« Ashcroft's new job | Main | Sudan ignored »

April 12, 2006

Source of intelligence leak

Suppose President Bush is telling the truth that he really did declassify the intelligence information while authorizing Scooter Libby to leak it. Then what plausible explanation is there for Libby to hide the fact that he was the leak source? By hiding it, he became the subject of an indictment investigation. If the supposition is true, then I can think of no logical explanation whatsoever for Libby's actions.

The only logical conclusion is that he hid the leak source because the information was still classified and he was trying to protect his bosses.

The Bush spin/lie team probably will once again save the day with the declassification claim.

John Dean

Regarding President Bush being the ultimate leak: Didn't his mother ever tell him that just because you can doesn't mean you should?

Susan Schank



CRD - are you at all curious in what might be the Republican lead Congress' reaction IF it came to light that Bush lied under oath?
...just wondering.


Again, I still can't help but wonder how the current congress would respond IF there were evidence that Bush did lie under oath (which would require him actually being put under oath), particularly if that lie were about a national security issue rather than a private dalliance.


If Clinton answered all questions correctly why the Supreme Court disbar him? They said somrthing about under oath, etc.


agree on all points. (and well-stated summary of the Clinton issue)

I know we've currently got no lies under oath by Bush, but I still can't help but wonder how the current congress would respond IF there were evidence that Bush did lie under oath (which would require him actually being put under oath), particularly if that lie were about a national security issue rather than a private dalliance.


CRD: It is impossible for Bush to have lied under oath. When he has "given interviews" (he even refuses the word "testify") to various investigative bodies, he does so only on the condition that he NOT be placed under oath. Seems to me he even refused to talk to the 9/11 people unless Cheney could be there to hold his hand.

FACT: In the Arkansas case, a written question was given to Clinton's lawyers asking if he had had sex with "that woman". His lawyers asked the investigating attorneys to define what they meant by "have sex". They provided a written definition that DID NOT include oral sex. Then Clinton responded "No."

Bad questions get bad answers in court proceedings. I would have done exactly what he did. Answer their question as per their definition.

FACT: The Libby case is about whether he blocked the investigator's ability to get information regarding the leaks by lieing under oath. This case is not about the leak itself.

FACT: If the President does indeed have the ability to declassify anything he wants, any time he wants, it is by definition impossible for him to "leak" anything.

However, since the President now says that he declassified only "selected" protions of the NIE regarding Iraq and WMD, he did, by definition, "cherry pick" the information he disclosed. There may be good and valid reasons why he declassified some info and not other.

At the same time, if he chose only to declassify that which supported his postion, while failing to disclose anything that might weaken his case, that would be a dispicable action. If he withheld parts of the NIE only because they disagreed with his wishes, that would clearly be lying to the American people.

Half truths are whole lies. But they are not automatically impeachable.


"which in any event comes down to charges of perjury."

Pretty serious stuff on its own. I recall a president was impeached on perjury charges -- and it wasn't even a matter of national security.

I wonder, if it's ever evident that Bush in fact lied under oath on a matter of national security, would the republican-lead congress have the stones to even censure him?


Ray - I don't always agree with you, but (like Fox News) you are fair and balanced. You go your own way and make up your own mind - and don't really insist that others agree with you. Also (like Fox News) you are unfairly chastized by the left - leaning when your independant conclusions don't line up with their agenda.

Ray Seay



I have critized him,
WRONG--eavesdropping without warrants, torture, debt, detention without trial, not waiting on Iraq, Not fighting to win. Much else.

I do not lynch anyone on a rumor of the day.
--AWOL from National Guard
--He knew prior to 911
--He hates poor and blacks
--He did not have authority for war
--He did not have authority to wiretap
---He will be impeached
---The famous Btitish memo

Where are these?



I was under the impression that there had been claims made in letters and on this blog that Libby had stated that he was authorized by VP Cheney and President Bush to talk about Plame. His Lawyers are saying that Libby avows he never made such statements.
As to other matters, they do not seem to apply directly to this case, which in any event comes down to charges of perjury.


C'mon, Lloyd, keep it honest.

The prosecutor in Libby's CIA leak case filed a correction, changing one sentence in the earlier filing. The passage had said Mr. Libby had been authorized to disclose to a reporter a "key judgment" from the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that said Iraq was vigorously trying to obtain uranium.

Mr. Fitzgerald's amended version changed the wording so that the passage would say that Mr. Libby was authorized to disclose "some of the key judgments of the N.I.E., and that the N.I.E. stated that Iraq was vigorously trying to procure uranium."

"Mr. Fitzgerald's letter did not seek changes in his assertion in the earlier filing that Mr. Libby had testified to a grand jury that Mr. Cheney had told him in 2003 that he was authorized by President Bush to release selected parts of the intelligence report to a reporter."



What is the authority for all of this "Bush Leaked" wordage? An admitted mistake in court papes filed by Fitzgerald? Libby's Lawyers say "Mr. Libby does not contend that he was instructed to make any disclosures concerning Ms.Wilson by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or anyone else". Link:


One can't help but wonder just what this administration would have to do for Ray to actually criticize its actions and cry for accountability.

T. Hanson

Just remember... a government for the people by the people. He won the election the second time and still have another Bush all ready for the 2012 that can run! yea! (once again sarcasim is lost in the blog).

Ray Seay

Since this was the first time in history that a politician has leaked information, we better start hanging people.

A leak in Washington. Unbelievable!! A democrat would not do that. The New York Times would never print classified information.

By:: FLF


I made the mistake of saying, "If the Iranians will attack us directly in Iraq, we'ed wipe them out," to my son in the Army.

His response? "Oh great, a massed formations war to the front, while the Iraqis are running around the rear areas blowing themselves up. And if the Syrians got in, it would be two fronts with no safe area to stage from."

Think our brilliant leaders have thought of that?


Looks more like we may be heading towards a "Cuban Missile Crisis" event, and I fear that Bush and co. lack the finesse to get us through unscathed if it comes to that.


To be redundant. These guys truely fringhten me. Their grasp on power is slipping away, and the one thing they appear to really want is power.

I just don't think this country can afford another Watergate type mess. And I am more and more afraid that it is coming. Please, God, not another constitutional crisis.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright