We’re trapped in bit of a bind either way. Either Libby is telling the truth and Bush/Cheney constructed an elaborate lie for the American pulbic about not knowing anything about who outed Plame, or Libby just perjurde himself. Don’t you think that Cheney and Bush might feel some duty to let the court know that Libby committed perjury?
Martin Hyde’s “Even if he was responsible, aside from being a bit dirty politically I don’t really think it’s that big a deal” was particularly giggleworthy. And I’m sure UncleBeer and Bricker will provide me with more laughs soon enough… 
Yup. There are only three possibilities:
- Libby’s account is correct.
- Cheney lied to Libby.
- Libby is lying now.
If #1 is true then Bush is a liar and a coward.
If #2 is true then Cheney is a liar and a loose cannon.
If #3 is true you’d think that Bush and Cheney would be eager to work with Fitzgerald to see the disloyal bastard locked away.
But nothing in the behavior of the White House suggests that #3 is true … .
But the stuff that Libby is talking about did not include Plame’s status. I really don’t see how this is relevant to the case-- it seems more like a diversionary tactic by Libby. The info here is that Bush and Cheney may have used selective declassifaction to spin the post-war analysis of the pre-war data. That’s of interest as a news story, but how is it of interest to the criminal procedings? It’s likely that Libby is telling the truth-- he had authorization to release the info in question. So what?
Why this dichotomy?
Is it not possible that Bush authorized Libby to say, “we disagree with the Times editorial, Ms. Miller. A National Intelligence Estimate published last year decided that it seemed that Iraq was racing to reinstitute it’s nuclear weapons program.” Bush still doesn’t know who leaked Plame’s name (and Cheney might well have gotten Plame’s name from non-confidential sources anyway) and Libby hasn’t perjured himself either.
As far as I’m concerned, while the Executive has broad powers to decide what is or isn’t classified, simply using the summary from a NIE is fine in responding to the press.
It’s the executive that wages war (and in this case argues on their behalf), and I’m sure this group would be rather pissed if Bush et al just said, “we’re bombing Iraq, no I won’t tell you why.” Again, releasing a conclusion from a confidential report is fine by me. Releasing speicific information that reveals information about our professional intelligence gathering services or other things that are in our national interest to keep quiet isn’t okay.
Whoever released Plame’s name or obstruted the investigation into such should go to jail, but this is a virtual non-event. Trying to make it into something huge will make you look rather silly.
The problem with your hypo is that there is ample evidence that both 1 and 2 are true. (See WMD in Iraq, National Guard to avoid Vietnam, Duck hunter shot but cops kept away long enough for cheney to sober up) Where does that leave us?
Okay, explain to me slowly and in small words why these are the only three possiblities for this situation. I’m not disagreeing with your general characterizatio in point one, I just don’t see how it’s proved by this situation.
People keep talking about this story as though the Big Deal is that Valerie Plame’s name was leaked and she’s an AGENT. That wasn’t the point. I agree that either way the behavior was reprehensible; I’m just saying which behavior it was. She wasn’t in Deep Cover, for crying out loud.
?? what does that term mean to you? She was an agent for the CIA. she would travel to foreign countries as an employee of some other company. she did this, on the behalf of the CIA to secure information. IIRC, one of the other pieces of fallout from this clusterfuck was that the company name she used now can no longer be used.
It was and is a big deal that her CIA connection was identified. It isn’t really part of the criminal case (except in periphery), but it’s not an 'oh well, nothing to see here". especially since this administration has long had the (voiced) policy of ‘leaks put The War Against Terror in jeopardy’, as in their concern about who leaked the info about the phone taps, and the CIA secret prisons etc.
Why? The info that Libby is talking about did not contain Plame’s status.
True, but I think it more likely that he didn’t lie. Bush and Cheney wanted that info into the public domain. Again, this info did not contain Plame’s status.
Libby is probably telling the truth, but this has nothing to do with the charges being leveled against him (Libby).
That isn’t clear at this point, in part because, ironically, the information about what Bush did in this case is still partially classified. What is clear that:
- If what Libby is saying is true, Bush authorized a bunch of information relating to Wilson in an attempt to discredit him.
- If he did that, he did it without telling anyone, including Rove and his Cabinet, and allowing a process to declassify the material to proceed even though he had supposedly already authorized leaking it to the press through a background interview, which is pretty bizarre behavior.
- He then went before the American public and declared that whomever had leaked Plame’s name would be fired and that he didn’t know anything about it. But at the very least, he said that KNOWING that he had released all that info, which apparently included information about Plame’s name regardless of whether it authorized publicizing it, to Libby, and that Libby had been the one to speak to the press!
Libby even claims that he at first protested, saying that he objected that what he was doing would be illegal. But Cheney then allegedly told him that it was okay because it was authorized by the President.
Apparently though, declassifying information to attack political enemies is such a common practice in this administration that this particular instance slipped Bush’s and Cheney’s minds, even after it became a major story.
Argh. Yes, that part is very very bad. Her career was fucked with most horribly, without benefit of lube OR a reach-around.
That wasn’t the thrust of the leak, is all I’m saying. It was an incredibly bad side-effect, but the main point was to discredit Wilson. It’s really just a side note to the OP and comments.
ok - all good.
Well, there’s always going to be the potential that some classifed info contains the smoking gun. No?
Is it clear that the info was specifically to discredit Wilson, or just to shore up Bush’s case about the war in general?
Bizarre behavior by Bush? You don’t say!
But I thought it didn’t contain Plame’s name. Or are you referring to the still classified stutf (if so, see my reply to your first point).
Can you cite the stuff that was used to attack a political enemy, and show that it wasn’t just to counter what Wilson was claiming? I haven’t seen the papers myself, so I honestly don’t know.
I think that Libby is trying to avoid getting himself into even more trouble than he’s already in.
My theory is that Bush told Cheney to leak some info to bolster the case for war with Iraq, and Cheney relayed this order to Libby. It was Libby himself who decided to leak Plame’s name, probably in the hopes that he’d impress his bosses by showing initiative, or some stupid idea along those lines. He’s not directly accusing Bush or Cheney of ordering him to leak the name, because then he’d open himself up to another perjury charge if his story was proven wrong. The best he can do is to imply orders from above, without saying so explicitly.
That’s what fitzgerald alleges might be the case: I haven’t read it either.
Page 7
“Some documents produced to defendant could be characterized as reflecting a plan to discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson.”
Unfortunately, the documents are classified.
I would like to thank “Scooter” for two things.
First of all, for rolling over on his bosses, proving once again that a shit-eating yes-man weasel is not the guy you want doing your dirty work.
Second, because his turning lead to this thread, and this thread has shown me that two people are so far gone, so useless, that they’re now on my ignore list.
Don’t worry, Marty, it’s not you. I’m still looking ahead to your inevitable coming out thread.
-Joe
While it’s true that the President, as head of the executive branch, does have the ultimate authority to classify and declassify information (whether Vice-President Cheney has this authority is another kettle of fish.). However, there’s a process to national security declassifiaction that involves the President’s signature and the preparation of a redacted version of the classified document (in cases where the President doesn’t wish to keep some of the information classified). When the declassified version is ready, it is then released and put on a list of declassified documents. That is to say, it’s pretty darn irregular for President Bush to tell Dick to tell Scooter that he’s decided that selected cherrypicked parts of the NIE are no longer considered classified and can be leaked to friendly media sources.
The part that bothers me (and this is to the Government’s Reply to Libby’s Request for Discovery):
**ccording to defendant [Libby], at the time of his conversations with [Judith] Miller and [Matthew] Cooper, he understood that only three people - the President, the Vice President and defendant - knew that the key judgments of the [National Intelligence Estimate] had been declassified. Defendant 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. **
Information is either classified or not. As far as I know, there is no double-secret classification where only the President only the President, VP, and assorted leak recipients know that something has been declassified. Even if there is an inherent Presidential power to do ad hoc, or even retroactive, declassifications without written documentation (which boggles the mind), it would be hard case to make that he has the inherent power to conceal that certain information has been declassified (not only from the public, but from high government officials).
I don’t know if someone already mentioned this, but the damage done to CIA operations was more than just the outing of one of their agents. Valerie Plame worked for the CIA front company Brewster Jennings & Associates, and any other operatives working for this company were subsequently outed. Attention to this fact was minimized, so you really got to wonder if this was actually the desired effect.
I don’t know if someone already mentioned this, but the damage done to CIA operations was more than just the outing of one of their agents. Valerie Plame worked for the CIA front company Brewster Jennings & Associates, and any other operatives working for this company were subsequently outed. Attention to this fact was minimized, so you got to wonder if this was actually the desired effect.