Cheney and the leak? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

trickyy · 02-11-2006, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Same link, where his own lawyers deny it. Kinda takes the bite out don't ya think? Sounds like someone else may be making false statements to damage the VP, not that anyone would do that.

well, i never said this story is Absolute Truth. if i was particularly concerned with "bite," i wouldn't have noted that there's only 2 repuatble news sources reporting this version of the story. [EDIT: here's the third story i couldn't find]

however, a Fitzgerald letter (Exhibit C, pg. 15) released 1/31 mention that libby's "superiors" instructed him to act as he did. so something is there, unless they've changed their legal strategy or Fitzgerald is mistaken.

Quote:

We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors.

william · 02-18-2006, 08:04 PM

It no longer matters - the VP himself has stated that HE can declassify documents. The Pres. is no longer needed. Just ask him - he'll tell you again.

Yakk · 02-23-2006, 08:21 AM

A> Can Cheney do that? I mean, legally, not "I say, therefore it is true".

B> Is revealing a covert CIA agent's name in order to harm and discredit someone who disagrees with administration policy a good thing for a VP to do?

C> Do the actions of the Bush white house define "good", and such any action done by a member of the Bush white house are "good"?

Just wondering. =)

Poppinjay · 02-23-2006, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

A> Can Cheney do that? I mean, legally, not "I say, therefore it is true".

If he can, it's the first anybody is hearing about it.

Quote:

B> Is revealing a covert CIA agent's name in order to harm and discredit someone who disagrees with administration policy a good thing for a VP to do?

You'd think it would be a bad thing but nobody is asking this question yet.

Quote:

C> Do the actions of the Bush white house define "good", and such any action done by a member of the Bush white house are "good"?

Just wondering. =)

Yes. If you do a really really really bad thing, like screwing up a major disaster relief event, you get a pat on the back. If you do a really really bad thing, like releasing the name of a covert CIA operative, you get a commendation and kiss on the cheek. If you do a really bad thing, like shoot an old codger in the woods, you get a medal. If you do a bad thing, like getting a DUI and scuffling with your dad, you get to be president.

Tex · 04-06-2006, 02:56 PM

Bump

Some new details emerging about the leak and its origins. Looks like this one came all the way from the top...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060406/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Quote:

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
[0]

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."

The disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Thursday the White House would have no comment on the ongoing investigation. At a congressional hearing, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the president has the "inherent authority to decide who should have classified information."

Libby is asking for voluminous amounts of classified information from the government in order to defend himself against five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the
FBI in the Plame affair.

He is accused of making false statements about how he learned of Plame's CIA employment and what he told reporters about it.

Bush's political foes jumped on the revelation about Libby's testimony.

"The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put the interests of his political party ahead of America's security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe,"
Democratic National Committee Chairman
Howard Dean said.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said, "The more we hear, the more it is clear this goes way beyond Scooter Libby. At the very least, President Bush and Vice President Cheney should fully inform the American people of any role in allowing classified information to be leaked."

Libby's testimony indicates both the president and the vice president authorized leaks. Bush and Cheney both have long said they abhor that practice, so much so that the administration has put in motion criminal investigations to hunt down leakers.

The most recent instance is the administration's launching of a probe into who disclosed to The New York Times the existence of the warrantless domestic surveillance program.

The authorization involving intelligence information came as the Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the president and his aides had given for going to war.

Libby's participation in a critical conversation with Miller on July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate," the papers by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stated. The filing did not specify the "certain information."

"Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller — getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval — were unique in his recollection," the papers added.

Plame's husband, a former U.S. ambassador, said the administration had twisted prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

After Wilson publicly attacked the administration on Iraq on July 6, 2003, "Vice President Cheney, defendant's immediate superior, expressed concerns to defendant regarding whether Mr. Wilson's trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife," the papers said.

After a 2002 CIA-sponsored trip to Africa, Wilson said he had concluded that Iraq did not have an agreement to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger.

Libby spoke to Miller on July 8, 2003, and Fitzgerald's filing identifies Cheney as being instrumental in having Libby speak again four days later to Miller as well as to Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper regarding Wilson. In all three conversations, Libby told the reporters about Wilson's wife, both Miller and Cooper have testified.

Her CIA status was publicly disclosed by conservative columnist Robert Novak eight days after her husband accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

Libby says he needs extensive classified files from the government to demonstrate that Plame's CIA connection was a peripheral matter that he never focused on, and that the role of Wilson's wife was a small piece in a building public controversy over the failure to find WMD in Iraq.

Fitzgerald said in the new court filing that Libby's requests for information go too far and the prosecutor cited Libby's own statements to investigators in an attempt to limit the amount of information the government must turn over to Cheney's former chief of staff for his criminal defense.

The court filing was first disclosed by The New York Sun.

Republicans should be shakin' in their boots right now. If they lose Congress this year, be prepared to see indictments flying all over the place (as well as possible inpeachment charges as). Should be an interesting couple of next months...

Edit: woops, meant to say *congress*, not senate.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-06-2006, 04:05 PM

Saw that.

Yeah, I'm starting to get fed up of all this, regardless of truth or falicy. Is it 2008 yet?

Senate presides over the Impeachment hearing, the House has to draw up the articles.

You'd think maybe he should follow Nixons lead here at some point, I mean he simply can't be effect as our leader. Not saying I want Kerry or Clinton at the helm, but get fucking serious.

Elphaba · 04-06-2006, 04:57 PM

Mojo, I am concerned about a number of things regarding Bush policy. I see no advantage to a successful impeachment of Bush, if that leaves us with Cheney. I believe he and Rumsfeld (among other necons) are the actual architects of the current mess we are in.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-06-2006, 05:00 PM

Well I wasn't so much addressing problems in policy, that's all this administration really has going for it. I agree that the whole administration would need to be removed seeing as to alot of these implications name severely members. I think he should resign, at least attempt to keep politics out of it.

Elphaba · 04-06-2006, 05:39 PM

Another source, Jason Leopold, has been following and reporting on the Plame leak. You can find Wiki information about him here Leopold if you wish to check out his credentials.

TruthOut

Quote:

Bush at Center of Intelligence Leak
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Thursday 06 April 2006

Attorneys and current and former White House officials close to the investigation into the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson said Thursday that President Bush gave Vice President Dick Cheney the authorization in mid-June 2003 to disclose a portion of the highly sensitive National Intelligence Estimate to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

These current and former White House officials are among the 36 witnesses who have testified before a grand jury and have been cooperating with the special counsel's probe since its inception.

The officials, some of whom are attorneys close to the case, added that more than two dozen emails that the vice president's office said it recently discovered and handed over to leak investigators in February show that President Bush was kept up to date about the circumstances surrounding the effort to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

The sources indicated that the leak probe is now winding down, and that soon, new information will emerge from the special counsel's office that will prove President Bush had prior knowledge of the White House campaign to discredit Plame Wilson's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the administration of "twisting" intelligence on the Iraqi threat in order to win public support for the war.

The new information that surfaced late Wednesday places President Bush at the center of the probe for the first time since the investigation into the leak began more than two years ago and raises new questions as to whether Bush knew in advance the lengths to which senior White House officials went to discredit Wilson.

In the court filing, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wrote that Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, "testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to [former New York Times reporter Judith] Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was 'pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the Vice President thought that it was 'very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out."

"Defendant 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. Defendant testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the filing further states. "Defendant 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. Defendant testified that he thought he brought a brief abstract of the NIE's key judgments to the meeting with Miller on July 8. Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium. Defendant testified that this July 8th meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President's authorization that it be disclosed. Defendant testified that one of the reasons why he met with Miller at a hotel was the fact that he was sharing this information with Miller exclusively."

In October 2003, three months after Plame Wilson's CIA status and identity were unmasked in print by columnist Robert Novak, President Bush said publicly that it was unlikely that the individual who leaked her name would ever be found.

"I mean this is a town full of people who like to leak information," Bush said during a press conference on Oct. 7, 2003. "And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's lots of senior officials. I don't have any idea."

Details of President Bush's involvement in the effort to counter the former ambassador's claims came in a court document filed late Wednesday evening in US District Court in Washington by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, which was first reported by the New York Sun newspaper.

President Bush retained a private attorney when he was interviewed in the leak probe two years ago, specifically about whether he knew about it or had authorized it.

According to four attorneys who over the past two days have read a transcript of the President Bush's interview with investigators, Bush did not disclose to either investigators or the special counsel that he had authorized Cheney or any other administration official to leak portions of the NIE to Woodward and Miller or any other reporter. Rather, these people said the president said he frowned upon "selective leaks."

Bush also said during the interview two years ago that he had no prior knowledge that anyone on his staff had been involved in a campaign to discredit Wilson or that individuals retaliated against the former ambassador by leaking his wife's undercover identity to reporters.

The 39-page court document Fitzgerald filed late Wednesday included previously unreported testimony given to a grand jury by Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Libby was indicted in October on five-counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators about how he discovered Plame Wilson's identity.

Libby testified that Cheney had received explicit instruction from President Bush to declassify a portion of the October 2002 NIE that said Iraq tried to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake uranium ore from Niger and share that information with reporters like Miller and Woodward, whose previous work proved to be sympathetic to the administration and would help to discredit Wilson, according to the court document and attorneys and current and former administration officials close to the investigation.

Libby's "participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 (discussed further below) occurred only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE," the Fitzgerald's filing states. "Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller - getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval - were unique in his recollection."

"Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson," the court filing states. "Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare "on the record" statement, and to provide "background" and "deep background" statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson."

On June 27, 2003, two weeks before Libby's meeting with Miller and disclosing to her portions of the NIE, Libby met with Woodward, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, and leaked the portion of the NIE that dealt with Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Niger, which was first reported by this reporter in March.

A week or so earlier, Woodward met with two other government officials, one of whom told him in a "casual" and off-handed manner that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

Woodward said the meeting with Libby and the other government officials had been set up simply as "confidential background interviews for my 2004 book 'Plan of Attack' about the lead-up to the Iraq war, ongoing reporting for the Washington Post and research for a book on Bush's second term to be published in 2006."

Woodward wrote a first-person account for the Washington Post after he gave a sworn deposition to Fitzgerald about information he had learned about Valerie Plame Wilson. It was a shocking revelation at the time. Woodward had publicly discounted the importance of the Plame Wilson leak and had referred to Fitzgerald as a "junkyard dog" prosecutor. He then revealed in November that he had been told about Plame Wilson's CIA employment in June 2003 - before any other journalist.

The Watergate-era journalist wrote that when he met with Libby on June 27, 2003, "Libby discussed the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, mentioned "yellowcake" and said there was an effort by the Iraqis to get it from Africa. It goes back to February '02. This was the time of Wilson's trip to Niger."

The information in the NIE about Niger was still considered highly classified and extremely sensitive, and although Woodward had been the recipient of classified information on other occasions during the course of gathering material for his books, the data he was provided with concerning the NIE had been authorized by Cheney in order to rebut Wilson. Woodward never wrote a story for the Post about the intelligence information he was given.

President Bush signed an executive order in March 2003 authorizing Cheney to declassify certain intelligence documents. The executive order was signed on March 23, 2003, four days after the start of the Iraq war, and two weeks after Wilson first appeared on the administration's radar.

This might explain Cheney's comment that if he says "it", it is declassified.

ubertuber · 04-06-2006, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

This clear statement about Cheney may be a sign the Libby will be the sacrificial lamb, especially if the story can be cast that Rove got the name from Libby as well (placing Libby squarely in the middle and thus exonerating the rest of the crew).

I'm quoting myself from 18 months ago. I still think hanging Libby out to dry was an all or nothing strategy. However, it may very well backfire. Impeachment or no, this could be VERY damaging to the Bush administration. If Cheney was really passing Bush's instructions down, I only see two defenses (after more hedging, of course). 1) they could push the argument that Bush's word is good enough for declassification, but this will be hampered by the fact that the administration has spent almost 2 years covering this up. If they really believed that legalization was so simple, this could have been explained easily and quickly. 2) Cheney could take the heat and say that Bush didn't really authorize disclosure.

The only other ways are to hope to stall this one out until 2008 or for Bush to take responsibility for his people. Yep, it could be a very interesting year ahead of us.

Elphaba · 04-06-2006, 07:17 PM

Uber, I think they only need to stall long enough to get through the midterm elections without another major scandal or revelation. Seven months is all that is needed.

Libby may have agreed to be the sacrificial lamb, as did Tenant. We won't know until Libby's lawyers play their cards.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-06-2006, 08:37 PM

What do you suppose they get in return? Haliburton or Enron shares?

Rekna · 04-07-2006, 04:50 AM

If this did come directly from Bush and he indeed has the ablity to declassify information for any reason no matter how underhanded will anything come of this? In addition, if it did come from Bush what about the statement from Bush to fire anyone to have been found involved in the leak? If he knew it was himself that was responsible and he told the American public this what does this do for his credibility to the American people?

ratbastid · 04-07-2006, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

In addition, if it did come from Bush what about the statement from Bush to fire anyone to have been found involved in the leak?

I'd say we'd have sufficient evidence to take him up on the offer.

Redlemon · 04-07-2006, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I see no advantage to a successful impeachment of Bush, if that leaves us with Cheney.

Bush has a lot of charisma (or at least, he used to), and that helps him to propose initiatives. Cheney has negative charisma, if that is possible. That would slow down anything that he would wish to do.

ratbastid · 04-07-2006, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

Bush has a lot of charisma (or at least, he used to), and that helps him to propose initiatives. Cheney has negative charisma, if that is possible. That would slow down anything that he would wish to do.

Agreed. Cheney works best in the back corners of the room, muttering under his breath to his coterie of underlings. Forcing him to be the public face of the administration would almost certainly undermine his ability to fulfill his agenda.

pan6467 · 04-07-2006, 10:04 AM

I think it's a way to pin everything on an unpopular president to try and save the party.

No one can do anything to Bush, so he takes the heat and since he is oblivious to the people's opinions he won't even notice. Meanwhile the party can distance themselves from him find the 2008 candidate and not worry about this going any further.

Just a guess.

kutulu · 04-07-2006, 11:41 AM

I'd like to say I'm surprised that Bush would blatantly lie to the American people but I can't. I'd also like to say that something will result from this but I can't do that either.

Rekna · 04-08-2006, 05:43 AM

It seems to me that when the congress and the president all belong to the same party their is no recourse from the american people to hold the president responsible for his actions. I think that our government is broken when one party controls everything.

roachboy · 04-08-2006, 05:52 AM

i am not surprised.

i am surprised, however, that this matter seems to have as much traction as the range of--um---problems associated with the iraq debacle.
and even more that a country so "free" as this is facing yet more time under the aegis of this administration.
these people make a very strong case for systemic change, one that would perhaps involve the possibility of a vote of no confidence or some other mechanism to depose an adequately corrupt/inept/criminal administration.

two strange logical loops:

1. an edito in this morning's ny times outlines the problems created by this for the bush people---the endlessly repeating statements about leaks "damaging the nation"--squared with the leaks from bush direct in this matter---the conclusion: this administration understands itself to BE the american nation, to BE the american people. its partisan interests and those of everyone are identical. by damaging the bush administration's absurd case for war in iraq, damage was being done to the american nation. so the leak follows, as does the apparently inconsistent actions at once leaking and deploring leaks.

2. in the past couple days i read somewhere a survery of various legal folk who were called up by a reporter and asked about the legal problems this revelation might cuase for bushco---among the responses were: the action is legal because the president is, himself, the source of the distinction between classified and not classified documents. so he cannot really break the laws against leaking classified information--because the act of "leaking," carried out by the president, amounts to a de facto declassification of the information.

this reflects a strange and dangerous quirk in the legal thinking of the administration itself--their reliance on carl schmitt---you saw this in the glorious trail blazed by john yoo in the context of the "creative" reading of the word torture for example--for schmitt, sovereignty resides not with the people--as it is alleged to in this fine american pseudo-democracy--but rather with the person of the sovereign. who is the source of law and so is positioned both within and outside the legal system itself. by this logic, violations of law by a sitting president could be resolved in the direction outlined above with reference to the leak--as the source of law, the sovereign cannot be held accountable within the frame that he grounds.

schmitt's legal theoretical work is mostly about the state of exception or emergency. it is a critique of parliamentary democracy--and the idea that sovereignty resides with the people by extension--on the grounds that it is too diffuse, too slow--it relies too much on debate--a state of exception requires Decision and only a single individual--a sovereign, a Leader, a Dictator--can make Decisions.
democracy is all blah blah blah....
so in a state of exception, the Leader *is* the nation, his interests, partisan or otherwise *are* the interests of the nation.
the alarming thing is that you can lay this schmitt business over the actions of the bush squad and it makes sense of their actions.

if the administration really operates through this set of assumptions, then the diagnosis that would accompany the recent wholesale collapse of any credibility enjoyed by these folk outside the confines of the hardcore right could easily be linked to problems in the perception of the state of exception.
so, it would follow that, since the interests of the administration and those of the people are identical, the people's interests could be best served by a renewal of the perception that they are, in fact, in a state of exception.
at this point, the only real hope would be another big explosion.
it worked out pretty well in september 2001.

Elphaba · 04-08-2006, 06:10 PM

I am posting the following article because it provided some clarification to my own confusion. I don't consider John Dean a neutral observer, because he was Nixon's appointed scapegoat. He declined the "appointment" and it appears that Libby has done the same. He must be quite familiar with the politics of Cheney and Rumsfeld under the Nixon administration.

Link

Quote:

The Truth About Lewis "Scooter" Libby's Statements to the Grand Jury
Claiming the President Authorized a Leak of Classified Information:
The President and Vice President Are Not in the Clear Yet
By John W. Dean
FindLaw.com

Friday 07 April 2006

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has now revealed in court filings bombshell information that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby told the grand jury investigating the leak of Valerie Plame-Wilson's covert CIA identity. According to Fitzgerald's filings, Libby said that he was authorized by the President and Vice President to leak classified information to New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

This revelation has been accompanied by a number of public misstatements, which call for correction. The most blatant of these is the claim that Fitzgerald's filing indicates that the President authorized the release of Valerie Plame's covert status at the CIA. In fact, the document is conspicuously silent on this fact. The filing does indicate that the President authorized the release of classified information, but it was different information - a National Intelligence Estimate that had been classified pursuant to an executive order.

In addition, conventional wisdom - if that label fits the consensus information that is surfacing on radio and television news shows - has it that this information does not reveal that the President or Vice President did anything illegal. But that claim, too, is not necessarily accurate.

At a minimum, the filing indicates that the President and Vice President departed radically, and disturbingly, from long-set procedures with respect to classified documents - and that the Vice President, in particular, exceeded his declassification authority. And it may indicate that they, too, ought to be targets of the grand jury.

Libby's Grand Jury Testimony Regarding Valerie Plame

As readers will likely be aware, Fitzgerald indicted Libby for obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to federal investigators. In response, Libby has repeatedly sought discovery of government information that he argues is relevant to his defense. On April 5, Fitzgerald's office filed a response to Libby's third effort at discovery of such information.

In his response, Fitzgerald treated Libby's request as a mere fishing expedition, a fairly typical response by a party who does not want to give up discovery. But Fitzgerald also revealed crucial new information about his investigation and findings in opposing Libby's request.

The Plame controversy, readers will recall, began with a July 6, 2003 New York Times Op Ed by Joseph Wilson, taking aim at the Administration's claim that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium from Africa to be used in nuclear weapons. The Op Ed began, explosively, as follows: "Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq? Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

Fitzgerald's filing noted that the "evidence will show that" that Op Ed "was viewed in the Office of the Vice President as a direct attack on the credibility of the Vice President (and the President) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq."

Undercutting Wilson's Credibility with Classified Information

Plainly, Fitzgerald believes Libby lied, and this will be the central issue at his forthcoming trial. Fitzgerald contends that the evidence will show that contrary to Libby's statements to investigators and the grand jury, not only did Libby know of Valerie Plame's work at the CIA before he spoke to journalist Tim Russert, but Libby also used that information as part of the effort to discredit Wilson's Op Ed.

According to Fitzgerald, Libby "undertook vigorous efforts to rebut" Wilson because "Vice President Cheney, defendant's immediate superior, expressed concern to defendant regarding whether Mr. Wilson's [CIA-sponsored] trip [to Africa to determine if Iraq was getting uranium from Niger] was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife."

This disclosure about Wilson's wife, according to Fitzgerald's filing, "was one way" to undercut the Op Ed - based on the hope it would be taken less seriously "if Mr. Wilson were perceived to have received the assignment on account of nepotism."

Another way to undercut the Op Ed was to use the top-secret information in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). A knowledgeable reporter like Judith Miller would understand that this information was the best judgment of the American intelligence community.

Fitzgerald reports that Libby "testified that he was specifically authorized - to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller" because the information "was 'pretty definite' against Ambassador Wilson - and that the Vice President thought that it was 'very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out."

When Libby raised the problem of discussing the NIE with Miller because of its classified status, the filing reports that Libby "testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized" Libby to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. (Emphasis added.)

The word "later" here, in the filing, is crucially ambiguous: Did the President authorized Libby's actions before Libby actually revealed the classified information to Miller, or afterward? The distinction may make a large difference in Libby's defense: If the authorization was retroactive, then Libby initially revealed classified information without permission to do so; thus, he would have reason to lie.

In addition, Cheney's counsel (now Chief of Staff) "opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document." (Emphasis added.)

Again, the language here is telling. The filing says that the President's actions "amounted to" declassification, not that the President had unilaterally declassified the material. To the contrary, it appears the material was not declassified for several days.

Can a President or Vice President Unilaterally and Selectively Declassify?

Assuming that Libby's testimony is accurate, did the President do anything wrong by so declassifying the NIE? Given the fact that the national security classification system is created by executive order of the president, it would appear logical that the president has authority to unilaterally and selective declassify anything he might wish. However, that is not the way any president has ever written the executive orders governing these activities. To the contrary, the orders set forth rather detailed declassification procedures.

In addition, there is law that says that when a president issues an executive order he must either amend that executive order, or follow it just as others within the executive branch are required to do. At present, we have so few facts it is difficult to know what precisely Bush did and how he did it, and thus whether or not this law is applicable. There is also the problem that no one has standing in court to challenge a president's refusal to follow his own rules. But voters may take note of the disposition of this administration to play by the rules, and put a Democratic Congress in place to keep an eye on the last two years of the Bush/Cheney presidency.

What is apparent, however, based on Fitzgerald's filing, is that no one other than Bush, Cheney, Libby and apparently Addington was aware of this unilateral and selective declassification - if, indeed, the NIE was declassified. The secrecy surely suggests cover-up. For example, Fitzgerald notes that Libby "consciously decided not to make [then Deputy National Security Adviser] Hadley aware of the fact that defendant [Libby] himself had already been disseminating the NIE by leaking it to reporters while Mr. Hadley sought to get it formally declassified." (Also, CIA Director George Tenet apparently was not aware of the partial declassification by Bush.)

Whatever authority Bush may or may not have had, however, it is crystal clear that Vice President Cheney did not have any authority to unilaterally and selectively declassify the NIE.

Recently, Cheney made the public claim (to Brit Hume of Fox News) that he had authority to declassify national security information. Learning of this, Congressman Henry Waxman asked the Congressional Reference Service of the Library of Congress, which issues non-partisan reports, whether Cheney was right. CRS found that the Vice President has limited declassification authority, generally speaking. And their report shows Cheney had no authority in this instance - only in situations where the Vice President had been the authority to classify the material in the first place, could the Vice President have the authority to unilaterally declassify it.

The Meaning of Libby's Revelations - and Their Possible Consequences

Libby's statements regarding the President are clearly hearsay; he was repeating to the grand jury what he claims Cheney told him. Accordingly, Bush is probably still protected by Cheney.

Presumably, Patrick Fitzgerald asked both Bush and Cheney about their actions when he interviewed them. But what they said, has yet to be revealed. If Cheney lied to protect himself, in the interviews, then he could also have lied to protect the President. Or Cheney could have opted to take the fall, and leave the President out of it.

Many commentators are dismissing this situation as run-of-the-mill presidential/vice presidential politics. But I believe it is more serious.

From a political perspective, separate from the illegality, there is the hypocrisy: The Bush Administration has prosecuted and sent to jail officials who leaked far less serious information - as I discussed in detail in a prior column. It is actively, and currently, threatening to prosecute others who have leaked information about the president's illegal electronic surveillance of Americans.

Beyond the hypocrisy, however, is what the President, Vice President, Libby and no doubt others did to destroy the career of Valerie Plame. Maybe the administration has quietly settled with the Wilsons, who seem to have dropped out of the public eye. This would have been wise, because as the facts unravel, it increasingly appears that administration officials did indeed attack Mr. Wilson for his speaking out; the leak of his wife's identity does indeed seem to have been done in harsh retribution. Such a violation of civil rights is a crime.

Finally, even if Bush and Cheney both get away clean of criminal charges, or even the suggestion of criminal conduct, this is still devastating for the Administration. Illegal or not, the President and Vice-President's actions, as recounted by Libby, are ugly in the extreme.

After all, Fitzgerald's filings indicate that, at a bare minimum, these highest of officials played fast and loose with declassification rules as part of a scheme to take an uncalled-for revenge against a critic who dared to question an Iraqi war justification. Even more damning, is that the critic turned out to be right: Weapons of mass destruction have never surfaced, no uranium was sold by Niger to Iraq, and the Administration's call to arms was bogus.

There will be more devastating revelations from the Libby case, I am certain. I have written of this matter in the past, and anticipate writing more in the future. The Commander-in-Chief-can-do-no-wrong veneer is wearing off, thankfully. For a nation that cannot hold its commander-in-chief responsible is something other than a democracy.

I believe it likely that Cheney, with his arrogance and disregard for the rule of law, finally broke the wall of "plausible deniability" and has put the execute at great political risk. Once again.

host · 04-09-2006, 10:47 AM

Corporate media doesn't even read the break through reporting of it's own reporters, (2nd quote box) as it tries to provide "cover" for Bush in this pathetic editorial:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040800895.html
<b>Editorial</b>
A Good Leak
President Bush declassified some of the intelligence he used to decide on war in Iraq. Is that a scandal?

Sunday, April 9, 2006; Page B06

PRESIDENT BUSH was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do.......

....As Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out at the time of Mr. Libby's indictment last fall, none of this is particularly relevant to the question of whether the grounds for war in Iraq were sound or bogus. It's unfortunate that those who seek to prove the latter would now claim that Mr. Bush did something wrong by releasing for public review some of the intelligence he used in making his most momentous decision.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0800916_2.html
A 'Concerted Effort' to Discredit Bush Critic
Prosecutor Describes Cheney, Libby as Key Voices Pitching Iraq-Niger Story

By Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, April 9, 2006; Page A01

As he drew back the curtain this week on the evidence against Vice President Cheney's former top aide, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq.....

.....Tenet interceded to keep the claim out of a speech Bush gave in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002, but by Dec. 19 it reappeared in a State Department "fact sheet." After that, the Pentagon asked for an authoritative judgment from the National Intelligence Council, the senior coordinating body for the 15 agencies that then constituted the U.S. intelligence community. Did Iraq and Niger discuss a uranium sale, or not? If they had, the Pentagon would need to reconsider its ties with Niger.

<h3>The council's reply, drafted in a January 2003 memo by the national intelligence officer for Africa, was unequivocal: The Niger story was baseless and should be laid to rest. Four U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge said in interviews that the memo, which has not been reported before, arrived at the White House as Bush and his highest-ranking advisers made the uranium story a centerpiece of their case for the rapidly approaching war against Iraq.</h3>

Bush put his prestige behind the uranium story in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address. Less than two months later, the International Atomic Energy Agency exposed the principal U.S. evidence as bogus. A Bush-appointed commission later concluded that the evidence, a set of contracts and correspondence sold by an Italian informant, was "transparently forged.".........

........Wilson emerged as a key critic. He focused his ire on Cheney, who had made the administration's earliest and strongest claims about Iraq's alleged nuclear program.

Fitzgerald wrote that Cheney and his aides saw Wilson as a threat to "the credibility of the Vice President (and the President) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq." They decided to respond by implying that Wilson got his CIA assignment by "nepotism."

They were not alone. <h3>Fitzgerald reported for the first time this week</h3> that "multiple officials in the White House"-- not only Libby and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who have previously been identified -- discussed Plame's CIA employment with reporters before and after publication of her name on July 14, 2003, in a column by Robert D. Novak. Fitzgerald said the grand jury has collected so much testimony and so many documents that "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson."

Congress screwed the American people, who screwed themselves by voting for representatives and executives who acted against voters' best interests,
by failing to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the "fixing of the facts to match the policy", by the Bush administration, to launch the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, Iraq.

Indeed, even after senate democrats made headlines by walking out of the senate, last november, to protest the lack of follow through of a promise to investigate the administration's handling of pre-invasion intelligence, made in July, 2004 by Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the SSCI, doesn't it appear that the only "check" on the president as unindicted war criminal (the crime is waging aggressive war) is the relentless and methodical determination of one federal prosecutor, Plame leak investigator, Patrick Fitzgerald?

02-23-2006, 08:21 AM	#83 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	A> Can Cheney do that? I mean, legally, not "I say, therefore it is true". B> Is revealing a covert CIA agent's name in order to harm and discredit someone who disagrees with administration policy a good thing for a VP to do? C> Do the actions of the Bush white house define "good", and such any action done by a member of the Bush white house are "good"? Just wondering. =) __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

04-06-2006, 04:05 PM	#86 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Saw that. Yeah, I'm starting to get fed up of all this, regardless of truth or falicy. Is it 2008 yet? Senate presides over the Impeachment hearing, the House has to draw up the articles. You'd think maybe he should follow Nixons lead here at some point, I mean he simply can't be effect as our leader. Not saying I want Kerry or Clinton at the helm, but get fucking serious. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 04-06-2006 at 04:08 PM..

04-06-2006, 05:00 PM	#88 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Well I wasn't so much addressing problems in policy, that's all this administration really has going for it. I agree that the whole administration would need to be removed seeing as to alot of these implications name severely members. I think he should resign, at least attempt to keep politics out of it. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-06-2006, 08:37 PM	#92 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	What do you suppose they get in return? Haliburton or Enron shares? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-07-2006, 10:04 AM	#97 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I think it's a way to pin everything on an unpopular president to try and save the party. No one can do anything to Bush, so he takes the heat and since he is oblivious to the people's opinions he won't even notice. Meanwhile the party can distance themselves from him find the 2008 candidate and not worry about this going any further. Just a guess. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

02-18-2006, 08:04 PM	#82 (permalink)
william Psycho	It no longer matters - the VP himself has stated that HE can declassify documents. The Pres. is no longer needed. Just ask him - he'll tell you again.

04-06-2006, 04:57 PM	#87 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Mojo, I am concerned about a number of things regarding Bush policy. I see no advantage to a successful impeachment of Bush, if that leaves us with Cheney. I believe he and Rumsfeld (among other necons) are the actual architects of the current mess we are in.

04-06-2006, 07:17 PM	#91 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Uber, I think they only need to stall long enough to get through the midterm elections without another major scandal or revelation. Seven months is all that is needed. Libby may have agreed to be the sacrificial lamb, as did Tenant. We won't know until Libby's lawyers play their cards.

04-07-2006, 04:50 AM	#93 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	If this did come directly from Bush and he indeed has the ablity to declassify information for any reason no matter how underhanded will anything come of this? In addition, if it did come from Bush what about the statement from Bush to fire anyone to have been found involved in the leak? If he knew it was himself that was responsible and he told the American public this what does this do for his credibility to the American people?

04-07-2006, 11:41 AM	#98 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I'd like to say I'm surprised that Bush would blatantly lie to the American people but I can't. I'd also like to say that something will result from this but I can't do that either.

04-08-2006, 05:43 AM	#99 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	It seems to me that when the congress and the president all belong to the same party their is no recourse from the american people to hold the president responsible for his actions. I think that our government is broken when one party controls everything.

04-08-2006, 05:52 AM	#100 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i am not surprised. i am surprised, however, that this matter seems to have as much traction as the range of--um---problems associated with the iraq debacle. and even more that a country so "free" as this is facing yet more time under the aegis of this administration. these people make a very strong case for systemic change, one that would perhaps involve the possibility of a vote of no confidence or some other mechanism to depose an adequately corrupt/inept/criminal administration. two strange logical loops: 1. an edito in this morning's ny times outlines the problems created by this for the bush people---the endlessly repeating statements about leaks "damaging the nation"--squared with the leaks from bush direct in this matter---the conclusion: this administration understands itself to BE the american nation, to BE the american people. its partisan interests and those of everyone are identical. by damaging the bush administration's absurd case for war in iraq, damage was being done to the american nation. so the leak follows, as does the apparently inconsistent actions at once leaking and deploring leaks. 2. in the past couple days i read somewhere a survery of various legal folk who were called up by a reporter and asked about the legal problems this revelation might cuase for bushco---among the responses were: the action is legal because the president is, himself, the source of the distinction between classified and not classified documents. so he cannot really break the laws against leaking classified information--because the act of "leaking," carried out by the president, amounts to a de facto declassification of the information. this reflects a strange and dangerous quirk in the legal thinking of the administration itself--their reliance on carl schmitt---you saw this in the glorious trail blazed by john yoo in the context of the "creative" reading of the word torture for example--for schmitt, sovereignty resides not with the people--as it is alleged to in this fine american pseudo-democracy--but rather with the person of the sovereign. who is the source of law and so is positioned both within and outside the legal system itself. by this logic, violations of law by a sitting president could be resolved in the direction outlined above with reference to the leak--as the source of law, the sovereign cannot be held accountable within the frame that he grounds. schmitt's legal theoretical work is mostly about the state of exception or emergency. it is a critique of parliamentary democracy--and the idea that sovereignty resides with the people by extension--on the grounds that it is too diffuse, too slow--it relies too much on debate--a state of exception requires Decision and only a single individual--a sovereign, a Leader, a Dictator--can make Decisions. democracy is all blah blah blah.... so in a state of exception, the Leader is the nation, his interests, partisan or otherwise are the interests of the nation. the alarming thing is that you can lay this schmitt business over the actions of the bush squad and it makes sense of their actions. if the administration really operates through this set of assumptions, then the diagnosis that would accompany the recent wholesale collapse of any credibility enjoyed by these folk outside the confines of the hardcore right could easily be linked to problems in the perception of the state of exception. so, it would follow that, since the interests of the administration and those of the people are identical, the people's interests could be best served by a renewal of the perception that they are, in fact, in a state of exception. at this point, the only real hope would be another big explosion. it worked out pretty well in september 2001. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite