Jump to content

Libby Says Bush Authorized Plame Leak


FutureGM
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

 

Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information 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.

 

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame?s CIA identity.

 

But 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.

 

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 interests of his political party ahead of Americas security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe,? Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said.

 

Libby?s testimony also puts the president and the vice president in the awkward position of authorizing leaks ? a practice both men have long said they abhor, 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 authorized by Bush shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Her CIA status was publicly disclosed eight days after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

 

In 2002, Wilson had been dispatched to Africa by the CIA to check out intelligence that Iraq had an agreement to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger, and Wilson had concluded that there was no such arrangement.

 

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.

 

According to Miller?s grand jury testimony, Libby told her about Plame?s CIA status in the July 8, 2003, conversation that took place shortly after the White House aide ? according to the new court filing ? was authorized by Bush through Cheney to disclose sensitive intelligence about Iraq and WMD contained in a National Intelligence Estimate.

 

It will be interesting to see where this goes. I'll be surprised if it's anything more than Libby covering himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Bush doesn't get impeached for this, then I should feel free to rob a 7-11 without any threat of punishment. Anyone screaming that a direct link between Bush and any scandal hasn't been found should just shut up and take it up the ass like the good sheeple they are.

 

What ever happened to being INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?

 

Thus far, it's nothing more than Libby trying to place the blame on someone else to cover his own ass and unless there is hard evidence that Bush leaked or authorized the leak, nothing will ever come of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pssht..this is just part of the liberal media conspiracy from people who like to pleasure themselves by bashing Bush and his policies. None of it is true. Stop picking on poor W. In fact, the 70 people who died in Iraq today are also part of the conspiracy. Why don't we just all stick our heads in the sand?

 

Of course if Bush did commit perjury, Im sure everyone who was ok with impeaching Clinton would be ok with impeaching Bush...right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I'm no defender of this administration but the title of the thread's a bit misleading. libby didn't say that bush & cheney authorized him to leak v. plame's name, he said bush & cheney authorized him to leak portions of the national intelligence estimate (nie) which said that saddam was eager to buy uranium.

 

just setting the record straight...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I'm no defender of this administration but the title of the thread's a bit misleading. libby didn't say that bush & cheney authorized him to leak v. plame's name, he said bush & cheney authorized him to leak portions of the national intelligence estimate (nie) which said that saddam was eager to buy uranium.

 

just setting the record straight...

 

Youre right. But it was certainly part and parcel with Libby's authorization to leak information to defend the position of going to war. So when a critic comes around and undermines their information, one could say he acted with some implied authority.

 

Here is an analysis of the situation that still might put Bush in a bad position, at least politically.

 

 

On June 24, 2004, President George W. Bush was interviewed by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. For 70 minutes, Fitzgerald asked the President about the circumstances surrounding the leak of classified information.

 

What transpired during those 70 minutes, we don't know. But I presume that "did you leak the identity of Valerie Plame" wasn't the only question Fitzgerald asked of the President. Rather, for 70 minutes, the President was likely questioned about many facets of the scandal, including the NIE. Was he questioned about whether he authorized selective leaks? Was he questioned about whether he authorized leaks of the highly sensitive NIE? Given Fitzgerald's reputation for meticulous questioning, and given the length of the interview, whether the President authorized such disclosures was likely covered.

 

Even though the President was not under oath during those 70 minutes, he sill had an obligation not to make false statements. All of this, of course, presupposes that Libby is telling the truth when he claims Cheney said Bush authorized the leaks. But the latest revelation, coupled with the President's brazen insistence in public that leaks of classified information are anathema to his national security philosophy, makes such a question a legitimate one: what did the President represent to Fitzgerald, and is that consistent with the truth?

 

Whatever the answer, the legal fallout from this will, I anticipate, be minimal. The political fallout, on the other hand, looks to be astounding. As Firedoglake points out, the glaring question is "why"? Americans do not like the idea of leaking national security information to the press, (even if, as TPM points out, the administration doesn't consider it "leaking" if the President does it). And to authorize leaking that info to settle a vendetta? Well, such use of executive power smacks of a Nixonian breach of the public trust.

 

 

www.dailykos.com

 

 

 

 

And these were the assertions of the administration, which of course the apologists are now trying to spin away from:

 

Libby's testimony also puts the president and the vice president in the awkward position of authorizing leaks ? a practice both men have long said they abhor, so much so that the administration has put in motion criminal investigations to hunt down leakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Vice President Dick Cheney and President Bush have the legal right to declassify information and release it.

 

So you are in favor of the administration putting people's lives in danger because the person did not agree with this administrations conclusions?

 

 

 

That seems awfully much for a dissenting opinion? Especially when nowadays, more info is coming out that Plame was right and that this administration was on the warpath from the get go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Vice President Dick Cheney and President Bush have the legal right to declassify information and release it.

 

So you are in favor of the administration putting people's lives in danger because the person did not agree with this administrations conclusions?

 

 

 

That seems awfully much for a dissenting opinion? Especially when nowadays, more info is coming out that Plame was right and that this administration was on the warpath from the get go.

 

He has the authority to do it. President Bush did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. I respect his opinion, and choice, even if it is the not the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Vice President Dick Cheney and President Bush have the legal right to declassify information and release it.

 

So you are in favor of the administration putting people's lives in danger because the person did not agree with this administrations conclusions?

 

 

 

That seems awfully much for a dissenting opinion? Especially when nowadays, more info is coming out that Plame was right and that this administration was on the warpath from the get go.

 

He has the authority to do it. President Bush did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. I respect his opinion, and choice, even if it is the not the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Vice President Dick Cheney and President Bush have the legal right to declassify information and release it.

 

So you are in favor of the administration putting people's lives in danger because the person did not agree with this administrations conclusions?

 

 

 

That seems awfully much for a dissenting opinion? Especially when nowadays, more info is coming out that Plame was right and that this administration was on the warpath from the get go.

 

He has the authority to do it. President Bush did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. I respect his opinion, and choice, even if it is the not the right thing to do.

 

I am pretty sure he has to follow a process to declassify something. That process was not followed here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What information was declassified for the sake of rebutting critics? Was it Wilson saying "hey, Hussein wasnt going for yellow cake in Nigeria" and then Bush declassifying information that showed he was going after yellow cake? Or was it the declassification of information that had nothing to do with the substance of what Wilson was asserting but rather an attempt to undermine his claims by intimidation or negative effect? For Dan Marino Forever to defend the latter as being something that you feel needs to be respected is amazing to me. Seriously, take off the blinders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...