Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak

[Sportsdude]

Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak [!-- END HEADLINE --] [DIV id=ynmain][!-- BEGIN STORY BODY --] [DIV id=storybody] [DIV class=storyhdr] [SPAN]By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer[/SPAN][EM class=recenttimedate]1 hour, 51 minutes ago[/i]

 [DIV class=spacer][/DIV]

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.

 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.

[/DIV][/DIV]

[Sportsdude]

Everytime the truth comes out about this administration I harken back to his campaign promise of 2000 saying he would restore credibility in honour back to the white house. (A direct shot at Clinton). Well I guess he's failed.

[Adam_Fulford]

He'll get away with it.  He gets away with everything.  

[TehBorken]

 Sportsdude wrote:
[div style="font-style: italic;"]Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak [!-- END HEADLINE --][/div]
I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
 

[Trollio]

A discussion I had about this today with a friend raised the question of impeachment and resignation. Not likely (Americans don't like their presidents leaving office like PMs), but it could be possible.
 
 If so, Bush is not Nixon, and this is not 1974. Too many things are different, and Nixon's only friend was himself. It'll be interesting to see where this goes.
   

[Sportsdude]

Trollio you are canadian right? Because this year is an election year. Republicans are tied to bush at the hip which will be impossible to break. Bushies ratings are low and will take a huge and I mean HUGE hit after today because today is reckoning day (its already friday here) McCellan is going to get grilled like we've never seen before and I wouldn't be shocked if his numbers (Bush's) dropped 10 points over the next couple of weeks. That would mean ratings in the mid 20's. Again Republicans are linked to Bush and Republicans are linked to scandals. (They make the sponsorship scandal of the Liberals look like child play.)

  This year might be Armagedon for the republicans like '93 was for the PC party in Canada.  Although only about 15 seats are really up for grabs in both houses, if all those go to the dems they will have majorities in both houses.  The Republicans would run home with their tales between their legs and the conservative movement just might be crushed.  And Bush will be a failure and he will become quiet and his voice of power will disappear. But..

    People are angry, BUT this country likes to vote on hot button issues and Republicans have always trumpeted the Pro-Life card which memorizes the righties and they become brain washed and forget all the wrongs and end up voting republican. So most likely nothing will happen.

[Trollio]

Good points. I want to add more, but I'm a bit fuzzy-headed at the moment (lack of sleep), so I'll have to come back to it tomorrow. For now I'll just say that in the midst of the Vietnam War, when Johnson did as much as resign, Americans voted for Nixon.
 
 The answer (and the curse) lies in the changed demographics of the South, after Southern Democrats no longer needed to pretend and hold on to their party label when they were all the while actually more conservative than Goldwater Republicans. Bush will be disgraced in history; but unless the Dems make a clear plan to win without the South, even the policies of a new President Clinton will not get you where I'm guessing you might want to be?
   

[Sportsdude]

Welcome to polarization of america.

  [img height=585 src="vny!://www.bhs.idaho.gov/bhslibrary/maps/usa.jpg" width=838]

  Lets break down:

  Northeast: Which is basically New Jersey, New York and all New England states will always go Democratic

Delaware I'll but in here because its always blue and it doesn't fit with the bible belt.

  West Coast:

Hawaii, Washington, Oregon and California will always go Democratic

  Alaska: Always Republican

  Interior West: Wyoming, Montana, Idaho

Will always go Republican

  Great Plains: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas

Will always go Republican

  Bible Belt:

Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Kentucky, South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana

Will always go Republican

  This leaves the Southwest which is Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada. Now I seperate these out because this is where the Hispanic population is huge. If the immigration issue in the news this area of the country is becoming a battle ground. Which means they could switch from a republican area to democratic area.

  Arizona will always be Republican

Colorado is changing slowly to Democratic due to Denver but Colorado Springs is home to the Evangelical movement so which hampers it from changing. Summit County where all the resorts are is always Democratic along with Denver.

New Mexico is becoming a Blue state. Slowly but becoming.

And Nevada's colour only depends on Las Vegas for the most part which is solid blue and Vegas is growing rapidly so in the next couple elections watch it switch.

Utah is Utah most conservative state in the union never going to change that.

  Florida: it gets its own catagory. The old saying is in order to get to the conservative part one must go north. (Pennisula, Upper Florida, Jacksonville). The Cuban population won it for the republicans last time in miami but that might change with the immigration debacle going on. Plus the jewish population in Palm Beach isn't getting any older. Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville and Sarasota are conservative mainly. Battle ground.

  Rust Belt:

Penn, Ohio, Michigan

Penn is Republican west of Phili. Phili is losing population state becoming red.

Ohio: Outside of Cleveland the state is pure red.

Michigan: This is the funny one because labor power has completely disappeared but Detriot is Detroit and it will always be blue.

  Midwest: Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Indiana

Indiana and Arkansas is diehard republican.

Illinois has cook county (chicago) always will be blue.

Wisconsin is funny Milwaukee and Madison the two biggest towns in the state are blue while upsate Green Bay is conservative. Battleground

Iowa is turning red.

Minnesota is hard to figure should be democratic all the time but I think the snow gets to their brains and the switch from time to time. Blue

Missouri is a lost cause for democracy. Its lost its way. f*ck it. f*ck the state, the land, and its leaders, its a shit hole always will be, when you are known more for Rush Limbaugh's home state and his brother is on the supreme court you know your f*cked.

    So in order to win an election all you need to go to in the future is Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio.    

[Adam_Fulford]

Sportsdude wrote:
 > snip

  "This year might be Armagedon for the republicans like '93 was for the PC party in Canada."

  [FONT color=#0000ff]Not going to happen.  Bush et al have the support of the overwhelmingly Fascist media and will win rigged elections via voting machines manufactured and maintained by Fascists.  Wouldn't matter what happens, the vote count will always favor whoever the voting machines are rigged to favor.[/FONT]

[FONT color=#0000ff]Just [A href="vny!://www.bradblod.com"]click on the links below[/A] to see the latest outrages involving the notoriously bad and riggable voting machines on which millions upon millions of taxpayers' dollars are being wasted to purchase.[/FONT]

[A href="vny!://www.blackboxvoting.org"][FONT color=#0000ff]www.blackboxvoting.org[/FONT][/A][FONT color=#0000ff] [/FONT]

[A href="vny!://www.bradblog.com"][FONT color=#0000ff]www.bradblog.com[/FONT][/A][FONT color=#0000ff] [/FONT]      

[Trollio]

Wow Sportsdude... that's material for an essay.
 
 With respect, a couple of things need adjusting:
 
 Maryland is severely Democratic. Delaware is not solidly Democratic (went for Ike, Nixon, Reagan and Bush I) and is owned by the DuPont family.
 
 You forgot Pittsburgh. The expression is "PA is Phila. and Pitts. with Alabama inbetween."
 
 West Virginia is not Republican either. Not a progressive Dem place, but not Republican.
 
 The incumbency rate in the US (+- 95%) combined with the individualistic --not party based-- nature of US politics is what kills dramatic shifts. People who think Bush is a bastard will still vote for their local bastard, because "he's a good guy."
 
 Some things could happen in November; the Dems could get it back. The AP poll today was very interesting.
 
 But that demographic shift I mentioned is historic, and no small event. The Southern Democratic party basically left to join the GOP 20 years ago, and that is when the latter got the numbers they needed to hold on. After 1928, the support for the National Dems was always an unhappy marriage in the South; after civil rights it was only a matter of time before Whitey found a new home in politics just like he did in the suburbs, because they were really conservatives anyway. The only reason they didn't jump ship earlier was because the Republicans symbolized the Union.
 
 Add to that the population shifts to the South over the past 30 years and you have  what is essentially the ironic victory at last of the Confederacy. When you look at his policy and ideology, the former president that George Bush is most like is...
 
 Jefferson Davis.
 
 The one hope left is that the multiple nature of disasters created by this administration will make it too difficult even for rednecks to support another go for the GOP.
 

[Sportsdude]

The one hope left is that the multiple nature of disasters created by this administration will make it too difficult even for rednecks to support another go for the GOP.


Doesn't matter as long as roe v wade is still an issue in this country (which it will be forever) Pro-Lifers are always going to put Pro-Life issues first, no matter what. The Republican party could have David Duke as its leader and he would still because all he would have to say is abortion is wrong and he'd get elected. People going church is going up in this country, granted they aren't really going to church because they are joining the evangelical movement which is not christianity but a money making machine built on hate, scare tatics and greed.

    Yeah I messed up on some of the states mainly because it was 3 in the morning and I was rushing to finish the post because I had to go to work. I give the rich man his paper in the morning.