YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Interesting that Scooter was the designated leaker of classified info. Never knew there was such a position. (sarcasm)...guess you DOD folks are not suprised but that it was this organized sounds incriminating of Cheney and Bush. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Interesting that Scooter was the designated leaker of classified info. Never knew there was such a position. (sarcasm)...guess you DOD folks are not suprised but that it was this organized sounds incriminating of Cheney and Bush. Link 654270[/snapback] Whoop dee doo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Bush will probably say he told Libby that he was authorized TO TAKE A LEAK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Interesting that Scooter was the designated leaker of classified info. Never knew there was such a position. (sarcasm)...guess you DOD folks are not suprised but that it was this organized sounds incriminating of Cheney and Bush. Link 654270[/snapback] Doesn't sound like he authorized leaking Plame's identity, though. Of course, if he authorized leaking of classified info, technically he DID authorize leaking Plame's identity if he didn't specifically forbid it. And then, of course, there's the argument that if the President says "You can discuss this info publicly", it effectively removes the classification anyway...which may or may not be true, and may or may not apply anyway, depending on how specific he was... Basically, it sounds like what I expected all along. No malicious intent, just a bunch of idiots who !@#$ed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 7, 2006 Author Share Posted April 7, 2006 Doesn't sound like he authorized leaking Plame's identity, though. Of course, if he authorized leaking of classified info, technically he DID authorize leaking Plame's identity if he didn't specifically forbid it. And then, of course, there's the argument that if the President says "You can discuss this info publicly", it effectively removes the classification anyway...which may or may not be true, and may or may not apply anyway, depending on how specific he was... Basically, it sounds like what I expected all along. No malicious intent, just a bunch of idiots who !@#$ed up. 654501[/snapback] Oh I think it was malicious by Rove, Scooter and Cheney, but it gives Bush plausible deniability, while still giving Scooter and the gang some cover. The only implication that really bothers me is that they had blanket permission to reveal secrets at their discretion, got to be causing military folks a lot of heartburn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Oh I think it was malicious by Rove, Scooter and Cheney, but it gives Bush plausible deniability, while still giving Scooter and the gang some cover. 654837[/snapback] I can shoot that down with one simple observation: that requires a lot of creative scheming from a group I wouldn't trust to make a peanut butter sandwich without !@#$ing it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Bush and Cheney are OK legally, but politically it's just another big nail in their coffins when it comes to their credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Bush and Cheney are OK legally, but politically it's just another big nail in their coffins when it comes to their credibility. 654906[/snapback] They have room for another nail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 7, 2006 Author Share Posted April 7, 2006 They have room for another nail? 654983[/snapback] LOL, can't argue too much with your last two posts, but they are still there, haven't been impeached and until that happens there is always room for more nails and on the other issue, despite their incompetency they gave it the old Bush try, just didn't bring along enough LSU women to help them plan, nor did they call daddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 they are still there, haven't been impeached 654995[/snapback] They're not going anywhere. You need to spend your time getting someone to beat the Republicans in '08 so we have someone to make fun of for four years. Looks like fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 7, 2006 Author Share Posted April 7, 2006 They're not going anywhere. You need to spend your time getting someone to beat the Republicans in '08 so we have someone to make fun of for four years. Looks like fun. 654997[/snapback] Yeh, sure, sure...8 years, but I thinks we as a party are SOL on that front in the short term, maybe in 2012, then Obama or Corzine will be ready. But until then, don't see anyone that can beat McCain except McCain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I've let this current revelation about Bush wash over my brain for 24 hours now. While I've been told that it's perfectly legal for him to classify and de-classify information at will, I'm still somewhat confused as to why he had to authorize the anonymous leak of this info to begin with. If he believed the info contained in the NIE to be innoucuous enough to declassify it and have one of his lackey's hand it over to the press (as an anonymous source), then the question begs "Why not just reveal it in a speech to the American people yourself?" Why all the cloak-and-dagger/deep-throat nonsense? To continue to trot out the excuse that "They just suck at PR" is trivializing the abuse of power here. Yes, it is perfectly legal for Bush to classify and declassify material. However, what he has done is use this privledge of office as a political tool. To me, that is an egregious abuse of the office of the POTUS. Others may clearly dissagree with me, of course, and no doubt will point out to me why I am wrong. But this new twist, combined with Alberto Gonzales' testimony before Congress yesterday (Gonzales Suggests Legal Basis for Domestic Eavesdropping) is unsettling because it appears, on the surface, that this administration truly believes it is free to do as it pleases. What he did may have been "legal", but IMO it was also wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 But until then, don't see anyone that can beat McCain except McCain. 655003[/snapback] Except maybe the retard hard liners on the right wing that will control the GOP primaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I've let this current revelation about Bush wash over my brain for 24 hours now. While I've been told that it's perfectly legal for him to classify and de-classify information at will, I'm still somewhat confused as to why he had to authorize the anonymous leak of this info to begin with. If he believed the info contained in the NIE to be innoucuous enough to declassify it and have one of his lackey's hand it over to the press (as an anonymous source), then the question begs "Why not just reveal it in a speech to the American people yourself?" Why all the cloak-and-dagger/deep-throat nonsense? To continue to trot out the excuse that "They just suck at PR" is trivializing the abuse of power here. Yes, it is perfectly legal for Bush to classify and declassify material. However, what he has done is use this privledge of office as a political tool. To me, that is an egregious abuse of the office of the POTUS. Others may clearly dissagree with me, of course, and no doubt will point out to me why I am wrong. But this new twist, combined with Alberto Gonzales' testimony before Congress yesterday (Gonzales Suggests Legal Basis for Domestic Eavesdropping) is unsettling because it appears, on the surface, that this administration truly believes it is free to do as it pleases. What he did may have been "legal", but IMO it was also wrong. 655679[/snapback] Authorized "leaks" are a recognized tool for making information public without making an official statement. Much - probably most - news that comes out of Washington comes through back channels rather than official press statements, and it's relatively normal procedure to say "Yeah...leak this..." to get information into said back channels rather than to announce it directly. The problem is two-fold with that method: 1) it's basically uncontrolled, and you end up with people leaking stuff all over the place whether they're "authorized" to or not, and 2) sometimes the idiot you choose to leak information leaks the wrong info and blows the cover of a CIA employee... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Yeh, sure, sure...8 years, but I thinks we as a party are SOL on that front in the short term, maybe in 2012, then Obama or Corzine will be ready. But until then, don't see anyone that can beat McCain except McCain. 655003[/snapback] mey heart would leap for joy if Corzine was the Dem nominee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Authorized "leaks" are a recognized tool for making information public without making an official statement. Much - probably most - news that comes out of Washington comes through back channels rather than official press statements, and it's relatively normal procedure to say "Yeah...leak this..." to get information into said back channels rather than to announce it directly. 655729[/snapback] Except we're not talking about some congressional staffer leaking a memo from some sub-committee debating the finer points of a bill. We're talking about the POTUS authorizing parts of, and half-truths of pre-war intelligence in order to grease the rails of public opinion to make a war more palatable. He systematically de-classified only the intelligence that supported his claims, then had someone leak it to the press. That's an abuse of power IMHO. The consequences of leaking a policy memo aren't in the same league as that of leaking pre-war intelligence in order to sell a war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Except we're not talking about some congressional staffer leaking a memo from some sub-committee debating the finer points of a bill. We're talking about the POTUS authorizing parts of, and half-truths of pre-war intelligence in order to grease the rails of public opinion to make a war more palatable. He systematically de-classified only the intelligence that supported his claims, then had someone leak it to the press. That's an abuse of power IMHO. The consequences of leaking a policy memo aren't in the same league as that of leaking pre-war intelligence in order to sell a war. 655853[/snapback] I can't wait to see you in your sweater and beret. Black and White is much more dramatic than color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Alright, who blew the SBD one in here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 mey heart would leap for joy if Corzine was the Dem nominee. 655732[/snapback] Same too....and I might die of laughter as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Same too....and I might die of laughter as well! 655897[/snapback] As a NJ resident, I find little humor in your revelry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts