Bush Leak
 

Bush said in 2003 that this leak was criminal:

[

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98673,00.html

Now that we know Bush leaked the info, is Bush an admitted criminal? :



By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Thu Apr 6, 4:22 PM ET


WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors that President Bush authorized a leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

ADVERTISEMENT

The filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald also describes Cheney involvement in I. Lewis Libby's communications with the press.

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity. But it points to Cheney as one of the originators of the idea that Plame could be used to discredit her husband, Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson.

Before his indictment, Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on prewar intelligence on Iraq and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller. In that meeting, Libby made reference to the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

According to Fitzgerald's court filing, Cheney, in conversation with Libby, raised the question of whether a CIA-sponsored trip by Wilson "was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife."

Over and over you come and post anything you can find against Bush and Republicans.

Get over it.

This is Greek chat. Don't make this another effort of your Sparticus club.

-Rudey
--I said you leaked the info, does that make you an admitted criminal?

Let's be fair, it goes both ways. The party in the White House is always a bigger target.

The most interesting spin I've heard on this is that it can't be criminal because the President has the right to de-classify anything, so anything he says is no longer classified.

If he is telling someone to give out the name of CIA officers, though, for political reasons -- that's pretty bad.

No. That's not fair. He comes on specifically for that reason. But you do have a tendency to excuse anything that is against Bush or Republicans.

As for the story, there are no facts yet, just words, and when facts are available they will or won't agree with the law. Simple huh?

-Rudey
--And I believe senlable leaked the evidence.

Go back and check the threads when Clinton was President. Same situation. Big Target. It comes with the job.

Excusing it again?

Why don't you click the search button under Senlable's name. Look at the posts he has. Hmmmmm so he only comes onto GC to bash Republicans and Bush.

-Rudey

Well, for the Most Part, they are leaving themselves open to Huge Bashing Party!:mad:

I have seen much covert under handedness come to light lately that it is scarry!:(

We depend on OUR Elected Delegates to try to protect us instead of screwing us.

It actually doesnt seem to make difference which side of the aisle they sit on does it?:rolleyes:

The White House's admission that George W. Bush authorized the leak of, and let's not beat around the bush and call it an 'intelligence report' like the yellow bellies at Reuters, the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame as a political stunt in retaliation for Joe Wilson's refusal to be the snake oil salesman for their rigged war, is the final nail in the coffin proving we have a dictatorship in Washington.

Dictatorships are not always defined by funny hand salutes and gas chambers. The dictionary definition mentions neither, but it does mention "absolute or despotic control or power."

Is a President who argues he can do anything even if it breaks the law, and an entire cabinet who agree, exercising absolute power?

Is somebody who is above the law and whose advisors and cabinet members write memos stating he is above the law exercising absolute power?

How about totalitarianism? Definition: "a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition)."

Alberto Gonzales again put George Bush above the law today when he indicated that the administration could outright (not that they haven't been doing so in secret for decades) authorize wiretaps of domestic American citizen's phone calls without a warrant. This is a clear violation of the 4th amendment to the US Constitution.

Bush's own advisor John Yoo is on the public record as arguing that no law could prevent the President from ordering children to be tortured by means of crushing their genitals. No, this isn't the Frist fake Fox News hoax - that was his actual argument in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.

Bush's Commander in Chief designation gives him the right to resort to anything, including mass genocide, if it is done in the name of protecting the American people, according to the White House. It doesn't matter if it is unconstitutional. Is this being unrestricted by laws or opposition? If the answer is yes then we are living under totalitarianism by its very definition

"If anyone in this administration was involved in it (the CIA leak), they would no longer be in this administration." White House spokesman Scott McClellan, September 29 2003.

By the White House's own admission Bush should immediately be removed from the Oval Office.

That's first common sense thing I've heard all day.

This post was LOL-inducing in many ways, but this part in particular is surreal - you might want to hit up a dictionary, and look up 'context'

positive14 and senlable only come onto greekchat to post this stuff - sad :(.

-Rudey