"Bush approved intelligence leak"

[billvon 3,132]

>Does any of this ring a bell?

Remember way back when, when Bush was going to bring "integrity" back to the white house? Even his supporters are now using the "but he's no worse than Clinton!" excuse. What's next? He's not worse than Saddam?

No wonder his approval ratings are falling faster than a Russian in a 4 way suit.

[quade 4]

Falling faster than a fat man in a slick suit.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Remember when Clinton said his administration was going to be "the most ethical in history"?

As for "no worse than Clinton"... nope, not saying that at all... but I love how the liberals talk about how bad Bush and the conservatives are, all the while giving a pass to the libs doing the same damn thing...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Channman 2]

> >Does any of this ring a bell?

How did I end up on this thread, made a wrong clicky.

Well anyway....so uh, hows it going?

[billvon 3,132]

>but I love how the liberals talk about how bad Bush and the conservatives
> are, all the while giving a pass to the libs doing the same damn thing...

Are you confusing me with a Clinton supporter?

I have zero doubt that if Kerry was elected, and had done exactly the same thing, you would now be calling for his impeachment.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>but I love how the liberals talk about how bad Bush and the conservatives
> are, all the while giving a pass to the libs doing the same damn thing...

Are you confusing me with a Clinton supporter?

I have zero doubt that if Kerry was elected, and had done exactly the same thing, you would now be calling for his impeachment.

No, not necessarily a Clinton supporter, but a liberal supporter in general, based on your posts.

As for Kerry and impeachment...nope, unless the actual evidence supported it. Or, of course, if he was convicted of an impeachable offense... maybe something like "perjury".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,132]

>No, not necessarily a Clinton supporter, but a liberal supporter in
>general, based on your posts.

I tend to support liberals I agree with, and do not support liberals I don't agree with. Same with conservatives, actually. I suspect you are the same.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>No, not necessarily a Clinton supporter, but a liberal supporter in
>general, based on your posts.

I tend to support liberals I agree with, and do not support liberals I don't agree with. Same with conservatives, actually. I suspect you are the same.

Yes, much the same... not that you could prove it by some folk's opionions, though...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 3]

"Bush approved intelligence leak"

But...but...Clinton...
But...but...Clinton...

Clinton's administration is over. Has been for 6 years now. Bush's is not.
You think when Clinton was Prez & got criticized, the argument, "But...but...Nixon.." was an adequate rebuttal?
Distract, distract, distract....

[stoneycase 0]

rather than discuss the details of anything happening now, it's *much more* beneficial to compare it to history and then just shirk it off as "equally as bad" or "not quite as bad".

what's that saying? something like:

"you can lose a republic on the installment plan just as efficiently as you can lose a republic in a single war"

something like that...

since now, is no worse than "before", and probably not any better - what have we done in the last few years? seems like we spent a helluva lot of money. does anyone know what we bought? oh that's right, we had to spend that money, we've got a War on Terrorism, like we've got a War on Drugs.

i'm not paranoid, i don't believe in any "grand conspiracies". i'm a "shortest distance" guy. aka "the simplest answer is often the correct one because the shortest distance between two points is a straight line". i do believe in government accountability, for any administration - but particularly the administration that took an entire country into war. whether or not the war is justified, i don't care for the sake of argument. when you tend to do "big things" you tend to get looked at "a little deeper". funny how it works like that...

so fine, if your argument is "this is no worse than before" than i guess i'm happy with that, you've owned up to the fact that this administration is useless, i.e. they've done us no good, and we're no better off with their 'leadership' (or lack thereof, depending on your perspective)

Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

[Andy9o8 3]

Uh, you misunderstood my post. My point is opposite what you thought.
I was needling those who defend Bush in 2006 by falling back on the tired, old "but what about Clinton?"

[billvon 3,132]

>any president can order declassification of materials.....

So the question is - if a president secretly declassifies material, is it really declassified? Suppose some other administration official leaks it at the same time - is it still a crime? Suppose they leak it after? Or before the secret declassification? What if Bush changes his mind right after the secret declassification, and reclassifies it? Suppose a democrat leaks it, knowing it will soon be declassified? Should he be roasted alive in a giant wok, or should he be immediately appointed FEMA director for his Commander-in-Chief-like foresight?

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

The sad thing is I'm beginning to think you really believe this kind of stuff.

My tendency is to assume people throw wacky stuff out there just for the reaction, but in this case I'd agree that it's sincere. Scary, huh?

. . =(_8^(1)

[rushmc 23]

spitin in the wind.....

Clinton did it after bombing the asprin factory, Carter did it.

I know, he is going to get away again damit, just when you thought you had him

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

She (amazon)has yet to answer you once.

Too much blind hatred to see I guess

I completly quit responding to her. She will take it as a victory but I don't care.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

My tendency is to assume people throw wacky stuff out there just for the reaction, but in this case I'd agree that it's sincere. Scary, huh?

I bet you and GM and rushmc have your brown shirts all ready to don right there in your closets.. just waiting. Bush will need the die hard supporters like you to blindly follow along with the dismantling of this country from what the founding fathers wished it to be.

You still did not answer my question about what will YOU do.. when Martial Law is declared and Shrub cancels the election in time of national emergency for the "sake of National Security".... so what is it to be another terrorist attack... like the burning of the Capitol ( Kinda like the Riechstag fire). There are a lot of people in this country that beleive he really is capable of it.

I tend to believe you are just waiting for your party to achieve ultimate power.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I tend to believe you are just waiting for your party to achieve ultimate power.

The problem with your little plan is that those gun-toting, trailer-dwelling, flag waving NASCAR fans -- the quiet core of the Right -- would never settle for it. And if you think they would, you're a bit out of touch on how those people think.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The problem with your little plan is that those gun-toting, trailer-dwelling, flag waving NASCAR fans -- the quiet core of the Right -- would never settle for it. And if you think they would, you're a bit out of touch on how those people think.

Those are the dumb fucks who actually believe the crap that the administration puts forth to scare them....oh my...evildoing terrorists are behind every rock and tree.. we must protect the homeland........fucking sheeple. Those are the people who actually beleive that the president is a born again christian.... its a great scam,..... but I think the bible says something to the effect.. YOU SHALL KNOW THEM BY THEIR DEEDS.

How many commandments has this god fearing president broken so far

Thow shalt not bear false witness....

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors oil.

I wonder if starting a war for greed and arrogance... where thousands of peole have died falls under thou shalt not kill. ( I will let god judge him on these)

[Gravitymaster 0]

I don't look good in brown shirts or slacks. Just not my color. Something to do with being more of a summer knda guy. I do look good in beige though.


-

[Amazon 7]

Well its the armband that is all important and the party pin.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

The problem with your little plan is that those gun-toting, trailer-dwelling, flag waving NASCAR fans -- the quiet core of the Right -- would never settle for it. And if you think they would, you're a bit out of touch on how those people think.

Those are the dumb fucks who actually believe the crap that the administration puts forth to scare them....oh my...evildoing terrorists are behind every rock and tree.. we must protect the homeland........fucking sheeple. Those are the people who actually beleive that the president is a born again christian.... its a great scam,..... but I think the bible says something to the effect.. YOU SHALL KNOW THEM BY THEIR DEEDS.

How many commandments has this god fearing president broken so far

Thow shalt not bear false witness....

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors oil.

I wonder if starting a war for greed and arrogance... where thousands of peole have died falls under thou shalt not kill. ( I will let god judge him on these)

WOW!!! Now you're getting all religious on us like Bill Cole.

I really think you need to chill out before you pop a blood vessel or something.

-

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

How many commandments has this god fearing president broken so far

I don't know, and I doubt you do either.

Maybe he really is just a bumbling, yet affable average IQ guy with a real nympho of a wife.

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I bet you and GM and rushmc have your brown shirts all ready to don right there in your closets.. just waiting.

Yes, but the swastika lapel pins are on back order.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

WOW!!! Now you're getting all religious on us like Bill Cole.

I really think you need to chill out before you pop a blood vessel or something.

I guess you did not really figure out what you were actually voting for huh..... I mean you built him into this religeous man who would do no wrong.. Karl.. shame on you.. he is showing us his true face.

I guess this is what happens when a hypocrite assumes power with visions of talking to god... You say I am getting all Bill Coleish.. well President Shrub is the one claiming to be on speaking terms with GOD.. yet he is the one that is having some severe issues wiht following GOD's realllllly basic 10 laws.

[penniless 0]

Quote

Sunday, April 9, 2006 1:25 p.m. EDT
Wash Post: Nothing Wrong with Bush 'Leak'


The Washington Post has broken ranks with the rest of the press over the media fiction that President Bush's recently revealed decision to authorize Lewis "Scooter" Libby to leak prewar Iraq intelligence somehow constitutes a new scandal. !

So now the Post takes the other tack:
All the President's Leaks

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post, Tuesday, April 11, 2006; Page A21

What's amazing about the defenses offered for President Bush in the Valerie Plame leak investigation is that they deal with absolutely everything except the central issue: Did Bush know a lot more about this case than he let on before the 2004 elections?

But first, let's offer full credit to the Bush spin operation for working so hard and so effectively to change the subject.


The news was the court filing by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald reporting that Bush, through Vice President Cheney, had authorized I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to leak sensitive intelligence information in July 2003 to discredit claims made by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Wilson had fired a direct shot at the White House's rationale for the war in Iraq by saying the administration had distorted intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein's supposed efforts to obtain nuclear materials. The threat that Hussein might go nuclear was an emotional centerpiece of the administration's case for war. Condoleezza Rice, then Bush's national security adviser, made the case with great dramatic effect on Sept. 8, 2002: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

The president's defenders want you to think that when it comes to leaking, every president does it. Why should Bush be held to a different standard? Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) told CNN on Sunday that the Bush administration was innocently asking itself, "How do we get the full story out there?"

Besides, since the president can authorize the declassification of anything he chooses to declassify, he can't be involved in anything untoward. "This was not a leak," Joseph diGenova, a top Republican lawyer, told the New York Sun's Josh Gerstein. "This was an authorized disclosure." Ah, yes, it depends on what the meaning of the word "leak" is. That sounds familiar, doesn't it?

These arguments merely distract attention from why Fitzgerald's disclosure was so important. When a fuss was kicked up in the fall of 2003 about the leaking of the name of Wilson's wife, former CIA operative Valerie Plame, to the media earlier in the year, the president spoke and acted as if he knew nothing and was incensed that any leaking was going on in his administration.

In its issue of Oct. 13, 2003, Time magazine quoted Bush as saying: "Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information." Then the magazine's writers made an observation that turns out to be prescient: "Bush," they wrote, "seemed to emphasize those last two words as if hanging on to a legal life preserver in choppy seas."

The key words here are classified information. Did Bush at the time he made that statement know perfectly well that Cheney and Libby were involved with the leak, but that it didn't involve "classified information" because the president himself had authorized them to act? Talk about a legalistic defense.

Could it be that Bush -- heading into what he knew would be a difficult election -- was creating the impression of wanting the full story out when he already knew what most of the story was?

Which leads to another question: What exactly did Attorney General John Ashcroft know when he recused himself from the leak investigation? Did he know the investigation was getting dangerously close to Bush, Cheney, Libby and White House senior political adviser Karl Rove?

In announcing Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30, 2003, Deputy Attorney General James Comey said that Ashcroft, "in an abundance of caution, believed that his recusal was appropriate based on the totality of the circumstances and the facts and evidence developed at this stage of the investigation." What were the "facts" and the "evidence" on which Ashcroft acted? Did the administration consciously consider if passing off the investigation to someone else would delay the day of reckoning to beyond the 2004 election? And, yes, what exactly did Bush tell Fitzgerald and his staff when they questioned him on June 24, 2004? What had Cheney told Fitzgerald earlier?

The most heartening sign that all the spin in the world will not allow the administration to evade such questions was Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter's statement on Fox News Sunday that "there has to be a detailed explanation precisely as to what Vice President Cheney did, what the president said to him, and an explanation from the president as to what he said so that it can be evaluated." Specter, a Republican and a former district attorney in Philadelphia, is just the right man to take the lead in breaking the spin cycle.