No, there was a significant difference between how Libby portrayed the information to Miller and how it was stated in the NIE.
Okay. So you have no issue with the declassification and sharing of the information with a single reporter, per se, correct? It was in how the information was represented? I just want to make sure I’m clear. Had Libby handed here a copy of the declassified portions of the NIE without comment or discussion, would you have no issue with that exchange?
Also, this is from the NIE:
Now, I’m not asking you if you believe this is true. I’m asking how the Times or anyone else can assess this is not a key judgment of the declassified NIE, whether or not they believe it. This is an honest question. Perhaps “key judgment” has a specific meaning in these circles.
But even if that’s the case, it seems to me what Libby represented to Miller and what the declassified NIE contained is essentially the same. Disagreeing with the judgment is a separate issue than saying that something specific and unethical occurred in the exchange with Miller.
That’s where we disagree, I think. For instance, what unethical purposes do a pathological liar’s lies intend to serve? (Note that I’m not necessarily saying Bush et al are pathological liars; in fact, the self-serving care with which they mislead indicates otherwise.) Or, perhaps a better example (although not quite good enough) might be insider trading – sometimes, the timing of a thing is important. Again, given the strong stance put forward by Bush and friends about leaking information, these technicalities amount to lying by omission, which is unethical.
In this case, you disagree, and that’s OK. To me, this is yet another example in a seemingly infinite string of such incidents, which deserve harsher judgment as they accumulate.
I do.
Releasing previously declassified information to only one person before making it available to the rest of the public strikes me as being wrong in the same way that inside trading is wrong. You can’t tell me that Judith Miller, a treasured ally of the Bush White House, was not given a significant advantage over her competition by receiving information everyone else thought was inaccessible. She had a 10-day leg up to start writing songs of praises for Bush, and had she published them, there would be nary a counterpoint, nary a rebuttal, because the source information was withheld from everyone else. The woman was given a scoop that is probably every toadyish journalist’s wet dream, and it’s no coincidence that her work happens to be quite friendly towards the administration. It is precisely what makes this thing look shady, because it suggests that the aim was to make Bush look good and nothing more. That’s insufficient grounds for declassifying information, as has been pointed out time and time again!
If you are so blind that you can’t see the ethical ramifications of such conduct, even after so many people have tried to spell it out to you, then I hope you don’t go into politics or anything else that requires an appreciation for ethics. You’re not really demonstrating intelligence in this area.
A liar’s lies may serve no unethical purpose. A lie is unethical when it conveys a falsehood when the other party deserves to hear the truth, an admittedly gray arena. So, for example (not to invoke Godwin, but this is a typical example), when a Nazi demanded to know where the Jews were, it served no unethical purpose to lie and tell him you didn’t know even if you did.
A lie to gain an undue advantage or to withold information that the listener deserved to hear is unethical. An insider trader is behaving unethically, because he is transferring what would have been his loss (without that knowledge) to an innocent party–there’s always a loser on the other side of an inside trader’s gain. This serves an unethical purpose.
So, if you’re arguing that the exchange between Miller / Libby and the subsequent release of the declassified portions of the NIE both serve to advance the same lies of omission, you may have a point. But that means that Libby’s recent testimony is nothing startling. He effectively is saying that he conveyed the same basic message. But what I think you’re saying is that Bush’s condemnation of leaks was a lie of omission without some explicit explanation that this does not refer to anything he declassifies, however he might choose to disseminate that info.
And I appreciate your explanation, and I realize we just disagree on this last point. I don’t think the exchange of information with Miller is anything remarkable (unless some other information is uncovered). Anyway, just trying to clarify my position.
Well, that’s good enough for me. Such a brilliant rebuttal I’ve never seen. The fact that the moment she reported it, everyone else had the same basic information, is not relevant. And Bush is clearly the first president ever to use friendly reporters to his advantage, even if we accept that this is an unethical practice. Clearly, he should only share information with reporters who display an obvious animus towards his administration’s goals.
And I’m sure there was nary a rebuttal in those ten days. Your word is good enough for me.
OK. So now most of us are agreed that, legal or not, leaking was a hug ethical fuck up. Many of us are agreed that it was problably illegal (discounting the Nixonian “it’s legal if the president does it”).
HOWEVER. When the whole thing first came out, as useful as the White House thought it would be polticially, the president still made his small talk about how serious it was, and that any leaker would be fired. Later, he modifed that to something about finding the guilty and blah blah.
Now, the story has changed again. Now, he is saying something to the effect that he sort of authorized some leak of something. To pretect the country and let people know the truth about something (or other).
The leak was all about punishing someone (Wilson) who had told the truth about Niger and yellow cake uranium. It was done by attacking and outing his wife, Plame. The White House swore they didn’t know anything about it. Then they threw Libby to the wolves. That was a tasty appetizer for Fitzzgerald, but still he kept on looking. Now the White House is implicated.
How can anyone defend this bullshit? It was a sleazy and unethical fucking around with national security to cover up a lie with more lies, and play politics. How can anyone condone this crap?
It isn’t, actually. Who knows why she didn’t report it sooner? Maybe she’s a slow writer? A procastinator? The reason why doesn’t change the ethics, or the lack thereof, behind Libby’s conduct. A trader is still guilty of inappropriate behavior if he makes certain information available to one client that others are not privy, too. It doesn’t matter if that client fails to act on that information.
Has watching the current crop of Republicans for the last six years taught you nothing? It’s really quite simple: Lie like your very existence depends on it, repeatedly, unabashedly, persistently, relentlessly. Something bad happens, maybe your poll numbers take a dip; but they always recover some lost ground if you follow the formula and wait for something that makes you look good to cycle around.
You believe most of the people in this thread believe this was illegal? Really?
Nobody’s defending it, because it is bullshit. Bush said he’d fire anyone who leaked Plame’s CIA status, then amended it say anyone who broke the law in doing so. Regardless of this verbal tapdance, Libby has not testified that Bush authorized him to leak Plame’s CIA status. Period. And nobody threw Libby to the wolves. Fitzgerald investigated him for outing Plame, and despite his inability to make that charge stick, charged Libby with obstruction of justice. Man, this is tiresome.
So, to answer your question, no, Bush still isn’t beating his wife.
I accept that the declassification was legal, in a nose-holding kind of way. I don’t accept that this was simply a “sharing of the information with a single reporter”.
That’s why I don’t agree it was simply sharing information - because it was a misrepresentation.
If you mean in the form it was disclosed in later, I think it would have been stupid of Libby to do that, being that he was pushing an angle that’s weakened by the disclosure of the document. I don’t understand why, with the mission he was given, he would do that.
If the document was declassified, and anybody could have access to it, as it was later on, I wouldn’t have a problem with that. And I’m not saying everybody should have a copy in their back pockets - I’m saying should anyone choose to, they could get at it. Not just Judith Miller.
I take that clip as one of the key judgements, however “he remains intent on acquiring them” (nuclear weapons) or any other statement there is not the same as “vigorously trying to procure uranium”. At least in my book.
If there was solid evidence that Saddam was vigorously trying to procure uranium, you can bet it would have been up there as a key judgement, but it wasn’t.
What Libby presented to Miller wasn’t what he said it was. Yeah, it’s in the key judgements document somewhere, but Libby put it front and center when it was really just a disputed footnote.
Read it again. I said MOST of us consider it unethical and that MANY of us consider it illegal. Don’t put false words in my mouth.
No, but he and Cheney are both still liars and cowards. And no, rehashing the same crap over and over with partisan assholes is getting tiresome. And AGAIN, don’t change my god damn words.
Are you next going to say Bush (and/or Cheney) had no fucking clue from the start? Then why the big flip flop over
- hunting down and firing the leaker to
- wait until all the facts are in and wait for indictments/convictions to
- leaking to tell the People the truth about something or other?
Unless they knew all along, there is NO reason to change their story, is there? I guess it’s because they were full of shit all along.
Robert Scheer
Powell is saying in this interview that it was Cheney. If Bush let Cheney do all this, didn’t stop him, and then wobbled around trying to justify the same leak after previously condemning all leaks, then he is just as fucking guilty. At the very least, if he is as clueless and fucking stupid as his “supporters” claim any time something seems to touch him, then he is fucking grossly incompetent and derelict in his duties. Two more years and he’s outta here. Too bad he can’t be fired now.
I went back and read it again and you’re right. I read it quickly and misread it. Sorry.
Well, if you say so. That settles it.
Partisan asshole? Me or you? I want to make sure I don’t put words in your mouth.
What are you shrieking about? Libby’s testimony, the focus of this thread, does not–I repeat, does NOT–implicate Bush in authorizing the Plame leak.
Well, there you go. No partisan assholery here.
I was under the impression that she never published this stuff. I read that elsewhere, though. All of her NYT stories from that period are subscription only.
But that’s my question. Is it the same basic misrepresentation as the selective declassification of the NIE?
It’s splitting hairs in my book. “Intent on acquiring” and “vigorously trying” are about the same. They certainly aren’t worlds apart.
And neither one is close to meaning “grave and gathering threat”, with a side order of “mushroom cloud”.
Pick whichever one you like. Either one is a lie. Or, since you prefer the term, “misrepresentation”.
really? I wish husband was “vigorously trying” to aquire a new roof for our house, for that would mean that he’s actually taken some steps toward that end. Unfortunately for me, he seems to be “intent on acquiring” which means he ponders on the idea from time to time, making mental lists of what steps he might take in order to acquire in between inventories of navel lint. and we see from this example, “intent on acquiring” seems to require no evidentiary support except for occasional claims from folks saying “he told us he wanted them”.
and, of course, since the ‘stuff’ he was ‘intent on acquiring’ required materials, know how, place to assemble and quite a bit of time to do so, seems like ‘intent on acquiring’ is pretty much a fucking world apart from the mushroom cloud.
Do you mean does Libby’s misrepresentation of the NIE findings to Miller equal the selective declassification of only the parts of the NIE that bolster the points Bush was trying to make?
Since what Miller was told was not exactly in the key judgements, did they just declassify the footnotes?
If that’s the case, then the footnotes are the footnotes. If Cheney and Libby pawn footnotes off on Miller as key judgements, then that’s the problem.
I can see that, except “vigorously trying…” was not elevated to a key judgement, and “Intent on acquiring…” was. That’s hardly splitting hairs.
There may not be that big a difference in the minds of some in the Bush administration with an agenda to push, but in the minds of the people who compiled the NIE, there was enough of a difference to elevate one and not the other.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0603/S00029.htm
From: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030106J.shtml
Well said, Mr. Powell.
This is very much like the forged ‘Bush AWOL’ stuff. Although the document was forged, the contents of it were basically true. But people made it about the forgery.
Here, it’s all about ‘Did Cheney or Bush out Plame?’ so nobody notices that leaking parts of ‘intelligence’ and not other parts is implicitly admitting the still classified stuff is being hidden for reasons other than national security.