What sepcific classified information are you talking about and how do you know that it was for political purposes? AFAICT, this all revolves around the NIE, which was declassified and made public, not leaked. It turns out that Libby may have given it to Judith Miller a few days early, but it was released to the general press at basically the same time.
It’s unlcear to me, though, where you draw the line between “for political purposes” and “in order to better make the case for the war”. Remember, we are not talking about Valerie Plame’s identity here. Yes, a good case can be made that leaking her status was highly political in nature and aimed at discreditting Joe Wilson. But, if Bush reads Joe Wilson’s Op Ed piece, and says “hey, let’s show the public the other intel we had”, how is that political (in the bad sense of that term)? Should he not be allowed to make his own case? Was there something that was released in the NIE that you think should not have been released?
Oh, sorry, forgot to get back to this first point in my last post. I suppose if you’re talking about posters in this thread continuing to insist against all evidence to the contrary that Bush broke the law, maybe the defense should be tepid or something. I was thinking more in terms of the overall implications, isolated specifics about Plame and legality aside.
Well, that’s the only reason that defense was offered, so yes that is what we’re talking about.
Everyone in this thread keeps saying (paraphrased): “this thing” or “what Bush did” or “this action”, as if we’re all supposed to know what that means. I can’t help but think that most people are still stuck on the “Bush authorized Plame leak” phrase which remains this thread title.
The entire point of the objection to Libby’s leaks were where they were directed to discredit Joe Wilson. Why is that so hard to see? Release of the NIE is its own creature, not irrelevent to Wilson’s charges, but necessary Wilson or no. It’s the clarification that Wilson was not acting at the behest of the VP in Africa, and the nepotism angle, that’s the sensitive issue here! Libby is saying that’s why he started talking to these reporters when he did!
FWIW, I do think you are right, from the arguments in this thread, but wtf do you want from me or anybody else? A post saying “I don’t know jack-fuck about the law, but Bricker sounds right to my non-lawyer ass”? Or were you looking for a post like “Yay for Bush, for technically not breaking the law while doing this morally repugant act”?
Throw me a bone here, what were you expecting? Give me an example of what you wanted non-lawyers to do, which did not happen.
You were proving your point well as far as I could tell, there was no need to play the “poor oppressed conservative” card.
“Adequate” doesn’t cover it. He’s demolishing his opposition. Otherwise, I agree. I saw no need to repeat what he had already established.
But I should have*, if only for Bricker’s peace of mind. Accordingly, I’ll say that at least one other lawyer (me)agrees with his analysis.
*Especially as he called this point to my attention once before, and I promised to give him support when I saw 10-1 anti-Bricker pile-ons, even if he didn’t look like he needed help.
It only looked legal to me because of what was already brought into the thread. What was I to cite, one of your pre-existing posts like bup suggested? You sound right, but it’s so out of my depth that I could just be baffled by smoke you’re blowing.
You might be underestimating how inaccessable law is to many people. I’ll throw in my 2 cents if I think I have something to add about science subjects, even though I’m not a scientist, because I do read some about it. But as far these legal issues are, at least at the level in this thread, it would be an utter waste of electrons and hamster-power for me to make a post simply to tell you that your argument sounds correct. Yeah, it sounds correct to me, but that really means very little.
I could write some really good computer code, but I wouldn’t get bent out of shape if non-computer folks don’t rush to pat my back.
Yes, Plame’s identy is the issue here. But Libby isn’t claiming he released that info, and Judith Miller isn’t claiming she got it from Libby. So what’s the point? Libby isn’t even charged with relasing Plame’s identity. No one is. Libby isn’t saying he released Plame’s name because Cheney told him to do so-- he’s still saying he doesn’t remember.
I’ve been trying to discuss other matters besides the specific alleged illegal outing of Plame for what feels like a very long time now. That’s woven into the matter inextricably, I admit, but the focus has moved (or so I thought) to other matters regarding leaks, and how the apparent official stance on leaks has evolved.
Bush says leaking classified info. is bad. All leaks? Seems that way. Says he doesn’t know who’s doing this but sure would like to. Gotta get to the bottom of that, and how. He’ll fire those leakers if he catches 'em. Etc. Professes complete ignorance of the whole affair.
Now Libby is saying, under oath, to demonstrate somehow he should get documents from the CIA, NSC, Dept. of State, to further bolster his case regarding his “state of mind”, that Cheney told him to leak info. to reporters that would “be classified but for that approval”, with the assention of the president. He further says he was instructed by Cheney to “speak to the press…regarding the NIE and Wilson”. He claims Cheney was concerned about misperceptions regarding Wilson’s directives and the overall legitimacy of the trip (being a nepotistic junket) and wanted the press to know. Libby even claims he balked before getting the word from the top to go ahead. The rather unavoidable conclusion here is that Libby’s mission was to discredit Wilson, both with info about Wilson personally, as well as info. from the NIE.
It’s unprecedented behavior. It appears to be something the President said earlier he would never condone, legal or not, and regardless of the future status of the NIE. It’s the sort of thing the President appeared to claim he was compeltely ignorant about until the info. hit the presses. Forgetting the specific issue of blown CIA agent cover, there’s a whole lot more going on here, though I admit it’s not a stretch to wonder if he wasn’t fully aware of that as well. How long has Bush been making these catagoric denials? Two, three years worth of investigation? That isn’t troubling?
Hey,maybe you don’t see anything’s seriously amiss. I do. Guess it’s my left-wing bias.
Yes, you’re wrong. I’ve tried to explain it to you, but once again, without success. But, once again, not everything is about the law. You’ve made passing reference to the scumminess and irresponsibility of Bush’s actions, but only incidentally to your hammering on arcana of the law. But “most readers” are, properly, focused on the broader picture, and that isn’t the law - it’s the morality and leadership issues which are at the heart of what we have a President for. If you could look beyond the specifics of your personal background and try to take in the full picture, and discuss it appropriately, you’d not be in such trouble. But this idea you express that few are jumping in to join you on your narrow ledge because of simple reflexive hatred is simply false, uselessly insulting, and counterproductive.
But then, you have heard all of this before, haven’t you?
Oh come now, John. You are backing a dead horse here. If this horse wasn’t nailed to the starting gate, it would be pushing up the daisies. I read your posts; I know you are not as obtuse as you are pretending to be here.
And, oh come now, you too, Elvis. Bricker has expressed his disappointment in the President. What, precisely, do you feel he is not giving you?
If the President releases information, it is no longer classified. I think that’s a true statement.
If he directly authorized releasing this information… well, it’s reprehensible. I don’t know if it still qualifies as illegal under the law about CIA agents. It might, it depends how the law’s worded. Bricker?
But it’s sure wrong, and he deserves … something more than censure for it. Maybe a bitch-slap from Murtha.
In short, conduct unbecoming a President. That said, I still don’t know if Libby’s testimony really did clear using Plame’s name. It could be read as information, but not sources, you know. Maybe Bush cleared information, and when it hit Cheney or Libby the name was added.
Already explained, Frank. I have indeed given **Bricker ** credit for grudging, passing mention of his disappointment in brief interludes over his obsessing over the legal, technical issues. Isn’t it fair to wonder what he’d say if Bush had committed some technical infraction on the way to saving the world for democracy instead?
Frankly, you seem to be the only one still lingering over that headline. The consensus among most in this thread seems to be that Bush’s actions *following * the cherry picking of info from the NIE are the slimy crux. I refer you to post 180 for my own thoughts; **Loopydude ** articulated it much better just a few posts ago.
He didn’t break the law. He didn’t out Plame. We get it. He still has shit to answer for.
Well, you’re wrong. If it’s so simple, then tell us what specific classified inormation you’re talking about and lay out a case to support that it was politically motivated. I accept the assertion that Bush released the NIE report in order to bolster his case for waging war against Iraq, but if that’s political, what’s wrong with it? I ask you once again, was there information that should not have been released, and if so, why?
Look, I never supported the Iraq war, and I don’t buy any of Bush’s rationalizations. But I don’t see why he shouldn’t be allowed to make his case, and answer charges against him.
Just FYI, that’s incorrect, at least going by the filing and the prosecutor’s case. Libby did speak with reporters about Plame. According to page 20 of the filing – italics mine:
Elsewhere in the filing, the prosecution asserts that they have documents revealing that a goal within the White House was specifically to repudiate Wilson. This isn’t just releasing NIE stuff to “prove their case for war.” It’s trying to smear a guy for telling the truth about the ugly little forgery being used as an excuse to go to war. If some of the mud splattered on his wife, well, so be it.
John, I share your interest in this. That what Bush did (allegedly) was reprehensible seems to be simply a given in this thread. You have rightly questioned what makes it reprehensible (if legal). Is it possible to avoid yet another iteration of some variation of, “Puh-leez, John! Obviously it’s evil. Asked and answered, blah, blah, blah”?
What bad thing occurred as a result–other than “bad” in the sense of “supporting a political position I happen to disagree with, in this case making the case for a particular war.” What makes this bad other than, “Bush did it”?
Let me ask another way. If a president declassifies information that shares the following characteristics, would you still find it reprehensible?:[ul][li]It does not compromise national security.[/li][li]It places no one in peril.[/li][li]It does not place in jeopardy any existing national program.[/li]In this instance, it serves to advance a cause both you and the administration agree with–pick your favorite.[/ul]If we divorce the action from a policy / position that you strongly disagree with, does the “immorality” evaporate?