Bush Authorized the Leak of Classified Information

on Apr 09, 2006

drmiler
No it is you. You want to use one Iraqi source to disregard all the other Intel that said Iraq was no threat.

You also ignore the fact that even if Saddam had some old WMD, not only did he NOT have a way to use it against the U S. but if he had ever used it that would have been the end to his dictatorship. NO Rogue State would EVER attack a power like the US. The terrorist groups will attack us because they do not have a country to loose, In addition since they operate from dispersed locations, they know we can not eliminate them the way we would eliminate any rogue state that would attack us. Read the article I have sighted by Professor Record at the Army War College. It is you that is just as dumb as you could be. WE WERE NOT in danger from Saddam in March 2003! The Intel was available that said that but Bush kept it classified and insured that no one in Congress or the public was aware of that information.

32

Daiwa

on Apr 10, 2006

What we know now is irrelevant. What we believed before the war is all that matters. Rewind to March 2003 and play a few sound bites, better yet to 1999. To lay at Bush's feet total responsibility for having "manipulated" the collective beliefs of the prior US administration, the US intelligence community, the US Congress and the intelligence communities of multiple other nations simply betrays your irrationality.

33

COL Gene

on Apr 10, 2006

Daiwa

I agree the issue is WHAT DID WE KNOW AT THE TIME A CASE FOR WAR WAS BEING MADE? What Intelligence about Iraq and the capabilities of Saddam existed? What REAL threat was Saddam to our country?

That is my point. The Intelligence that was made available by Bush was ONLY a part of the TOTAL Intelligence that existed. Only the Intelligence that supported the assessment that Saddam and Iraq was a REAL danger to this country was made public and the non-supportive Intelligence that is now coming out was kept classified. That non-supportive Intelligence was kept from Congress when they were asked to authorize the war and from the AMERICAN public by Bush and Cheney. It is not that the Intelligence was all wrong about WMD and the danger Saddam posed to the United States. It is that ANY Intelligence that showed Saddam and Iraq were NOT a danger was kept secret until AFTER Congress approved the war resolution and Bush invaded Iraq.

If ALL the Intelligence that existed BEFORE the war resolution went before Congress, including some of the more realistic cost and difficulties that were possible, there would not have been any Congressional Approval. Bush took our country to WAR by keeping relevant Intelligence secret when it did not support what he wanted to do - Invade Iraq and depose Saddam.

34

Daiwa

on Apr 10, 2006

I'm wasting this bandwidth on Gene, I know, but I'm having my morning coffee and am in the mood. So here goes, Gene:

The opinions of most of the people involved were formed long before Bush took office. You make it sound like Bush kept 95% of the intelligence available to him secret & only disclosed the 5% which supported the case for war when in fact it was just the other way around. The minority opinion turned out to be more correct, but that doesn't mean that at the time it carried any weight. It wasn't "hidden" from anyone, just discounted. The collective judgement of the intelligence communities of multiple western nations was that Saddam had hidden WMD's or retained the capacity to rapidly ramp up WMD programs once sanctions were lifted. This was the position of the Clinton administration, and you will recall that Clinton's CIA director stayed on with the new administration. To pretend that everyone would have suddenly discounted or disavowed the majority intelligence opinion because of the availability of murky minority doubts is silly. To have done so would also have been potentially very dangerous - given Saddam's history, a conservative worst-case approach remained the wise choice. I would demand the same of my government today.

Gene does the same thing all the conspiracy whack jobs do - he believes what he believes and cherry-picks only those "facts" which conform to his beliefs. That's the reason people trash him here, along with the fact that he's never shown a shred of respect for anyone who disagrees with him. He's incapable of objectivity and responds to challenges by vomiting bile along with selective statistics.

35

DJBandit

on Apr 10, 2006

Has anyone realized the stupidity of the title of the article?

Bush Authorized the Leak of Classified Information

If Bush authorized it, wouldn't that make it declassified information? So where is the leak? This is just stupid to even be arguing about this. No crime has been committed on Bush's part so this is just plain ridiculous.

36

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 10, 2006

If Bush authorized it, wouldn't that make it declassified information? So where is the leak? This is just stupid to even be arguing about this. No crime has been committed on Bush's part so this is just plain ridiculous.

Bush can only declassify information HE makes classified; not information CONGRESS makes classified. That makes the question: who ordered the information classified?

As far as I am concerned, this incident did NOT jeopardize national security, and too much has been made of it. While the Libby trial is justified (it is, after all, about lying under oath, NOT about leaking classified information), we're doing more harm than good in wasting our time, money and other resources on this incident.

37

Daiwa

on Apr 10, 2006

I believe that NIE's are Executive Branch product, so it should be legal for him to declassify them.

I agree with Gid - Libby is charged with the same offense as Clinton, for the same reason, though I doubt the judge will be as forgiving as Clinton's was if Libby is convicted.

38

COL Gene

on Apr 10, 2006

The CIA believed the release of the fact that Mrs. Wilson an agent was a serious security matter; it not only compromised her but all the other contacts and agents she was known to associate with while undercover. The special prosecutor also believes this was a serious matter and has said so. I believe the CIA and Special Persecutor are a lot more qualified to know if this is a serious matter than anyone on this site.

As for Bush, he released sensitive information on a selective basis to bolster his claim Saddam was a danger while keeping Intelligence secret that showed just the opposite. He stood up and said he wanted to learn who released information when all along it was Bush and Cheney and their two principal assistants. Bush and Cheney are the worst two senior officials we EVER had in our history!

39

bakerstreet

on Apr 10, 2006

You can write about Bush every blog you want, but "truth" works both ways. You obviously aren't interested in any truth but that which validates your irrational hatred, and you obviously don't mind twisting that truth, either.

You see, you could easily imagine going to the Democrats to get "truth" about Republicans, but would you go to Republicans to get "truth" about Democrats? LOL, hell no you wouldn't. You're just the other side of the same, knee-jerk coin, and aren't any more authoritative or informative than any other rabidly sectarian site.

If you want to call that truth, fine, but to the rest of us it looks like Dem propaganda.

40

Daiwa

on Apr 10, 2006

The CIA believed the release of the fact that Mrs. Wilson an agent was a serious security matter; it not only compromised her but all the other contacts and agents she was known to associate with while undercover.

Her husband should have considered that before he started leaking classified information to the press.

41

COL Gene

on Apr 10, 2006

What the hell am I twisting? Bush declassified a section of the PDB that supported what he wanted to do while keeping other sections of the same document classified that indicated what he was telling us about Saddam was NOT correct. As it turns out the Intelligence that Bush kept secret was TRUE and the BS that he declassified and released was a lie. That is the truth know all the Intelligence has been made known and we have occupied Iraq and can see what was happening. This was biased on the premise that Iraq was a DANGER to this country. Not only was there Intelligence that existed at the time that disproved that idea but the FACTS as we now know them prove Iraq was NO DANGER to this country. We invaded a paper tiger and not are caught between the warring factions that make up Iraq. It is the foreign terrorists that are killing both Americans and Iraqis. Is the different factions in Iraq that could NEVER get along and that in the past were kept from fighting with each other as they are today by brute force, First it was the British Force and before we invaded it was Saddam. Now the restraints are off because Bush did not provide the troop levels required to maintain control on the warring factions in Iraq. General after general is saying the same thing, Bush and Rummy screwed up the Iraq war by not sending the required force levels that the military plans and the most senior military said were necessary to do the job. The result 2,300 deaths, 35,000 combat and non combat injuries and NO END IN SIGHT! WHY because of Bush and Rummy.

42

Daiwa

on Apr 10, 2006

I repeat... there are medications that can help, Gene.

43

bakerstreet

on Apr 10, 2006

" What the hell am I twisting?"

The fact that the President somehow broke the law about declassifying information, while you cite information about strategic plans against Iran, the facts of which you don't give a damn how the reporter came by. For Novak to say that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA is heinous, but when Hersh "leaks" information about covert action in Iran it is just fodder for your shit cannon.

That's what you're twisting, Col. What is a crime for Bush isn't for other people with no authority to declassify things. What was a mistake for some presidents is malpheasance for Bush. What can be forgiven for some presidents is an impeachable offense when Bush is in office.

Illegal immigration under Clinton? Understandable. Illegal immigration under Bush? IMPEACH NOW!!!! It's a joke, and even the most anti-Bush folks that read your blog admit it openly.

44

drmiler

on Apr 10, 2006

drmiler
No it is you. You want to use one Iraqi source to disregard all the other Intel that said Iraq was no threat.

You also ignore the fact that even if Saddam had some old WMD, not only did he NOT have a way to use it against the U S. but if he had ever used it that would have been the end to his dictatorship. NO Rogue State would EVER attack a power like the US. The terrorist groups will attack us because they do not have a country to loose, In addition since they operate from dispersed locations, they know we can not eliminate them the way we would eliminate any rogue state that would attack us. Read the article I have sighted by Professor Record at the Army War College. It is you that is just as dumb as you could be. WE WERE NOT in danger from Saddam in March 2003! The Intel was available that said that but Bush kept it classified and insured that no one in Congress or the public was aware of that information.

Got "any" proof or is this all pure conjecture on your part?

45

COL Gene

on Apr 11, 2006

Drmiler
For one History. No rogue state has EVER attacked a major power because to do so would be for them to commit suicide. Also I have told you about Professor Record of the Army War College. See excerpt from my new book:

In December 2003, Jeffery Record a visiting professor at the Army War College published a highly critical paper concerning the lack of understanding by the Bush administration of the threat facing America. Professor Record made some very perceptive points in his article. First, President Bush has incorrectly lumped al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq into a “single undifferentiated terrorist threat.” According to Professor Record, this was a “strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action.” He went on to say, “The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterred al-Qaeda. The war against Iraq was not integral to the GWOT (global war on terrorism) but rather a detour from it.”

Professor Record goes on to say that the Bush policy fails to understand a different nature of terrorism from groups like al-Qaeda and rogue states such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea. He pointed out, the United States has never been attacked by a rogue state and the danger from rogue states is very different than from terrorist groups. The reason lies in what each has to lose by their actions. Terrorists operate within an existing country and as such are not subject to large military action. They do not have a country to lose, just a relatively few number of followers and one of many bases of operation. Therefore, attacks like 9/11 will continue to be attempted by terrorist organizations that are at odds with the U.S. Rogue states will be much more careful and limited in the options available to them. It is true, the preemptive use of our military and the willingness of Bush to go it alone has and will help restrain the actions of rogue states even though it violates our long-standing policy that has made us so effective in world diplomacy in the past. It will not
Have any significant impact on restraining groups such as al-Qaeda or the terrorists groups opposing Israel. The most significant short-coming with the Bush vision is that he fails to understand these differences and direct our response in the most effective way. Professor Record believes this is a major policy flaw with the Bush administration. He also made it clear that we do not have sufficient resources to engage every terrorist organization throughout the world. In addition, there are many terrorist organizations that do not pose a threat to the United States. Attacking such groups would squander our resources and help create more enemies.

Professor Record also points out some reasons why groups such as al-Qaeda and the terrorists fighting Israel are so willing to give up their lives. He states that, “terrorism is recourse of the politically desperate and military helpless.” Terrorists do not consider themselves doing things that are wrong but rather that are necessary to achieve their objectives. We can certainly disagree with their justification for their terrorist acts, but the fact remains there are millions of these individuals who are committed to their belief. We see this when Israel retaliates after a terrorist attack. Did the attacks stop or did they create a whole new group of individuals willing to die in order to kill more Israelis? It’s a cycle that is not producing a solution. The Iraq War has created a focal point for many of the terrorist organizations to attack the coalition forces and frustrate our attempts to restore order in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist per se and the existence of international terrorist groups was not an issue in Iraq before the war. It is a painful consequence of the failure by President Bush to understand the differences between how we can effectively deal with international terrorist groups and the evil dictators of rogue states.