Bush Authorized the Leak of Classified Information

Per Scooter Libby's Testimony

Published on April 6, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics

On Page 20 of the testimony given the court by Scooter Libby claims it was President Bush that authorized the release of classified information to the press. Thus, Mr. Libby is claiming he was only doing what the President had authorized.

Mr. Libby further stated that these instructions were given to him by the Vice President. If these claims are validated, we have another Watergate- Both the President and Vice President would have violated the laws of the United States and put our secret agents in jeopardy if what Mr. Libby said is true. This from a President that has condemned the release of classified information.

If true, this would require the removal of both Bush and Cheney from office! What will we learn tomorrow about this corrupt administration?

Comments (Page 1)

Moderateman

on Apr 06, 2006

since the president of the united states can declassify at will what's your point? oh yeh now i remember bash bush at all costs.

COL Gene

on Apr 06, 2006

Even the President must go through a panel to declassify information. There is NO indication any such process was followed. In addition, he said in 2003 and 2004 that anyone that was responsible would be dealt with. If this story is true, HE WAS THE MAN that released classified information to the public that JEPORDISED our security and agents. It was not only Mrs. Wilson but any contacts she had while an undercover agent. If this is true, Bush and Cheney screwed the pooch on this one and need to GO.

Daiwa

on Apr 06, 2006

I believe in your rush to trumpet what you consider the "smoking gun" you've overlooked three things:

1) You are wrong about what the President can declassify & how.

2) We have only Libby's claim as to what happened (which may be true).

3) If Bush did authorize disclosure of the contents of the NIE in question, Libby was acting fully within that authority and there was no "leak". Disclosing information under proper authority to do so is not "leaking" - by definition. The question of whether either Libby or the President "knew" that Plame was covert remains to be sorted out.

stutefish

on Apr 06, 2006

Gene, what's your source?

All I have is [a href="http://news.findlaw.com/ap/p/56/04-06-2006/0eda002841670f5c.html"]this AP report[/a]. The report quotes Howard Dean as saying the information was "classified", but that's about it. No reporting on what gave Dean the idea, or wether or not the idea is correct.

So what makes you say the information was "classified"?

Other than the ranting of Howard Dean, that is.

davad70

on Apr 06, 2006

Libby says himself that it was classified information. He said he initially told Cheney that he couldn't give the info to Judith Miller because it was classified.

[Libby] further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. [Libby] testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. [Libby] testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.

Link

COL Gene

on Apr 06, 2006

The story was on CNN and Hardball They showed page 20 of the Libby Testimony

As to declassification or not that is not the issue.

First Bush said he wanted to learn who gave out the classified info. If Libby is correct he not only knew it was him and he lied through his teeth.

Next he as been telling us how much harm is created by disclosing classified information so he directs people to disclose classifies info.

The information he put out was only part of the document that supported his claim about Iraq and nuclear weapons. The same document showed that two Federal agencies, Dept of State and Energy discounted the classified info Bush had released. Thus what he did is release selective classified info that supported his position while keeping classified info secret that did not support his story. Libby admitted this was to discredit Wilson because he said the Saddam Nuclear threat was not correct. We now know that Wilson as well as Dept of State and Energy Intel were correct.

No matter how you spin who and how classified info can be declassified, Bush lied when he said he was directing that the sources of the information were to be uncovered. He and Cheney were the sources and they used their principal assistants to give this selective classified information to the press to discredit Wilson who was telling the truth about the Saddam nuclear threat. Bush and Cheney will do ANYTHING to do what they want regardless of the facts.

I am in the process of reading, The Battle for Peace by Gen Zinni. He makes it clear there was no threat from Iraq and that the intelligence proved that but that Bush, Cheney and Rummy buried anything that did not support attacking Iraq. It was not that the Intel was wrong; it was that the intelligence that clearly showed Saddam was NO THREAT to the U S was buried until after we invaded Iraq. He also confirms that Bush scrapped the War Plans that said it would take 500,000 troops to secure Iraq after Saddam fell. That plan was developed over 10 years by people familiar with Iraq with knowledge they acquired from the first Gulf War. Bush and Rummy disregarded those plans which has produced the current disaster in Iraq.

drmiler

on Apr 06, 2006

I am in the process of reading, The Battle for Peace by Gen Zinni

And "this" General, says your General is FULL OF IT!

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

Link

Now try again!

Daiwa

on Apr 06, 2006

Bush lied when he said he was directing that the sources of the information were to be uncovered.

Then how is it that the sources of the information were uncovered? As Spock would say, that is not logical.

Wilson who was telling the truth about the Saddam nuclear threat.

Sorry, Gene, but he was disclosing classified information without authorization (leaking) and lying about what his superiors had concluded from his report, no doubt expecting its classification as secret to provide cover for those lies. The administration called his bluff, however, and here we are. Her value as an agent, whether covert or not, was toast the moment Wilson started singing and if anyone ever deserved discrediting, it was Wilson.

Bahu Virupaksha

on Apr 07, 2006

In fact the leak had come from the White House and we will hear more about it in the days to come. Elections are round the corner and this issue will gain ground. I have no doubt that Bush has done something quite wrong but whether it can be proved in a court of law is another matter.

bakerstreet

on Apr 07, 2006

"Elections are round the corner and this issue will gain ground."

Given that Bush and no one else involved is running for anything, I can't see why it is in anyone's interest to waste any more time on it.

zergimmi

on Apr 07, 2006

So Fucking what, will this make the world safer, will it stop terrorism, will it end the Iraq war, no. These are important issues, however they are at best domestic issues for the US to deal with, yet this is international news, the reality is this is just a distraction from real problems, and while the press get all excited over every little snippet of political skulldugery the war rages on.
When the media wake up then maybe something will be done about some of the real issues.

COL Gene

on Apr 07, 2006

drmiler

You show you ignorance. Your Iraqi General was part of the Saddam regime. Zinni was the former CENCOM Commander and a person that had all the Intel at his view. What he said is that the total Intel DID not show Saddam was a threat. Only those elements of the Intel that supported Bush were released PRIOR to our invasion. I will believe OUR General Zinni long before your Iraqi General.

Daiwa

The sources about the Intel Bush buried did not come out until AFTER Bush invaded Iraq. Gen Zinni was CENCOM Commander from 97-2000 and served s a security consultant to the Pentagon right up to the invasion of Iraq. He saw all the Intel that Bush/Cheney used and that that Bush/Cheney buried until AFTER we went to war. Gen Zinni said that the Intel was not wrong as Bush and others claim. There was some Intel that said Saddam may have had some OLD artillery shells from the first Gulf War but that the potency of any gas in those OLD shells was questionable. The issue of large amounts of Bio agents was NOT confirmed by the Intel. The issue of nuclear was clear. Saddam had no nuclear weapons program. He had no capacity to develop one and did not try to by Yellowcake. If he had purchased the Yellow Cake he could not have done anything with it. It is a LONG way from having yellow cake and having a nuclear weapon. Further the Intel said his Army was nothing since the first Gulf War which we proved by the ease of our invasion. Gen Zinni also acknowledged that the reason we have the sectarian violence today is because we did not have the troop strength required to control Iraq when we disbanded the Army and Police Forces. That was because Bush and Rummy disregarded the plan for Iraq that called for 500,000 troops to maintain order after Saddam Fell. I know that is correct because other accounts of Op Plan 1003 were released earlier that confirm what Gen Zinni said in his book and in the interviews over the past week.

Virupaksha

The importance of November 2006 is that although we can not unelected Bush in Nov 2006, we can shift the control of Congress. If BOTH houses were to change hands, the Congress could impeach and remove both Bush and Cheney from office. That would then place the Speaker of the House in the Presidency who would also be a Democrat if the House was controlled by the Democrats. That would be the MOTHER OF ALL THE BUSH/CHENEY NIGHMAYERS!

zergimmi

on Apr 07, 2006

Will this stop the war in Iraq, No, unless of course by stopping the war we mean pulling out. I would be very surprised if a democratic adminiatration would do this. To stop the war we need to stop the source of the ongoing conflict, this being Osama and his followers and other self interested parties, who see more value in a civil war , eg: Iran, etc.

COL Gene

on Apr 07, 2006

The war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with Osama. It NEVER did have anything to do with him or 9/11. When we deposed Saddam, the lid was lifted that has kept the three factions in Iraq in check. We were unable to prevent the sectarian violence between these factions from getting to the state it is today. The reason for that was because Bush did not follow the plan to occupy Iraq and sent about 1/3 the number of troops required to establish and maintain order in Iraq. The bombings of the two mosques yesterday and today prove the issue is a conflict between the three factions. That same friction is preventing an effective government from being formed despite the three elections Bush said were so essential.

We can not at this juncture prevent these three factions from fighting with each other. If the violence becomes more wide spread, we will have 130,000 troops in mortal danger. It is time to let the Iraqi people settle this among themselves and try and prevent any future violence from spilling outside Iraq.

Lee1776

on Apr 07, 2006

Didn't the leak investigation already conclude that the information given to the reporter was not classified and no secret cover had been blown?

Libby is being hit on for giving fault statements to a Grand Jury, right? Then why are we beating this dead horse yet again? I guest some people are fixed on getting a little more blood out of this corps instead of coming up with ideas to fix the immigration issues. Since we can't go back in time, talking about reasons for invading Iraq is pointless also.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!