# Bush is Doomed **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-doomed/247042 "2004-05-25T19:34:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![kennybath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e68b1a/32.png) [@kennybath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kennybath)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-doomed/247042/41 "2004-06-04T03:14:42Z")
From what I’ve read, the Plame investigation is a joke. Basically, no law was broken. “HOW CAN THAT BE!!! THEY OUTED A CIA PERSON!!!” If you read the law, it says a number of things. You had to have revealed the information knowing that the person was undercover. You had to basically know that you were endangering a person’s life. An offhanded comment to a reporter as to why her husband got a plum job (when he was in the Clinton administration) probably won’t do it. The person also had to have been undercover overseas within the past 5 years or so. This is from the Wall Street Journal. Much of the conversations coming out of the white house about people trying to “out” her were people directing reporters to Novak’s column after it had already been written. That’s not a crime. From what I’ve read, Republicans are more behind Bush than Democrats are behind Kerry. Given how poor a campaigner and ponderous speaker Kerry is, I think Bush will win. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-doomed/247042/42 "2004-06-04T03:39:00Z")
> [@capacitor](#): > > I saw Peggy Noonan’s reaction to Bush’s speech on the state of Iraq a few weeks back. In a scale where 10 is her husband James Carville’s infectious enthusiam for any Democrat, and one being Darla-like dreariness, she was around 2 when she talked about Bush. If she can’t talk about Bush without smiling, who can? That doggish snake-headed cajun! Not only is he fucking mary matalin, but peggy noonan too??!! ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-doomed/247042/43 "2004-06-04T03:58:00Z")
Nitpick: Mary Matalin (not G. H.W. Bush speechwriter Peggy Noonan) is the Republican strategist married to James Carville. > [@capacitor](#): > > I saw Peggy Noonan’s reaction to Bush’s speech on the state of Iraq a few weeks back. In a scale where 10 is her husband James Carville’s infectious enthusiam for any Democrat, and one being Darla-like dreariness, she was around 2 when she talked about Bush. If she can’t talk about Bush without smiling, who can? ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-doomed/247042/44 "2004-06-04T03:59:49Z")
Beat me to the punch, **alaricthegoth**. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-doomed/247042/45 "2004-06-04T04:35:35Z")
> [@capacitor](#): > > I saw Peggy Noonan’s reaction to Bush’s speech on the state of Iraq a few weeks back. In a scale where 10 is her husband James Carville’s infectious enthusiam for any Democrat, and one being Darla-like dreariness, she was around 2 when she talked about Bush. If she can’t talk about Bush without smiling, who can? (Leaving Carville’s polygamy aside…) Especially since I still remember when Noonan wrote a positively gushy piece on the editorial page of the WSJ a couple(?) years in which she marvelled at what a wonderful and magnificent statesman George Bush was turning out to be. It was enough to make an iron-stomached man puke for days! ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-doomed/247042/46 "2004-06-04T04:40:01Z")
> [@kennybath](#): > > From what I’ve read, the Plame investigation is a joke. Basically, no law was broken. Among the immediately obvious questions are, “If it’s a joke, why is the Pres taking it so seriously?” “Why has he sought counsel from outside counsel?” GWB has said that it’s a serious matter. Are you accusing the President of the United States of America of being a liar? Are the grand jury, FBI, DOJ and the WH in need of your corrective measures? Should drop them all a line with your expert legal advice? They’re all supposed to be heavy hitters, but maybe they need your input about this legal issue. > [@kennybath](#): > > You had to have revealed the information knowing that the person was undercover. Are you going to argue that it whoever leaked the name didn’t know that she was undercover? How does one gain acess to classified information such as the name of an undercover operative without knwing that she’s an undercover operative? Even if you just accidentally come across the classified info, someone’s rsponsible for you coming across the info and is liable for that breach in security. > [@kennybath](#): > > You had to basically know that you were endangering a person’s life. Actually, if you read the law I assume you’re referring to, (correct me if i’m wrong)- [Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.)-](http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html)- there’s no mention of having to know that you were endangering someone’s life. To wit: “Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States…” > [@kennybath](#): > > An offhanded comment to a reporter as to why her husband got a plum job (when he was in the Clinton administration) probably won’t do it. The identity of undercover agents is classified information. Divulging classified information is not in anyway similar to an ‘offhanded comment.’ When you gain a security clearance, I’m certain that they tell you you’re not supposed to reveal classified info to reporters. > [@kennybath](#): > > This is from the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ opinion journal opposed to the _news_paper no doubt. > [@kennybath](#): > > Much of the conversations coming out of the white house about people trying to “out” her were people directing reporters to Novak’s column after it had already been written. That’s not a crime. According to [former WH counsel](http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:IETh2_j3T3kJ:writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20031010.html+%22additional+criminal+charges+under+the+federal+conspiracy+statute%22&hl=en): “But even if the White House was not initially involved with the leak, it has exploited it. As a result, it may have opened itself to additional criminal charges under the [federal conspiracy statute](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=371).” and “[The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982 may both apply](http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:YR7mJANbhdwJ:writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html+%22Espionage+Act+of+1917%22+%22Intelligence+Identities+and+Protection+Act+of+1982%22&hl=en).” Must the leaker have an evil purpose to be prosecuted? The [Reagan] Administration argued that the answer was no. …the leak of classified material alone was enough to trigger imprisonment for up to ten years and fines. And the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed. It held that the such a leak might be prompted by ‘the most laudable motives, or any motive at all,’ and it would still be a crime." ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-doomed/247042/47 "2004-06-04T04:56:09Z")
> [@kennybath](#): > > …I think Bush will win. Also, note that even if revealing the name of undercover operatives **charged with figting the proliferation of WMDs** were not a crime it would still be a heinous act that endangers our national security. There’s no getting around the fact that it was harmful to our anti-proliferation efforts. It was still a breach of the US’s national security. Don’t you agree that the outing of undercover CIA agents is a bad thing? If it was done inetntionally it’s a sign of **mendacity**. If it was somehow done on accident, then it is a sign of gross **incompetence**. You do agree that neither mendacity nor incompetence are desirable traits in those charged with our national security, yes? You still haven’t offered an explanation of how GWB Admin will get around the whole funding a _known_ Iranian agent thing. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-doomed/247042/48 "2004-06-04T05:50:54Z")
Here’s a lovely site I’ll use as a citaion that the divulging of classified information like the name of an undercover agent is a crime: [Leaking Classified Info: It’s A Crime](http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/folder/aug_5_classified.guest.html) ---
**Author:** ![kennybath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e68b1a/32.png) [@kennybath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kennybath)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-doomed/247042/49 "2004-06-04T16:26:07Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Among the immediately obvious questions are, “If it’s a joke, why is the Pres taking it so seriously?” “Why has he sought counsel from outside counsel?” > > GWB has said that it’s a serious matter. > Are you accusing the President of the United States of America of being a liar? > > Well what do you think he would say? “BFD”? > Are the grand jury, FBI, DOJ and the WH in need of your corrective measures? Should drop them all a line with your expert legal advice? > They’re all supposed to be heavy hitters, but maybe they need your input about this legal issue. > > Are you going to argue that it whoever leaked the name didn’t know that she was undercover? How does one gain acess to classified information such as the name of an undercover operative without knwing that she’s an undercover operative? Even if you just accidentally come across the classified info, someone’s rsponsible for you coming across the info and is liable for that breach in security. > > Actually, if you read the law I assume you’re referring to, (correct me if i’m wrong)- [Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.)-](http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html)- there’s no mention of having to know that you were endangering someone’s life. > To wit: > “Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified > information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any > information identifying such covert agent to any individual not > authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the > information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the > United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert > agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States…” > The identity of undercover agents is classified information. Divulging classified information is not in anyway similar to an ‘offhanded comment.’ When you gain a security clearance, I’m certain that they tell you you’re not supposed to reveal classified info to reporters. > The WSJ opinion journal opposed to the _news_paper no doubt. > > That’s exactly the law. I think it’s a little bit tricky to get someone on that. Suppose the person who knew she was a CIA agent and told Novak, had been told by someone else this in an offhanded manner. He (the person who told Novak), did not know she was undercover and that the gov’t was trying to conceal her identity. There are alot of people in the CIA who have desk jobs…they’re not all spies. According to the law above, you would have to PROVE he knew this or should have known this. I think that would be hard. Supposedly Novak called someone at the CIA who said she did work there but wasn’t undercover anymore. Something like that I forgot. So Novak’s original source…who told him? His original source probably doesn’t have secret clearance and all that…from what Novak said it was an offhand comment…the type not made by someone who would know (as a person with clearance probably would) that they could be getting themselves in a world of shit. > > Anyway, from that law, the person who mentioned it to Novak’s source may have broken the law (if you could prove he knew she was undercover)…but it may be a long trail back to the person who knew or should have known she was undercover and mentioned it. > > If I hear from you that his wife works for the CIA and mention it to someone else…have I broken the law? I thought part of the stories in the WSJ were that it was not exactly “secret” that his wife worked for the CIA. I’m not sure how exactly… > According to [former WH counsel](http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:IETh2_j3T3kJ:writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20031010.html+%22additional+criminal+charges+under+the+federal+conspiracy+statute%22&hl=en): > “But even if the White House was not initially involved with the leak, it has exploited it. As a result, it may have opened itself to additional criminal charges under the [federal conspiracy statute](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=371).” > > and > > “[The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982 may both apply](http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:YR7mJANbhdwJ:writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html+%22Espionage+Act+of+1917%22+%22Intelligence+Identities+and+Protection+Act+of+1982%22&hl=en).” > Must the leaker have an evil purpose to be prosecuted? The [Reagan] Administration argued that the answer was no. > …the leak of classified material alone was enough to trigger imprisonment for up to ten years and fines. And the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed. It held that the such a leak might be prompted by ‘the most laudable motives, or any motive at all,’ and it would still be a crime." Well, that makes it sound more serious…but suppose the leaker didn’t know it was “classified”? ---
**Author:** ![kennybath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e68b1a/32.png) [@kennybath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kennybath)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-doomed/247042/50 "2004-06-04T16:28:49Z")
Whoops…I put my reply to SimonX in the middle of his. I guess I didn’t quite get the hand of the quote thing as to how to respond to multiple quoted text in one reply. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-doomed/247042/51 "2004-06-04T16:57:16Z")
> [@kennybath](#): > > Well what do you think he would say? “BFD”? If no law had been broken, don’t you think that would’ve factored into the Pres’s response? It might have even inhibited the convening of a grand jury with a special prosecutor, and made unecessary the recusal of Ashcroft. > [@kennybath](#): > > That’s exactly the law. I think it’s a little bit tricky to get someone on that. Suppose the person who knew she was a CIA agent and told Novak, had been told by someone else this in an offhanded manner. He (the person who told Novak), did not know she was undercover and that the gov’t was trying to conceal her identity. The person who revealed the info committed the crime, offhand comment or no. > [@kennybath](#): > > There are alot of people in the CIA who have desk jobs…they’re not all spies. Novak referred to her as an ‘operative’. I searched [cia.gov](http://cia.gov) for the word ‘operative,’- not once did the word refer to someone with a desk job. > [@kennybath](#): > > According to the law above, you would have to PROVE he knew this or should have known this. I think that would be hard. Since her name would’ve been classified info it’d be harder to show that they didn’t know it. Whoever garneredthe info knew that she was an operative. > [@kennybath](#): > > Supposedly Novak called someone at the CIA who said she did work there but wasn’t undercover anymore. Something like that I forgot. So Novak’s original source…who told him? His original source probably doesn’t have secret clearance and all that…from what Novak said it was an offhand comment…the type not made by someone who would know (as a person with clearance probably would) that they could be getting themselves in a world of shit. This just distances the criminal one step further from Novak. There’s still the crimes of having revealed classified info and having revealed the identity of an operative. Someone did so knowingly. > [@kennybath](#): > > If I hear from you that his wife works for the CIA and mention it to someone else…have I broken the law? Possiblly, depending… > [@kennybath](#): > > I thought part of the stories in the WSJ were that it was not exactly “secret” that his wife worked for the CIA. I’m not sure how exactly. Even though there’re about 50 investigations of this nature every year, AFAIK, this is one of the few where DCI Tenet himself wrote the letter to the DOJ asking for the investigation, and one of the few where DCI Tenet made sure that the letter made it to the Press. Tenet’s direct involvement with the case could be seen as evidence that the CIA is taking this very seriously as well. > [@kennybath](#): > > Well, that makes it sound more serious…but suppose the leaker didn’t know it was “classified”? Even if the info got out as a result of negligence, someone in the chain knew it was classified. Same ol same ol- Mendacity or Incompetence: We fuck up, you decide ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-doomed/247042/52 "2004-06-04T17:02:45Z")
Even if it were not technically illegal, don’t you think that revealing the name of undercover operatives charged with figting the proliferation of WMDs is reprehensible? Even if it was somehow done on accident, then it is a sign of gross incompetence. You do agree that neither mendacity nor incompetence are desirable traits in those charged with our national security, yes? ---
**Author:** ![kennybath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e68b1a/32.png) [@kennybath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kennybath)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-doomed/247042/53 "2004-06-04T21:31:53Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Even if it were not technically illegal, don’t you think that revealing the name of undercover operatives charged with figting the proliferation of WMDs is reprehensible? > Even if it was somehow done on accident, then it is a sign of gross incompetence. > > You do agree that neither mendacity nor incompetence are desirable traits in those charged with our national security, yes? Sure, I guess you could say that. I don’t think it was done deliberately…it’s too tangential a smear. “You know that guy who’s pissing all over Bush…yeah? well…the only reason he got sent there is b/c his wife works for the CIA.” Yeah, well so what? His (Plame’s husbands’) are either valid criticisms or they are not, the fact that his wife works for the CIA is not really relevent. I think how Novak explained how it came about was that he asked someone “why in the world would they send a Clinton guy to Niger”. The reply was the “well his wife works for the CIA, so they probably recommended him”. Implying a form of nepotism which would explain his assignment. So the person who mentioned it was incompetent in that they perhaps, didn’t realize that it was a bad thing to tell Novak. Novak deserves some blame for even bothering to mention it. But I don’t think malice was intended. I didn’t know Tenet took it so seroiusly. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-doomed/247042/54 "2004-06-04T23:01:59Z")
Sorry for getting Matalin and Noonan mixed up. Matalin makes Linda Ellerbee look cheerful in comparison. Bush going to Europe is a sure indication that he wants to get away from the mess in Washington and look it over. I think he is genuinely angry that he was played like a sucker concerning Iran’s learning more things than he did. I would too. When Bush gets back home, look for Cheyney to coveniently have ‘another’ heart attack, forcing him to withdraw from the race. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-doomed/247042/55 "2004-06-05T01:33:55Z")
> [@kennybath](#): > > I think how Novak explained how it came about was that he asked someone “why in the world would they send a Clinton guy to Niger”. The reply was the “well his wife works for the CIA, so they probably recommended him”. Implying a form of nepotism which would explain his assignment. Of course, Novak has an incentive to say this given that he is not so much a journalist as a mouthpiece for the Bush Administration working in the media. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-doomed/247042/56 "2004-06-05T01:42:38Z")
Oh, and [url=]here is an article in The American Prospect about the whole thing. Note these paragraphs (which admittedly don’t provide detail o exactly who the sources in the Administration are): > [@](#): > > Apparently the leak to Novak was made as senior Bush administration officials were reportedly attempting to discredit Wilson, who had been saying that the administration had relied on faulty intelligence information to bolster its case to go to war with Iraq.(President Bush had cited the Niger evidence in his 2003 State of the Union address.) > > Congressional Democrats and some members of the Bush administration say the purpose of the leak was not only to discredit Wilson but also to intimidate other government officials from coming forward to question the administration’s rationale for war. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-doomed/247042.md?page=2)