Because my only cites would be your posts.
Oh, you poor put-upon conservatives… :rolleyes:
Maybe nobody else is commenting because unlike you, they aren’t a lawyer, and hence realize they don’t have anything useful to add? Or they feel you have adequately explained the issue? Not everybody is a lawyer, you know.
Well, someone speculated on what Bush’s response would be, so I quoted it since it has already been given (thru SM). Do I believe him? I don’t know-- it might actually be true as far as the documents in question are concerned. But I still maintain that there isn’t a whole lot to this news story that we haven’t known all along. The press keeps harping about Bush “leaking” stuff, when it’s clear that Bush didn’t “leak” anything. The original sensational headline, that Bush approved the leak of Plame’s status, has turned out to be NOT what these papers are about.
And no, I would not be any car (used or otherwise) from poor little Scotty. He’s got the worst job in the country, and if I were him I would’ve quit a looooong time ago.
This is just a sense, just an impression, now… but it seems to me that on this board, when other subjects are at issue, and someone takes a demonstably false stand, there is no shortage of posters willing to add their condemnation to the list. What’s being discussed here is not an arcane point of law. It’s a very simple statement concerning the President being the one to issue and modify executive orders.
People that are not experts on evolution or biology still leap up to add their voices to bring down a creationist, on those rare occasions when one visits here. They don’t shy away because one person is doing such a good job of debunking the claims and adequately explaining the issue.
So no, I don’t agree with what you’ve said. I think most readers realize she’s wrong, but don’t want to be in the position of defending, even obliquely, the President – or in the position of attacking someone who is attacking the President. So they simply sit on their hands.
Perhaps I’m wrong. As I say, it’s just an impression.
Got it. In know the feeling. 
The president, John. I don’t think anyone here has endorsed Bush’s ad hoc approach to declassification. Without documentation, how could Libby even know exactly what was declassified? How could he know that there was still supposed to be a line drawn around Plame’s identity? Hearsay is a crappy way to deal with national security matters.
Nope. The reason I haven’t commented on Biggirl’s tactics isn’t “because it’s Bush”. It’s because I’m not qualified to argue whether she’s got a good point or not, or whether she’s being argumentatively fair. That’s why we’ve got you.
Look, I’m an artist. If Biggirl started a topic debating over whether Bush’s head was out of proportion or not, I’d feel safe in arguing with her on it. You’re a lawyer, I’ll leave all the legal-type arguing to you.
However, I’m also an American citizen. As such, I feel qualified to comment on the fact that Bush, though while what he may or may not have done may or may not have been legal (and, given your posted opinions on the subject I’m inclined to agree that it is), it’s still incredibly shitty. If it turns out that this story is true, then in my mind, his lying to the American populace is a far worse offense than whether it was legal for him to do so. YMMV. Me, I’m getting seriously tired of the seemingly weekly fuckups from The Head Office.
I’d be saying the same thing were it anyone else in the presidency, if all this same shit was going down. The only reason Bush is getting such vitriol on the SDMB is because he’s the guy what’s in charge. The buck stops THERE. He may not be as rotten as some people paint him, but he certainly seems to me to be one of the weakest, morally speaking, presidents we’ve had in quite a while.
Frankly, I’m surprised anyone still attempts to defend him. Bush is our face to the rest of the world- has he done anything to be proud of?
Well, it’d be a pretty chilly defense. “Not illegal”, which I think all but the braindead fully grasp at this point, must scarcely amount to a ringing endorsement for what appears to be an imprudent use of the privileges that come with the Executive Office. That the President can declassify anything he likes is in incredibly potent ability, and some might say that ability was used irresponsibly and disingenuously to score political points here. The latter’s a matter of opinion, of course.
In my case, I think Bricker’s done a perfectly adequate job of explaining. However, if he wants some ‘me too’ posts to back him up, OK, here’s one.
Biggirl is so, so stupid it’s painful.
When I read something demonstrably false in a political thread, I usually don’t post anything. And I don’t because I hate those kind of threads. Ignorance rarely gets fought, tiresome line-by-line semantic dissections trump nuanced reasoning, and “partisan liar” gets thrown around too easily. Why the Hell would I want to get involved in that?
Well, I have to admit, my admittedly unreliable common sense was violated when first I encountered the notion the Prez could just declassify whatever he liked at his own discretion to do with what he pleased. I figured that just couldn’t be right. Surely there must be some number of high hurdles even the POTUS must jump over before sensitive intelligence could be disseminated at will.
Shows what a lack of legal intuition and expertise does to one’s thinking. Of course, there’s something to be said for a more naïve sensibility, I suppose.
But that wasn’t my point. My point was that you were using a direct quote from Scott McLellan as a cite, as if his word carried any more weight than rice paper. I expect better from you, and I know you’d be ashamed of yourself if you used such a sloppy tactic and got away with it, so I won’t let you. 
Biggirl is wrong, and you are right.
I am pleased to note that you believe (along with most of the rest of us) that though that action was legal, it was immoral.
This whole situation is a perfect example of something that may be legal but unethical in the extreme.
There you go, Bricker. Have a cookie.
However, I don’t think Biggirl is necessarily displaying reprehensible tactics. Stubborn, yes, but I don’t think it’s all that unreasonable to scour the possible angles for something to pin on the administration. I don’t really think it has legs based on what I’ve read in this thread, but I can understand being frustrated with the slimy tactics these guys have pulled.
Why is that a chilly defense when the charge is that it was illegal? There really can’t be any other defense.
I still can’t see what the “there” is in this news story. And let’s not forget who the source is of these allegations: Scooter Libby, who is under indictment for 1 count of obstructing justice, 2 counts of lying to the FBI, and 2 counts of perjury in front of a grand jury. Is this the guy who’s supposed to be the font of truth in this matter? Yeah, innocent until proven guilty, but why is Libby’s word more believable than Bush’s, except that Libby’s might correspond more closely to your pre-conceived idea about what the facts are?
What specific action are you referring to?
Because as far as we know, Libby hasn’t lied to the American people over and over and over.
The authorization of the leak of classified information to the media for political purposes.
Umm, sorry.
The alleged authorization of the leak of classified information to the media for political purposes. Which, quite honestly, given the reaction of the White House, I see no reason whatsoever to doubt. Can you give me any reason why I should believe McLellan that it was not for political purposes for even a second? Anymore that I should have believed any White House flack in the last 48 years?
As Kevin Drum points out, even Nixon wouldn’t selectively declassify national security information for matters of politics. At least if Nixon had released the info showing there was no missle gap, it would have been in the interest of the truth.
Bush, all the while declaiming how horrid and dangerous it is to release national security information to the press, here declassified for the press ONLY those things that made his case for war, and witheld those things that contradicted it (many of which have later come to light by alternate channels). While the direct connection to the Plame leak has yet to be established, I don’t understand how anyone can excuse what we now know to be Bush’s feigned ignorance over the whole affair. Knowing what we now know, it would have been obvious by who and how Plame’s named leaked to the press when he claimed he knew nothing and would investigate.
So far, the White house has basically confirmed what Libby said: Bush sent Libby to spill some beans to discredit Wilson behind the scenes. Whether Plame’s leak was all Libby’s mistake, or was intentional, is still a mystery. But the overall implication that Bush never knew all along about the incident has collapsed. We also know that Plame’s name couldn’t have been a single slip of the tougne. We know of at least six reporters that got calls from someone (Libby?) who dropped Plame’s status.
I guess I’m not following you. It would appear we have an admission, via McLellan, that Bush authorized leaks. We see in Libby’s testimony, as related by Fitzgerald, some of the rationale for those leaks. What’s the conceptual leap here? Why would I assume, even if we accept he lied like a dog about Plame to save only his own skin, that he’s lying about Cheney’s motives? How, at this stage in the game, could that possibly help him? How could he ever hope to get away with it? Again, my preconception is he’d have to be batcrap nutty given the pickle he’s in to pile on the lies so he can finagle access to more classified documents. How is that possibly a more credible scenerio than he’s now giving an accurate account of the dissemination of info. that does not name Valerie Plame-Wilson? None of the contents of the document are being contested, it would appear. If Libby were truly lying about Cheney, wouldn’t the admin. be crucifying him by now? The guy’s under oath trying to defend himself from charges that basically amount to “you lied to the wrong people, buddy”. I can easily understand the lies about the outing of Plame way back when. I cannot see the sanity of compounding that error while under indictment, given who he’d be lying about.