If the white house, skooter libby, and dicky boy weren't playing such games with Plame's affairs, there would have been no reason for Judith Miller to go to jail. Sure, she went to jail to protect her source, but she is one of them, also. I'd bet dollars to donuts, though, that had she known she was being played for a fool, she never would have agreed to go to jail to protect her "source". And, none of you, except zoomba (keep asking the questions, zoomba), even ventured into the discussion about why the hell they didn't disclose that the information was declassified until AFTER Miller spent 8 months in jail, and until after they could no longer hide their games. You just apologize and rationalize and dismiss anything that remotely puts your dumb and dumber white house chumps in a bad light. Unbelievable. Davad, these guys are fucking unbelievable.

Dog, your "ignorance" is what's unbelievable. Judith Miller went to jail on a principle. Something which I have NO doubt that you personally have no understanding of. She went to jail for refusing to name her source even after the source okayed her doing it. And dabe...."watch your foul mouth". I saw to it once and I dang sure can see to it again.

Daiwa,

No one, certainly not Fitzgerald, has said there was any other information of any kind, aside from her identity, that was alleged to have been disclosed.

There was other info. Libby leaked classified portions of the NIE.

Libby specifically claimed that in one instance he had been authorized to divulge portions of a then-still highly classified National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons, according to correspondence recently filed in federal court by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.Link

drmiler,

And dabe...."watch your foul mouth". I saw to it once and I dang sure can see to it again.

Are you really that easily offended?

Sorry but once again you miss the point. Libby is NOT under indictment for this. He is however under indictment for among other things "perjury". But NONE of his indictments come even close to leaking classified info. And when you read something, try to "finish" reading it "all" the way through! From your "linked article".... Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller

I didn't miss any point regarding this. I never said he was charged with this, did I? The fact that Libby wasn't aware of her covert status is why he isn't being charged. Nor did I ever say Libby should be charged with anything about leaking classified info.

i dunno why yall think dog = dabe. neither the writing style nor reasoning seem at all similar to me.

your speculation is rather amusingly ironic considering the most common counterclaim is 'ya can't be sure of anything'.

#56 by kingbee Tuesday, February 14, 2006

dunno why yall think dog = dabe

please kingbee, stop being contrary just for once, if a dozen people see dusty as dabe and one does not {being you} who do you think has the best chance of being right?

There was other info. Libby leaked classified portions of the NIE.

I read through the entire article (Thanks for the link). Whether Libby "leaked" or was "authorized to leak" (which means the information was effectively "declassified") other information from the NIE has nothing to do with his indictment, though - he's not been charged with that. I was also puzzled by this little passage:

In a January 23 letter, related to discovery issues for Libby's upcoming trial, Fitzgerald wrote to Libby's attorneys: "Mr. Libby testified in the grand jury that he had contact with reporters in which he disclosed the content of the National Intelligence Estimate ("NIE") … in the course of his interaction with reporters in June and July 2003.… 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." (emphasis mine)

If Libby had actually testified to that effect, why would Fitzgerald use this odd circumlocution?

Anyway, I tend to agree with Baker that there is very one-sided coverage of this topic, completely ignoring the fact that Wilson was the first to "leak" classified information, selectively, also, I might add.

who do you think has the best chance of being right?

i almost responded by suggesting no matter how many jump on the bandwagon, the person having the best chance of being right just might be someone who makes a living arranging words. then i took a lil time to refresh my memory by reading some of dabe's articles and responses and realized the reason i remember her writing style as being so unique is for exactly that reason.

i suppose anything's possible but whomever wrote this:

Nobody was saying that about Clinton. They tried to convict him for lying to Congress about a blow job. Not exactly worthy of high crimes and misdemeanors. As for the war effort in Bosnia, and in Somalia, it's nothing that other presidents had not undertaken. Some efforts were successful. Some not. But, in both cases, Clinton went about it all legally, without finagling behind Congress' backs, had international coalitions, and undertook the efforts for strictly humanitarian reasons. Sure they were, messes. War is messy. Dubya, on the other hand, well............................ may he go down in history as the bumbling crook and liar that he is, and end up answering to an international court for war crimes. That is my wish.

is not likely to have written this:

If the white house, skooter libby, and dicky boy weren't playing such games with Plame's affairs, there would have been no reason for Judith Miller to go to jail. Sure, she went to jail to protect her source, but she is one of them, also. I'd bet dollars to donuts, though, that had she known she was being played for a fool, she never would have agreed to go to jail to protect her "source". And, none of you, except zoomba (keep asking the questions, zoomba), even ventured into the discussion about why the hell they didn't disclose that the information was declassified until AFTER Miller spent 8 months in jail, and until after they could no longer hide their games. You just apologize and rationalize and dismiss anything that remotely puts your dumb and dumber white house chumps in a bad light. Unbelievable.

it's not a matter of being contrary. it's all perception. read both out loud and you'll likely see what i mean.

has dog ever denied it? I haven't investimagated, but they all sound alike to me...

drmiler, And dabe...."watch your foul mouth". I saw to it once and I dang sure can see to it again. Are you really that easily offended?

Go back and read some of "dabe"'s posts then you'll understand. This is how she starts a word here a word there. Before you know it there's a pile of them. And just an fyi......You or I write something like what dog wrote and see just how fast we get called on the carpet for it.

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." (emphasis mine)

I noticed the odd phrasing when I read it also, although I'm not really sure what it means.

I haven't investimagated, but they all sound alike to me

what we need to do is simonize our watches...

On my count of 3. Ready? 1... 2...

A little update...

Libby has now testified that not only did he have permission from Cheney to leak the NIE, but he also had permission from bush himself;

Link

This contradicts many statements by Bush;

“There’s just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.” [Bush, 9/30/03]

“I want to know the truth. … I have no idea whether we’ll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers.” [Fox News, 10/8/03]

“I’d like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information.” [Bush, 10/28/03]

A "leak" is by definition an unauthorized disclosure, davad. Further, the article says nothing about Bush specifically authorizing Libby to disclose the name of Valerie Plame; it talks only about him authorizing disclosure of a particular NIE's contents to counter the already public claims made by Wilson, something Bush clearly has the authority to do.

The language & innuendo surrounding this business have been way too fast & loose.

I referred specifically to the NIE, not did I say that Bush doesn't have the authority to do so. However, he probably shouldn't go around railing against "leakers", when he's apparently fully aware of who did the "leaking".

Again, you're calling something a leak that was not. You know perfectly well that he was speaking in general terms about unauthorized disclosure of private or secret information. There is no contradiction there.

He was speaking in directly in response to questions regarding the Fitzgerald investigation;

Link

Link

Link

Here is an excerpt from the last one;

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You have said that you are eager to find out whether somebody in the White House leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent. Many experts in such investigations say you can find if there was a leaker in the White House within hours if you asked all staff members to sign affidavits denying involvement. Why not take that step?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the best person to that, Dana, so that the -- or the best group of people to do that so that you believe the answer is the professionals at the Justice Department. And they're moving forward with the investigation. It's a criminal investigation. It is an important investigation. I'd like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information. As you know, I've been outspoken on leaks. And whether they happened in the White House, or happened in the administration, or happened on Capitol Hill, it is a -- they can be very damaging.

And so this investigation is ongoing and -- by professionals who do this for a living, and I hope they -- I'd like to know.

This isn't just about whether he had the authority to have the information "leaked", it's about his dishonesty with the American people.

...if the president allowed it, then he already knew about scooter libby. therefore he wasn't talking about scooter libby, since he already knew about scooter libby. He said 'leaked sensitive information'. This wasn't sensitive information.

This was a wanna-be society couple whose husband hopped out of his job at the CIA into the arms of the press, and then directly into the employ of the Kerry campaign. Bush was obviously saying that if information that wasn't authorized to be leaked was leaked, he'd want to do something about it.

Eventually you guys will see when you've been played. This has been much ado about nothing. You've wasted time and placed blame for YEARS over something that in the end could be explained away in a paragraph. You think they haven't delighted in the waste of your time?

Wilson is a loudmouthed tool, who eventually was even written off by the Kerry campaign because he was a liability. "Restoring honesty" is pretty facetious when he not only misrepresented himself as an unnamed source, but also to the congressional investigation.

You hate Bush, though, so he's your focus. If it had been the other way around you'd be demanding to know how Wilson so easily stepped from 'agent' to 'unnamed source' to campaign advisor for the candidate opposing his old boss. You'd especially want to know how he got away with the lies he told. "Restoring Honesty" indeed...

You're also forgetting that we don't know the president authorized disclosing anything, whether he had the authority or not, only that Libby is claiming so. Why would you believe anything Libby says? Didn't he "lie" to the grand jury & Fitzgerald?

Why would you believe anything Libby says? Didn't he "lie" to the grand jury & Fitzgerald?

Well we don't know he lied about anything yet do we? Conservatives have been blowing the innnicent until proven guilty trumpet about that since the beginning.

therefore he wasn't talking about scooter libby, since he already knew about scooter libby. He said 'leaked sensitive information'. This wasn't sensitive information.

You're way too smart to play that dumb baker.

When all those answers were in response to questions about the Plame investigation, what leak do you think he was talking about?

The NIE isn't sensitive information?

Why would you believe anything Libby says? Didn't he "lie" to the grand jury & Fitzgerald? Well we don't know he lied about anything yet do we? Conservatives have been blowing the innnicent until proven guilty trumpet about that since the beginning. therefore he wasn't talking about scooter libby, since he already knew about scooter libby. He said 'leaked sensitive information'. This wasn't sensitive information. You're way too smart to play that dumb baker. When all those answers were in response to questions about the Plame investigation, what leak do you think he was talking about? The NIE isn't sensitive information?

No it wasn't sensitive info. This disscussion has been beaten to death on JU. She was NOT a covert agent at the time. No covert status, therefore no sensitive information.

You're way too smart to play that dumb baker.

And "I" think you're too dumb to try and play that smart.

No it wasn't sensitive info. This disscussion has been beaten to death on JU. She was NOT a covert agent at the time. No covert status, therefore no sensitive information.

Do you even know what the NIE is, you dumbass?

The NIE doesn't have anything to do with whether Plame was covert or not.

And "I" think you're too dumb to try and play that smart.

And you're way too dumb to be involved in any discussion that doesn't rely solely on pictures.

"You're way too smart to play that dumb baker. When all those answers were in response to questions about the Plame investigation, what leak do you think he was talking about?"

Well, I dunno about smart, but I can see that he specified "sensitive" information. After all, Wilson had been putting himself in the public eye, acting as a source to journalists, etc. Do you think that is really behavior suitable for the husband of an "agent"? Do you think that after he came "out" to the press that her cover as an agent would have ever been worth anything again?

Nah, it's just political fencing, and the Dems have gotten the worst of it. Why? Because if they get everything they want... it won't matter. That's why you don't see the hard-liners doing anything but offering sound bytes about it.

It's easy to say that this is "political". In a time of war, though, when someone is spreading falsehood that amounts to propaganda to undermine the popular will, I doubt anyone can say it isn't valid to combat that. Who this "source" is was very, very important considering the ties to the Dems and eventually the Kerry campaign.

As an agent in the CIA, Bush is basically her boss. If you want my honest opinion, I don't think anyone really wanted to "out" her, rather I think it was just stated in a derisive way that if it weren't for his wife he probably wouldn't have gotten the job. Which is true, but admittedly irrelavant.

So, in the end this guy stuck his neck WAAAAY out by lying and playing political games, and took his wife with him. I doubt very seriously they could have kept her job secret, and if they had I doubt the CIA would have trusted her to make coffee after he used his intelligence to combat the Bush administration.

So, storm in a teacup, frankly, and one Wilson asked for. Maybe his wife was an innocent bystander, maybe not, but either way he screwed her with his actions before anyone ever leaked her position.

And "I" think you're too dumb to try and play that smart. And you're way too dumb to be involved in any discussion that doesn't rely solely on pictures.

And now your just being plain ignorant! I'll match my 130 point IQ and brain power against yours any time you want fool.