292


PART 3--DECLASSIFICATION AND DOWNGRADING

Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification. (a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.

(b) It is presumed that information that continues to meet the classification requirements under this order requires continued protection. In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified. When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official. That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure. This provision does not:


(1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or
(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.


(c) If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office determines that information is classified in violation of this order, the Director may require the information to be declassified by the agency that originated the classification. Any such decision by the Director may be appealed to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The information shall remain classified pending a prompt decision on the appeal.
(d) The provisions of this section shall also apply to agencies that, under the terms of this order, do not have original classification authority, but had such authority under predecessor orders.

Sec. 3.2. Transferred Records. (a) In the case of classified records transferred in conjunction with a transfer of functions, and not merely for storage purposes, the receiving agency shall be deemed to be the originating agency for purposes of this order.

(b) In the case of classified records that are not officially transferred as described in paragraph (a) of this section, but that originated in an agency that has ceased to exist and for which there is no successor agency, each agency in possession of such records shall be deemed to be the originating agency for purposes of this order. Such records may be declassified or downgraded by the agency in possession after consultation with any other agency that has an interest in the subject matter of the records.

(c) Classified records accessioned into the National Archives and Records Administration (National Archives) as of the effective date of this order shall be declassified or downgraded by the Archivist of the United States (Archivist) in accordance with this order, the directives issued pursuant to this order, agency declassification guides, and any existing procedural agreement between the Archivist and the relevant agency head.

(d) The originating agency shall take all reasonable steps to declassify classified information contained in records determined to have permanent historical value before they are accessioned into the National Archives. However, the Archivist may require that classified records be accessioned into the National Archives when necessary to comply with the provisions of the Federal Records Act. This provision does not apply to records being transferred to the Archivist pursuant to section 2203 of title 44, United States Code, or records for which the National Archives serves as the custodian of the records of an agency or organization that has gone out of existence.

(e) To the extent practicable, agencies shall adopt a system of records management that will facilitate the public release of documents at the time such documents are declassified pursuant to the provisions for automatic declassification in section 3.3 of this order.

Sec. 3.3. Automatic Declassification. (a) Subject to paragraphs (b)-(e) of this section, on December 31, 2006, all classified records that (1) are more than 25 years old and (2) have been determined to have permanent historical value under title 44, United States Code, shall be automatically declassified whether or not the records have been reviewed. Subsequently, all classified records shall be automatically declassified on December 31 of the year that is 25 years from the date of its original classification, except as provided in paragraphs (b)-(e) of this section.

(b) An agency head may exempt from automatic declassification under paragraph (a) of this section specific information, the release of which could be expected to:


(1) reveal the identity of a confidential human source, or a human intelligence source, or reveal information about the application of an intelligence source or method;
(2) reveal information that would assist in the development or use of weapons of mass destruction;

(3) reveal information that would impair U.S. cryptologic systems or activities;

(4) reveal information that would impair the application of state of the art technology within a U.S. weapon system;

(5) reveal actual U.S. military war plans that remain in effect;

(6) reveal information, including foreign government information, that would seriously and demonstrably impair relations between the United States and a foreign government, or seriously and demonstrably undermine ongoing diplomatic activities of the United States;

(7) reveal information that would clearly and demonstrably impair the current ability of United States Government officials to protect the President, Vice President, and other protectees for whom protection services, in the interest of the national security, are authorized;

(8) reveal information that would seriously and demonstrably impair current national security emergency preparedness plans or reveal current vulnerabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, or projects relating to the national security; or

(9) violate a statute, treaty, or international agreement.


(c) An agency head shall notify the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs of any specific file series of records for which a review or assessment has determined that the information within that file series almost invariably falls within one or more of the exemption categories listed in paragraph (b) of this section and which the agency proposes to exempt from automatic declassification. The notification shall include:

(1) a description of the file series;
(2) an explanation of why the information within the file series is almost invariably exempt from automatic declassification and why the information must remain classified for a longer period of time; and

(3) except for the identity of a confidential human source or a human intelligence source, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a specific date or event for declassification of the information.


The President may direct the agency head not to exempt the file series or to declassify the information within that series at an earlier date than recommended. File series exemptions previously approved by the President shall remain valid without any additional agency action.
(d) At least 180 days before information is automatically declassified under this section, an agency head or senior agency official shall notify the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, serving as Executive Secretary of the Panel, of any specific information beyond that included in a notification to the President under paragraph (c) of this section that the agency proposes to exempt from automatic declassification. The notification shall include:


(1) a description of the information, either by reference to information in specific records or in the form of a declassification guide;
(2) an explanation of why the information is exempt from automatic declassification and must remain classified for a longer period of time; and

(3) except for the identity of a confidential human source or a human intelligence source, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a specific date or event for declassification of the information. The Panel may direct the agency not to exempt the information or to declassify it at an earlier date than recommended. The agency head may appeal such a decision to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The information will remain classified while such an appeal is pending.


(e) The following provisions shall apply to the onset of automatic declassification:

(1) Classified records within an integral file block, as defined in this order, that are otherwise subject to automatic declassification under this section shall not be automatically declassified until December 31 of the year that is 25 years from the date of the most recent record within the file block.
(2) By notification to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, before the records are subject to automatic declassification, an agency head or senior agency official designated under section 5.4 of this order may delay automatic declassification for up to 5 additional years for classified information contained in microforms, motion pictures, audiotapes, videotapes, or comparable media that make a review for possible declassification exemptions more difficult or costly.

(3) By notification to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, before the records are subject to automatic declassification, an agency head or senior agency official designated under section 5.4 of this order may delay automatic declassification for up to 3 years for classified records that have been referred or transferred to that agency by another agency less than 3 years before automatic declassification would otherwise be required.

(4) By notification to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, an agency head or senior agency official designated under section 5.4 of this order may delay automatic declassification for up to 3 years from the date of discovery of classified records that were inadvertently not reviewed prior to the effective date of automatic declassification.


(f) Information exempted from automatic declassification under this section shall remain subject to the mandatory and systematic declassification review provisions of this order.
(g) The Secretary of State shall determine when the United States should commence negotiations with the appropriate officials of a foreign government or international organization of governments to modify any treaty or international agreement that requires the classification of information contained in records affected by this section for a period longer than 25 years from the date of its creation, unless the treaty or international agreement pertains to information that may otherwise remain classified beyond 25 years under this section.

(h) Records containing information that originated with other agencies or the disclosure of which would affect the interests or activities of other agencies shall be referred for review to those agencies and the information of concern shall be subject to automatic declassification only by those agencies, consistent with the provisions of subparagraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) of this section.

Sec. 3.4. Systematic Declassification Review. (a) Each agency that has originated classified information under this order or its predecessors shall establish and conduct a program for systematic declassification review. This program shall apply to records of permanent historical value exempted from automatic declassification under section 3.3 of this order. Agencies shall prioritize the systematic review of records based upon the degree of researcher interest and the likelihood of declassification upon review.

(b) The Archivist shall conduct a systematic declassification review program for classified records: (1) accessioned into the National Archives as of the effective date of this order; (2) transferred to the Archivist pursuant to section 2203 of title 44, United States Code; and (3) for which the National Archives serves as the custodian for an agency or organization that has gone out of existence. This program shall apply to pertinent records no later than 25 years from the date of their creation. The Archivist shall establish priorities for the systematic review of these records based upon the degree of researcher interest and the likelihood of declassification upon review. These records shall be reviewed in accordance with the standards of this order, its implementing directives, and declassification guides provided to the Archivist by each agency that originated the records. The Director of the Information Security Oversight Office shall ensure that agencies provide the Archivist with adequate and current declassification guides.

(c) After consultation with affected agencies, the Secretary of Defense may establish special procedures for systematic review for declassification of classified cryptologic information, and the Director of Central Intelligence may establish special procedures for systematic review for declassification of classified information pertaining to intelligence activities (including special activities), or intelligence sources or methods.

Sec. 3.5. Mandatory Declassification Review. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all information classified under this order or predecessor orders shall be subject to a review for declassification by the originating agency if:


(1) the request for a review describes the document or material containing the information with sufficient specificity to enable the agency to locate it with a reasonable amount of effort;
(2) the information is not exempted from search and review under sections 105C, 105D, or 701 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-5c, 403-5e, and 431); and

(3) the information has not been reviewed for declassification within the past 2 years. If the agency has reviewed the information within the past 2 years, or the information is the subject of pending litigation, the agency shall inform the requester of this fact and of the requesters appeal rights.


(b) Information originated by:

(1) the incumbent President or, in the performance of executive duties, the incumbent Vice President;
(2) the incumbent Presidents White House Staff or, in the performance of executive duties, the incumbent Vice Presidents Staff;

(3) committees, commissions, or boards appointed by the incumbent President; or

(4) other entities within the Executive Office of the President that solely advise and assist the incumbent President is exempted from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section. However, the Archivist shall have the authority to review, downgrade, and declassify papers or records of former Presidents under the control of the Archivist pursuant to sections 2107, 2111, 2111 note, or 2203 of title 44, United States Code. Review procedures developed by the Archivist shall provide for consultation with agencies having primary subject matter interest and shall be consistent with the provisions of applicable laws or lawful agreements that pertain to the respective Presidential papers or records. Agencies with primary subject matter interest shall be notified promptly of the Archivists decision. Any final decision by the Archivist may be appealed by the requester or an agency to the Panel. The information shall remain classified pending a prompt decision on the appeal.


(c) Agencies conducting a mandatory review for declassification shall declassify information that no longer meets the standards for classification under this order. They shall release this information unless withholding is otherwise authorized and warranted under applicable law.
(d) In accordance with directives issued pursuant to this order, agency heads shall develop procedures to process requests for the mandatory review of classified information. These procedures shall apply to information classified under this or predecessor orders. They also shall provide a means for administratively appealing a denial of a mandatory review request, and for notifying the requester of the right to appeal a final agency decision to the Panel.

(e) After consultation with affected agencies, the Secretary of Defense shall develop special procedures for the review of cryptologic information; the Director of Central Intelligence shall develop special procedures for the review of information pertaining to intelligence activities (including special activities), or intelligence sources or methods; and the Archivist shall develop special procedures for the review of information accessioned into the National Archives.

Sec. 3.6. Processing Requests and Reviews. In response to a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, or the mandatory review provisions of this order, or pursuant to the automatic declassification or systematic review provisions of this order:

(a) An agency may refuse to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of requested records whenever the fact of their existence or nonexistence is itself classified under this order or its predecessors.

(b) When an agency receives any request for documents in its custody that contain information that was originally classified by another agency, or comes across such documents in the process of the automatic declassification or systematic review provisions of this order, it shall refer copies of any request and the pertinent documents to the originating agency for processing, and may, after consultation with the originating agency, inform any requester of the referral unless such association is itself classified under this order or its predecessors. In cases in which the originating agency determines in writing that a response under paragraph (a) of this section is required, the referring agency shall respond to the requester in accordance with that paragraph.

Sec. 3.7. Declassification Database. (a) The Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, in conjunction with those agencies that originate classified information, shall coordinate the linkage and effective utilization of existing agency databases of records that have been declassified and publicly released.

(b) Agency heads shall fully cooperate with the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office in these efforts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #7
41. I'm guessing the CIA will have something to say about
Just a guess...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #7
73. No, he still has to get the permission of the department
Edited on Thu Apr-06-06 11:54 AM by EC
involved, being the CIA....


edit: (h) Records containing information that originated with other agencies or the disclosure of which would affect the interests or activities of other agencies shall be referred for review to those agencies and the information of concern shall be subject to automatic declassification only by those agencies, consistent with the provisions of subparagraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) of this section.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greeby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:50 AM
Original message
Grabbing the snacks
:popcorn: :beer:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. K & R and hence the speech!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:51 AM
Original message
I would like to know when the hell someone is going TO DO SOMETHING
I can't listen to much more of this....it goes on and on and on and nothing happens!

ARRRRGGGHHHHHHH!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
22. I was talking to my mom about this over the phone (and probably agent Mike
too) and said the very same thing! They're going down! Well, maybe not, I've been saying that for years. What the hell am I thinking, of course they're not going down! Then again, the media is covering this so that is a BIG DEAL. The media has been ignoring 99% of the crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #22
55. I was so mad at Dean yesterday I wanted to throw stuff at the TV
He was on Hardball (I think it was chrissy Matthew's show) and when responding to Delay's charges that the Dems will start impeachment if the take power in 06, Dean basically dismissed that idea.

I think what these guys don't get is that people WANT that A-hole impeached--

A year and a half ago I was steaming because the rank and file people didn't get it and the stupid still supported bushit...now they GET IT and we are STILL looking at polticians beating around the bush (excuse the pun)

Daily in my state I hear people just ranting about how shitty everything is and there is a very strong hatred for this admin--you can feel an air of discontent hovering.

The Dems need to seize on this and call it like it is...

Before anyone gets pissed at me for expressing my irritation with Dean, I am not anti-Dean by any means but I liked him better when he was calling a spade a spade.

I wish he would go back to a more in your face demeanor!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mazzarro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #55
64. I share your frustration
However, my opinion of what Howard Dean was trying to put across was that if Dems regain control of congress, they will not go on a vendetta spree. I would have preferred he make that point another way - ie. that Dems will try to restore accountability to the government and repair damages done as best as is possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #64
67. Yes, your talking point was what I wanted to hear!
Dean did a great job when he said *we don't need Delay as a poster child for corruption because we have X,Y and Z other people in the bush admin who are all corrupt* (something along those lines) but I really wish he would have said what you just mentioned about restoring accountability etc to signify that if it takes impeachment to do so (and we all know it does) that's what they will need to do.

I don't think these guys on the hill realize just how frustrated the rank and file who are just trying to pay their fuel bills and keep a roof over their heads are right about now and it's not making people feel any better to hear this utter bullshit about how wonderful everyone is doing economically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #55
72. I think you misunderstood him
he said that the Dem's will not seek impeachment for non-illegal activities or trivial reasons, that leaves open impeachment for illegal activities...he was very careful in his phrasing..the transcripts are not up yet, so I can't get exact, but I laughed at the way he phrased it....because it still left impeachment open
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #72
74. Ok maybe it was just my perception then
Anything involving news lately pisses me off to the point where I am not always listening all that carefully...I swear bushit's reign has caused me to have adult ADD or something.

It's like info overload with me these days!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
3. Thanks.....kick! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
4. Let us see if there is follow through
THE DAMN DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS BETTER JUMP ON THIS!!!

This is also ground for Censure, and of course impeachment

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
6. QUICK!! BREAK TO CYNTHIA MCKINNEY!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
8. A White House lawyer is said to have given Scooter the okay
as in if Bush says it aloud it is suddenly no longer classified.

So who was the key WH lawyer? Gonzales???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. other lawyers saying it was INappropriate for Bush to Declassigy this
information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
9. Schuster laying it on---Now Bush is at the HEART of this investigation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. keep it coming rodeo n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deadparrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
10. Goddamn it...I have to go to class.
I wanted to break out the :popcorn:

Luckily, I'm skipping my evening class to register for next semester. Hmm...baseball game or :popcorn:?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. but if the president declassifies something
doesn't that make it legal??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #13
32. Even if it's legal, it's basically betraying the country for political
Edited on Thu Apr-06-06 10:59 AM by Jim__
advantage. Let's see Rove sell that to the American people. And that still doesn't make Libby's perjury legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
12. The shit is hitting the fan.
Things are good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. Houston we need to up that to "Things are Great" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #16
27. Yep!
This is a day that should cause us to have confidence in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #27
62. can you help me out here?
Edited on Thu Apr-06-06 11:15 AM by leftchick
I have not read the PDF of Libby's testimony but according to Bloomberg it was The Iraq Nuclear threat Libby leaked to Miller that bush authorized. He did not okay the leaking of Plame's name? Isn't there a big difference? I am confused.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aTAo1LZSEZDA&refer=us

Bush Approved Leak of Iraq Arms Intelligence, Libby Testified
April 6 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush authorized disclosure of classified information on Iraq's weapons program to rebut war critics, a former top administration aide told a grand jury, according to documents filed in federal court.

The documents don't allege the president approved the identification of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, although they were filed in connection with the investigation into who leaked the operative's name to reporters in 2003. The court filing by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald also doesn't suggest Bush violated any rule or law governing the handling of classified material.

The document described federal grand jury testimony by I. Lewis Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, who was indicted last October of charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to FBI investigators probing the Plame case.

In the filing, Fitzgerald describes Libby's testimony about disclosure to former New York Times reporter Judy Miller of a 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's pursuit of nuclear materials.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #12
30. Furiously, in fact!
I heard this on AAR just minutes ago, and now it's being picked up everywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
17. If this was the case... why didn't the WH claim that from the beginning?
Day one of story... it is now declassified info.

Why?

B/c it was a huge deal - blew up intelligence gathering operation on WMDs to leak this.

Just doesn't wash as an excuse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #17
31. BINGO -- It's less important whether it was legal. It's the basic lie.
Bush made a big show of how shocked and appaled he was that this was leaked at the time.

IF (a big if) he actually authorized it himself, it matters less whether it was legal than if he basically did the equivalent of Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #17
35. I thought there was some Bush statement back when it happened
"We'll find the leaker and smoke them outta their cave!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nimrod2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #17
37. This is good, it means they both lied to the GJ, right....
They did not say so from the beginning and I am 100% sure they denied knowing anything when asked about it earlier!!!

Let the indictments roll........God bless America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #17
58. it is the cover up that gets them in trouble. they never learn
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #58
68. Funny how that "Good Christian Man" has been proven to lie and lie
and lie and lie and lie and lie to the public - yet outside of our circles few question the "good Christian man" description. Go figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
18. Well folks lets give Schuster/msnbc a BIG hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Shuster saying Libby saying BOTH VP and Bush are in a pickle/pr.
problem now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. Rock on
thanks rodeodance:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
19. Thanks for the heads up.
Jim Lehrer's News Hour will be good tonight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
20. Here is the vision: The bus is speeding down hill with no brakes
bu$h is the drivers seat.
One wheel has already fallen off, and others are loose
This is like the steering wheel coming off in bu$h's hands.

:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #20
29. oops, and then a mudslide happens along the way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
23. what is new says Schuster is the PRESIDENT is now in the mix!! te he.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
25. Nice bombshell!
Edited on Thu Apr-06-06 10:57 AM by DoYouEverWonder
Holy cow. Flat out admitting they did it. Also, admitting they lied the whole time. They really believe they are above the law.

I hope they all enjoy their retirements in a Federal Prison together.

FUCKING TRAITORS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #25
33. Libby gave this informatin (in court docs)--posted elsewhere on DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #25
45. And how many months (years) have gone by?
CNN now putting it on breaking news CNN International. :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azmouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
26. Yesss!!! Prayers ARE answered!!!
I hope they impeach the bastard in the WH!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sojourner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #26
63. not to ruin the party, but remember - the house is full of repugs who
would rather change the law than see it enforced. dems MUST take back the house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azmouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #63
66. I agree but this is a good start.
It may start the ball rolling toward impeachment as more people realize how crooked * is. And it could therefore help elect more Dems who will do something about the corruption in the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sojourner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #66
71. oh, no doubt! people need to wake up from their long, long nap and
realize that their "honest" president was a con man all along - and when the people do wake up i think there may be hell to pay for the republicans. at least one can hope!

OTOH, worries me that corpo-media allowing bush to go down. might mean they've got a back-up plan now so they can afford to cut * loose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
28. OMG... where is this playing on the line-up? A 'top' story?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #28
38. Curric story came first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
36. said Scott will have his press conf. later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. bring plenty of
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #36
48. please post when he's up
I'm trying to work but can't focus!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
40. 'libby says president bush authorized cia leak"--is the tag line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. saying bush authorized release of information for Woodward book also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedEarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
43. IMPEACH THE LIAR........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
44. saying bush said he wanted to find out who was leaking info and now we
find out it was Bush himself!!! whaow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. Recall when Bush got up and said he wanted to know who leaked the
information?------------yaddy yah
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #46
53. Roll tape! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. BINGO! DING DING DING DING DING!!!
The media needs to play that clip over, and over, and over, and over and over!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #47
49. CNN pointing out exactly that now
Mentioning that Bush told cabinet "we're going to find out how this happened"..."we know how things go around here in Washington"

:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #47
54. god, i am waiting for the media to replay that clip over and over!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #44
75. Shuster said that? Damn I was watching CNN because I couldn't find
anything on MSNBC.... That's great news..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
50. Clip!..Clip!!...Who has the clip.....
The clip where Bush* says that he will fully investigate this leak, and whoever it is will no longer work for his administration.....
AND...he says, "We will probably never know who the leaker is."

A MUST have clip!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #50
59. yes, i want to see it also
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neoblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
51. Of course, we're the first to forget that Laws do not apply
to our fair haired King/Emperor... it's so easy for him too; he doesn't even need to know which law, all he's gotta say is it's Presidential privilege, after all, during "a War"!

Who's gonna enforce any law-breaking anyway? That's the Executive's job; and when it's the Executive, Congress has to do it's job--and as we've seen, they can't (or won't).

Election 2006; it's Urgent!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sojourner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #51
65. my thoughts exactly...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
52. several threads on this issue including this one:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #52
57. I want msnbc to play the clip of Bush saying he wants to find out who leak
ed!!! i want i want
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
60. hey all FRIZ delivered---he got Libby to squeal like a piggo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
61. won't they just paint Libby as a bitter, sour grapes, liar? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingFlorez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
69. Good lord!
What's going on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
70. Just tried to explain on CNN that georgie can de-classify anything he want
s. Therefore, end of story. That's the spin I'm hearing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC