The Leak Thing
Tweet
I’m not sure what my whole take is on Bush authorizing the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity. I do understand that – within reason – a President can choose to declassify things, but the chilling idea is that the President uses his executive power to declassify something not to protect a sensitive asset or to aid national security but to settle a political vendetta.
I’ve seen this movie before.
>> Why Is Rummy Interested In Hillary’s Financial Records?
123 Responses to “The Leak Thing”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I don’t think Bush would ever admit he declassified the Valerie Plame thing unless Libby had documented proof, because if he did, his later statements on the matter would show him to be a major class LIAR.
It’s a simple distinction:
If the president has honest and honorable reasons for declassifying something, he’ll declassify it and issue a public statement or press release about it.
If the president has shameful reasons, he’ll declassify it and have one of his lackeys whisper it to a reporter on a parkbench or a parking deck.
“And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.”
Dead-on right, Oliver. Bush did leak information to settle a political vendetta. You are more right than you realize.
The political vendetta, of course, was Joseph Wilson’s. He used his wife’s position to promote his own agenda, and was telling reporters an entirely different story than he told government investigators. In fact, his debriefing was actually used to BOLSTER the arguments that Saddam was pursuing WMDs. He was also lying about how he got the assignment to go to Africa and look into the matter. Bush apparently “settled” the matter, as in finalized the question.
A telling point is why wasn’t Wilson charged with violating a non-disclosure agreement about his trip, as is standard for most people who do work like that for the government. The simplest answer: for whatever reason, he wasn’t asked to sign one. To me, that indicates that either those who sent him had an agenda, or didn’t deem his work important enough to keep classified.
The short version: Scooter Libby is accused of lying about how he told the truth about a public liar.
J.
Um, where does Libby say Bush authorized “the leak of Valerie Plame s identity”? Do you even read the source you link to? Libby says he was authorized to disclose portions of the NIE.
I wonder if Oliver is knowingly lying or if this is an honest mistake on his part?
“The leak thing” is so 2004. Joe Wilson could have been found in a park with a bullet in his head, with a pistol 20 feet away, laying on top of a suicide note. Instead, he’s a celebrity. Poor Joe. Poor Valerie. See Joe write a book. See Valerie write a book. See Joe and Valerie write a book. See Joe make a bundle working for a left wing foundation. See Valerie make a bundle as a left wing radio commentator.
See the Republicans keep both houses in 2006.
See the Republican President in the White House in 2009.
Hear the liberals roar, “Diebold!”, “Lousy campaigning!” Republicans ran on a campaign of fear, by exploiting the ______ issue!
This whole thing goes back to Bush hate. Because of Bush hate Democrats insisted on a special prosecutor who went after Libby for leaking classified. He in fact did not wind up charging Libby with leaking classified at all, but caught him in some part of the investigative process. No leaking crime is being prosecuted period. Its dirty politics which you would think the party of cop assaulting Cynthia McKinney and Abramoff associate Harry Reid would show some humility.
Dugger, That last line was in the spirit of OW
Yep, JWG, this isn’t about the pResident leaking the name of a undercover CIA agent working on WMD’s, to further a political vendetta.
This is about a pResident selectively leaking highly classified documents concerning our country’s military capabilities and analysis of threats to make a case for an immoral war, which has killed tens of thousands so far.
Glad I could set the record straight.
–AWOL George, Oct 03
And let’s not forget that when Patrick Fitzgerald interviewed AWOL George–AWOL George did not disclose to either investigators or the special counsel that he had authorized Cheney or any other administration official to leak portions of the NIE to Woodward and Miller or any other reporter. Further, AWOL George also said during the interview two years ago that he had no prior knowledge that anyone on his staff had been involved in a campaign to discredit Wilson or that individuals retaliated against the former ambassador by leaking his wife’s undercover identity to reporters.
Again, I suspect JWG’s defense of “AWOL George is just a bad liar, but not a criminal” isn’t going to play very well.
Because … that’s not what he asserted or stated! Check out the 3rd post in this thread for the ACTUAL quote.
He obviously already knew who was talking to the press about the NIE information, which was NO LONGER classified, and it was released publically shortly afterward.
Actually, it was still classified.
“BTW, there s no such thing as a president leaking highly classified documents.”
That’s your opinion. Most constitutional scholars disagree.
” As soon as a president releases them, they are no longer considered classified. ”
Another Bush as King moment. And technically, you are right, since they are in the public domain, they CAN’t be classified, as they have been compromised.
BS. Provide some evidence.
–AWOL George, Sept. 03
Apparently, JWG’s defense of AWOL Bush seems to be that Bush isn’t a criminal–just a liar.
You mean the documents that were publically released one week later?
BTW, there’s no such thing as a president leaking “highly classified” documents. As soon as a president releases them, they are no longer considered classified. That’s part of the power of the presidency…he gets to make decisions like that.
Oh, and Factcheck…your point doesn’t explain Oliver’s major error in making this post.
Wait a minute jade, Valerie Plame was both the most powerful person in the CIA and a insignificant desk jockey at the same time!
Let’s assume for a moment that the tinfoil hat theories of JayIDTea, JWG, and Duggy are true; that Amb. Wilson–in cahoots with his wife who was secretly the most powerful person at the CIA and a pro-Saddam plant–lied about everything in an attempt to malign Dear Leader.
How does this jibe with AWOL George’s assertions that he would fire anyone who was involved in leaking Plame’s identity? And his statements that anyone who leaked this info should be prosecuted?
It seems the wingnuts got awfully exercised when our last democratically-elected President claimed not to have had sex with a person he did indeed had sex with.
But when when it comes to Dear Leader, the rules about telling the truth are changed.
Further, Josh Marshall asks a good question: If Libby is lying, why aren’t Cheney and AWOL George saying so?
Compare and contrast:
This whole thing goes back to Bush hate. Because of Bush hate Democrats insisted on a special prosecutor who went after Libby for leaking classified. He in fact did not wind up charging Libby with leaking classified at all, but caught him in some part of the investigative process. No leaking crime is being prosecuted period. Its dirty politics which you would think the party of cop assaulting Cynthia McKinney and Abramoff associate Harry Reid would show some humility.
This whole thing goes back to Clinton hate. Because of Clinton hate Publicans insisted on a special prosecutor who went after Clinton for high crimes and misdemeanors. He in fact did not wind up charging Clinton with high crimes and misdemeanors at all, but caught him lying in some part of the investigative process. No high crimes and misdemeanors were being prosecuted period. It was dirty politics which you would think the party of human shooter Dick Cheney and Abramoff associates Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, John Boehner, and practically every other Publican in Congress would show some humility, or ethics, or morals.
Your latest lesson in Reich Wing Projection 101. Man, you guys aren’t even trying any more.
As soon as a president releases them, they are no longer considered classified.
You made the assertion, you provide some evidence. All I said was there is considerable debate on this issue.
I notice no one has chosen whether Oliver is lying or is simply mistaken.
Jadegold,
Bush was refering to the leak of Plame’s name and any other release of CLASSIFIED information. He obviously already knew who was talking to the press about the NIE information, which was NO LONGER classified, and it was released publically shortly afterward.
Factcheck,
Read and enjoy: EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958
Considerable debate? From whom?
Now look to the beginning of the document:
There is more legal detail, but the president has the authority to determine that classification is no longer warranted.
Even Oliver and the NYT agree:
Unfortunately for Oliver, he and the NYT disagree here:
Also, from Oliver’s linked article (which says nothing about the Plame leak):
Libby also testified that an administration lawyer told him that Bush, by authorizing the disclosure of classified information, had in effect declassified the information. Legal experts disagree on whether the president has the authority to declassify information on his own.
My BushLove compels me to enable all his behaviors, requiring accountability
only of those who malisciously persecute my childlike President.
That’s a pretty tortured interpretation, JWG.
If the pResident originally classified the information, there MAY be an argument that he can declassify. However, the NIE is a classified document, classified by its producers, I would surmise. The president cannot unilaterally declassify these documents.
Also note, that under your interpretation, not only does the president have the authority to declassify documents (from your recitation of 1.4), but anyone who classifies can declassify, ((2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; or (3) United States Government officials delegated this authority)
without review.
If you read that document, you see that the classifier is implored to set a declassification date for the items, and it also talks about review by other agencies of the need to declassify. A leak to the press is not one of the approved methods.
Is that what you are saying? That any government official allowed to classify any document can declassify any document, without any review?
Also:
JWG:
Nothing in Executive Order 12958 outlines the process of declassification. There is a description of which declassification we would be talking about. I have listed that below. Otherwise, there is nothing in there to support your argument. The “declassification guide” mentioned in section 5.2 might be something more adequate…
Sec. 3.2. Authority for Declassification. (a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.
(b) It is presumed that information that continues to meet the classification requirements under this order requires continued protection. In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified. When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official. That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure. This provision does not:
(1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or
(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.
(c) If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office determines that information is classified in violation of this order, the Director may require the information to be declassified by the agency that originated the classification. Any such decision by the Director may be appealed to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The information shall remain classified pending a prompt decision on the appeal.
(d) The provisions of this section shall also apply to agencies that, under the terms of this order, do not have original classification authority, but had such authority under predecessor orders.
I’m looking at your link, JWG, and I’m seeing the authority to classify by the pResident, but not the authority to declassify in Section 3-2. I’m no attorney, but I can’t see it. Can you point it out? Maybe I’ll learn something.
I also see that declassification is subject to a review, is the president’s declassification subject to such a review?
Why don’t you guys say what you mean?
Bush can do whatever TFHWants
Why did you leave out the whole context?
(c) No later than the effective date of this order (4/17/95), an agency head shall notify the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs of any specific file series of records for which a review or assessment has determined that the information within those file series almost invariably falls within one or more of the exemption categories listed in paragraph (b), above, and which the agency proposes to exempt from automatic declassification. The notification shall include:
(1) a description of the file series;
(2) an explanation of why the information within the file series is almost invariably exempt from automatic declassification and why the information must remain classified for a longer period of time; and
(3) except for the identity of a confidential human source or a human intelligence source, as provided in paragraph (b), above, a specific date or event for declassification of the information.
The President may direct the agency head not to exempt the file series or to declassify the information within that series at an earlier date than recommended.
Context is everything. This part of the Executive Order talked about automatically declassifying millions of previously classified documents, a house cleaning of sorts. The statement you pulled out of context said that the president can order the agency NOT to declassify information at an earlier date than recommended, that is, the date that the original document states is the date for declassification.
I’m a little disappointed with your use of ellipses in your post, was it your intention to deceive? I hope not.
He in fact did not wind up charging Libby with leaking classified at all, but caught him in some part of the investigative process.
Obstruction of justice and perjury. Same deal as Clinton. Who thought we’d ever see the day where you defended him against bogus charges?
Should we expect to see you stumping for Hillary next? Wow.
This whole thing goes back to Bush hate.
*Yawn*
Here is the real question…
Why wasn’t plame charged with nepotism?
“What are “prohibited personnel practices? …..engage(ing) in nepotism (i.e., hire, promote, or advocate the hiring or promotion of relatives);”
from the office of the special counsel http://www.osc.gov/ppp.htm
Why wasn t plame charged with nepotism?
Why haven’t you been charged with Rectal-Cranial Inversionism?
Here’s the real question DRDOper: do you support the politically motivated outing of United States covert intelligence operatives?
Just to bring this discussion back to original topic, here’s what Oliver wrote:
“the chilling idea is that the President uses his executive power to declassify something not to protect a sensitive asset or to aid national security but to settle a political vendetta.”
And not one Republican apologist has in any way disputed this basic fact: that George Bush views the declassification process as just another tool for political spin. Even for trolls, you guys are thin on the substance.
nepotism?
Bush has crossed that line long ago with his cross-species interbreeding
comatose cronyism. BTW Has he been charged with that? Even in
Texas, bestiality is against the law. isn’t it?
Yes he can.
And we already know from earlier in the document:
The President is at the top of the chain as head of the Executive Branch. Please feel free to provide any quotes from these experts who supposedly claim that the President can’t declassify documents.
tom take off your rose-colored glasses…
My point, which you have a hard time comprehending, is that the Wilson report was politicially motivated, not motivated by an interest in national security. Since his wife suggested Wilson go on this “investigation”, and Wilson did nothing to refute the British report, and Wilson is a democratic operative, it is in the interest of national security that people be aware that the “data” in the report is questionable, especially after Wilson publicized his “findings”. The american people needed to understand that this was a political hack job, by a leftist flack and his CIA connected wife.
There, now have I spelled it out so you can understand it?
And Cracker, would you PLEASE read the law before commenting on it…
It clearly says it is illegal to “advocate” the hiring of a relative….there is no requirement that the relative be the one to make the “decision”.
So, who is the fact-challenged one again?
No piddgy-widdgy, I don’t. And since plame was not a “covert intelligence operative”, I don’t see a problem at all. Anyone who drives into the CIA every day is not a “covert operative”….
And tom, he was aiding national security if this is in fact how it happened. He was demonstrating the crass political motivations of a democratic operative who was using his wifes position to further his own agenda. Since nothing that Wilson said negated the BRITISH report that Bush quoted in the SOTUS, it was next to useless.
And no lefty here has disputed that Wilson was hired by his wife, was a liberal operative, and did a piss-poor job “investigating” anything…
Thank you, Pedro, for laying out your message so clearly: if it helps Bush politically, it is by definition helpful to national security. This is what passes for “conservatism” these days. Anything and anyone can be thrown into the wood chipper if it helps Bush politically. Again, thank you.
You know what JWG, although I can’t see it in your words, my research says that their is no debate that the pResident can declassify data. The debate I must have been thinking about is whether the VP can declassify data. I still don’t see how THIS order authorizes the pResident, it may, but SOME order authorizes it. I learned something. You were right.
However, now you can explain how this leaking parts of the NIE were, in your words, “exceptional cases”. “Because the pResident says it was” is not a suitable answer, and is a dangerous precedent.
The declassification law is designed for situations, like for example, to warn the public of a imminent threat that will result in loss of life and limb, such as someone is going to bomb NYC at 4, and this is the person you need to look out for.
“In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified.”
What a ridiculous question. Once again, peed’, you’re caught out not knowing even the simplest facts.
1) Wilson was highly qualified for the investigation, having diplomatic experience in both central Africa and Iraq.
2) We’ve seen evidence that Plame wrote up a summary of Wilson’s qualifications, but no evidence that she made the decision to send him on the mission.
3) Wilson wasn’t paid.
So what would you base a charge of “nepotism” on?
Okay, now explain how this circumstance was “exceptional” and that the “need to protect such information” was “outweighed by the public interest in disclosure”
This should be good.
I have no need nor desire to try to explain the reasoning behind the declassification. I have simply responded to the INCORRECT claim that the president can’t declassify documents.
Not only the NYT (as I noted above), but now the WaPo gets into the act:
Furthermore, I continue to notice that NO ONE except I have pointed to Oliver’s WILLING LIE in this post (it must now be considered a lie since he hasn’t bothered to correct the information):
Several commenters keep trying to push the debate away from Oliver’s original point, but I won’t bite. Oliver must be considered a LIAR if he does not retract this statement.
Yes Doper, you do support the outing of covert CIA operatives. Plame was covert, the CIA confirms this, plus they outed her confidential contacts from the past several year. Furthermore, they outed her CIA front company that shielded other covert operatives who were now exposed, and they outed the contacts of those operatives. And this is what you condone.
Dumbass.
What a fun game of Calvinball you’ve constructed, JWG! Now let’s try mine: Republicans believe that it is NORMAL for the president to selectively declassify a document for the eyes of one reporter purely for political reasons. This makes you a MONARCHIST COWARD, as well as a WILLING ACCOMPLICE to SCUMBAGs who PLAY GAMES WITH OUR NATIONAL SECURITY FOR POLITICAL GAIN.
how about a link to that quote tommy….?
JWG: is my statement:
“JWG thinks it is acceptable for his administration to selectively declassify national security documents for political gain, and is therefore an unprincipled coward who brings shame to his nation”
supported by the current evidence?
Please point to where the Bush administration claimed Iraq bought yellow cake.
Yes DRDOper, the Wilson report was politically motivated, Bush & Co. asked the CIA to go shag down information that the CIA had already determined was bunk. Why do you think they didn’t waste the time and talent of one of their own agents? Wilson was a democratic operative? You lie. After the smear campaign that endangered his wife he became one.
Fact: Iraq did not buy yellow cake. The claims were false. The document was forged. You should go back to the monkey house to fling your feces.
George Tenet said the inclusion of the yellowcake claim in the SOTU was a mistake (made by the CIA) because the CIA did not have conclusive evidence about the claim. Of course, no one ever claimed that Iraq had purchased yellowcake.
I will answer your question when you answer mine.
I also note that you have TWICE called me a “coward,” as well as other insults. Is this how you want to play the game, or are you just unable to argue with the facts so you resort to this type of behavior?
Wow. There seems to be an abundance of factually-challenged liberals today.
Wilson was working as an unpaid advisor to Kerry before publishing his Niger op-ed
I will assume you were just ignorant of the fact rather than lying, but you owe drpedro an apology.
Hey, remember when the Bush administration admitted that their yellowcake claims were “a mistake” and “should never have been included” in the state of the union? IF YOU DON’T ADMIT TO REMEMBERING THAT, YOU, JWG, ARE THE GREATEST TRAITOR IN AMERICAN HISTORY!!!
TomY,
Is Oliver’s statement:
supported by the current evidence…yes or no?
Dugger sez:
This whole thing goes back to Bush hate. Because of Bush hate Democrats insisted on a special prosecutor who went after Libby for leaking classified. He in fact did not wind up charging Libby with leaking classified at all, but caught him in some part of the investigative process.>>
Those evil Democrats! Using the Constitution to justify their Bush hate. Come on, dugger, please reiterate “Not one documented lie by Bush in the buildup to the war, not one.”
yea piddgy-widdgy if she was so covert, why wasn’t Scooter charged with outing an agent then?
Seems like maybe the lawyers disagree with you. You aren’t a lawyer are you?
Thought not…now scurry back to the slurpy machine, I am getting thirsty…
10 days
Oliver is just repeating a talking point like he always does. He doesn’t care if it’s the truth or a lie. It’s a Democratic talking point and he’s sticking to it.
Does the law say anything about how, after you declassifiy a document, you should anonymously give it to one reporter, and tell no one in the American public at large about it until weeks later, and then scoff when that’s characterized as a “leak”?
reminder
The president does not have the power to declassify all documents at will.
“There are several specific categories of classified information that are protected by statute — communications intelligence, identities of covert agents, nuclear weapons design information, and some others. Those statutes are binding on the executive branch as well as on everyone else.”
–Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists
DKos got into the whole classified/declassified thing back in Feb before Libby potentially implicated Bush
Despite your attempt to derail the discussion into the administration torturing the truth about Iraq and yellowcake, I’m glad we all agree that IT IS WRONG FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO SELECTIVELY DECLASSIFY NATIONAL SECURITY DOCUMENTS FOR POLITICAL GAIN. Or are you too unprincipled and cravenly partisan to admit it?
No, don’t take your Calvinball away, JWG!!! How are we going to play your mean-spirited game if you aren’t here to call Oliver a liar, then stamp your feet when people don’t play along?!?! WAAAAAAAHHHH!!!! OLIVER’S A LIAR AND NO ONE WILL PLAY WITH ME!!!!
Oliver made the statement. The statement is not true. If uncorrected, it makes Oliver a liar. Simple.
I asked you a question first. I’ll wait one more time and then I’ll just ignore your trolling. Answer my question and I’ll answer yours.
Is saying something like “Social Security will be broke in 2042″ a lie? I think it’s more like gibberish as that statement means nothing. You could say “it is projected the trust fund will be broke, but we’ll still be able to pay 75% of the benefits”. Is it technically a lie? Maybe not, but it’s certainly really fucking dishonest. He says that line all the time. It’s gibberish. It adds nothing to the discussion of social security.
Dugger, do you honestly believe that Bush did not want to invade Iraq until it was decided to do so at the last minute (literally, two weeks after saying he hadn’t decided yet)? Do you not consider that a blatant lie? You can’t plan a war in two weeks. Or maybe, with this war, you can…
Just a few more Bush lies:
“The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.”
“Let me make very clear the position of my government and our country: We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture.”
And then:
“First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don t think we ever said at least I know I didn t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.”
Followed by:
“The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”
Bush made these statements. The statements are not true. If uncorrected, they make Bush a liar. Simple.
Planning equates to deciding, especially when you are coming up with plans to provoke Saddam into firing at your UN colored-painted plane. Or are the Downing St. memos faked?
Thank you. Your link backs up my previous discussion nicely. Of course, the dkos analysis is discussing the Plame leak rather than the NIE documents. Who has control over the entire NIE? The director of the CIA. Who is the director’s superior? The president. Please point to where the president must get permission from a subordinate to declassify a document.
While not explicitly stated in the article, it is highly likely Bush authorized the declassification of Plame’s identity in order to discredit Wilson based on the declassification of very similar information and information that was fed to Miller on the same day. To deny that highly likely possibility is just as silly as Oliver claiming that it is absolutely true. I don’t think it makes him a liar if he is correct (by definition). It makes him nothing more than an false accuser if he is wrong. Republicans are no stranger to falsely accusing the Clintons of all sorts of high crimes, including, *gasp*, lesbianism. Talk about a talking point…geez.
All the righties have stated what they feel and it’s 100% apparent, “Joe Wilson deserved to be smeared and discredited because he is a Democrat and did not agree with this administration”. That is basically the entire argument. He was highly qualified for the trip. Everything he said in his Op-Ed was truthful. She suggested him on the trip. I don’t know what implications that has on anything. Is she a Democratic operative too? It’s a vast left wing conspiracy! And the lefties are the ones accused of tin-foil hat wearing. How funny. The number of think tanks on both sides of the aisle make me have serious doubts about the success of this countries political future.
Something that is still not clear (and I’ve looked online for the supposed guidelines to no avail) to me is what process is involved with declassifying something, and in this case specifically, whether the president followed these guidelines. Scott McClellan refuses to answer as this somehow related to the ongoing investigation (which is untrue as this has nothing to do with the investigation of Libby, it has to do with what actions the president took to declassify this specific information, not what Libby has been indicted for). Answers to this question are definitely warranted.
Dugger has yet to admit that, using his standards for what constitutes a lie, Bill Clinton never lied about his liason..
Which parts are not true? Everything?
Is this a lie?
You can t plan a war in two weeks.
Planning does not equate to acting.
That’s right. Because they had a plan from day one. They needed a reason to act. They picked the facts that fit their plan. And that was reason enough.
Planning does not equate to acting.
Dugger, if that’s your standard, I encourage you to denounce JWG’s “hate” toward Oliver immediately. But you won’t, because you are a dishonorable partisan Bush apologist who lacks the courage of your convictions.
I hear Joe Wilson’s coming out with a new book: Traitor: I was a preening 5th columnist for the CIA
buma,
Of course there has not been a single lie documented re Bush. Not one. Despite every leftist yahoo braying it like a demented donkey – not one lie. Despite the big money mainstream media with you Bush haters all the way – not one lie. Just went through this a little while back here. Always gets down to the haters citing what they think is a contradiction between two Bush statements. More often than not, it is not a contradiction (like imminent threat) but even if there is one, it doesn’t come close to proving ‘lie’. Lie is where the hate comes in.
Dugger, Not One Lie, Not One
I’m missing the “lie” portion from your quotes. Can you be more specific?
THE MOTION IS CARRIED: IT IS WRONG FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO SELECTIVELY DECLASSIFY NATIONAL SECURITY DOCUMENTS FOR POLITICAL GAIN.
Your silence on this issue speaks volumes about your lack of character. Maybe try growing a moral compass in the next life, mmkay Duggsy, Pedro, Frank, and JWG?
To clarify, JWG: Bush made these statements. The statements are not true. If uncorrected, they make Bush a liar. Simple.
Dugger, Not One Lie, Not One
Because, as we went over ad nauseum, it depends on the intent of the person making the claim, and since we don’t know what Bush was actually thinking (again, probably not much), we don’t know categorically if his intent was to mislead or decieve.
It just kind of worked out that way.
reference?
Maybe try answering a question with something other than another question. Answer mine and I answer yours.
There is nothing funnier than when a troll tries to take the high road. “WHY WON’T YOU PLAY MY OLIVER IS A LIAR GAME??!?! WAHHHHH!”
You should try a different approach. Consider serving your administration with quiet dignity, like Dr. Pedro, who reserves his quiet, dignified questions for important issues like the dignity of Cynthia McKinney’s hairstyle and the quietness of Michael Moore’s waistline.
I guess the obviousness of the fact that BUSH USED THE DECLASSIFICATION PROCESS TO SCORE POLITICAL POINTS has really set off some spectactular neural fireworks in your troll hive mind. At least it’s fun to watch, though!
Gosh, JWG, I guess I was wrong, Wilson signed on with Kerry after Bush started making questionable claims about intelligence Wilson gathered information that directly applied to it, but before he published his op-ed piece, and worked behind the scenes. He went ballistic and active, giving speeches after Bush & Co. endangered his wife, where I went wrong. DrDoper claims that Wilson was a Democratic operative when he went to Niger. Simply not true or at the very least not demonstrated by any evidence.
DRDoper claims Valarie Plame got Wilson the job. Intentionally false. She recommended her husband who was particularly qualified and available. In no way did she make the decision to hire him for a red herring mission requested by the office of the Vice President.
Furthermore, Wilson’s report jibed with other intelligence conclusions reached independently that there was nothing going on between Niger and Iraq.
Also, Bush claimed in the SOTU: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa . That was a lie. Bush is vouching for that information as undoubtably credible and true. It wasn’t. The CIA had previously stopped inclusion of the Uranium claim, but Bush speech writers negotiated it in, hence its attribution to the British Government. Allowing that was a mistake, but the wording clearly indicates the CIA wanted no part of it.
Next point, the CIA says Valerie Plame was covert, the CIA asked for the investigation, and every other point about exposing her front company, other covert assets that used that company, and the whole chain of exposed intelligence assets are unrefuted and true.
Last point, obstruction of justice and perjury. the investigator determined a crime had been commited, interference to the investigator occured to hinder his investigation to the extent he indicted an obstructor with a felony. He may not be able to charge for the original crime due to that interference. It doesn’t mean a crime wasn’t commited. It means the cover up may have muddied the water too much to prosecute.
Actually, I have quite a simple and well thought out answer. I am just patiently waiting for yours.
That would be you, peed’.
Wilson was never hired or paid.
Hey, Tapped just crushed every rightwing talking point on the leak issue. Bottom line: yes, this was a leak, and it was unacceptable conduct on the part of the administration generally, and the president in particular.
Wallow in the carnage, trolls:
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/04/index.html#009767
CENSURE TIME, BITCHES!
I did this before and progressives failed miserably. Pick your best-case provable lie. Get together and take your best shot. But remember the definition of ‘lie’ and then go ask a grown-up what ‘intent’ means. Then have at it, me hardies!! Prove intent to deceive. I may be wrong though. Some of you may be certified mind readers.
Dugger, “I blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur King, you and all your silly English k-nnnnniggets. Thpppppt! Thppt! Thppt!”
Hey, Oliver, nice crowd of people you have on your side. Quaker calls DrPedro “Peed,” middlepidge calls him “DrDoper,” and JadeGold mangles my name as “JayIDTea.” (I presume he/she/it is trying to make an “idiot” reference, but it’s fairly vague.) Does that mean that others can start referring to Quacker, MuddlePhucker, and JadeGoldenShower?
After all, if we’re going to toss the notion of civil debate aside, let’s just be up front about it and go totally playground.
J.
Quaker, wilson paid his own way to Niger?
Prove it…
Dugger:
The predicament you think you have put “us” in is a two-way street. Since you cannot read minds either, you have no case that he doesn’t lie through his teeth every chance he gets.
I don’t know what definition of lie you are using, but, to me, knowingly telling the public information you know to be untrue is a lie. Or is that too simpleton a definition? So, once again, do you really think he had yet to make his decision to go to war when he told the general public he had not?
Jay:
You can refer to anyone however the heck you want, but, remember, you are then becoming what you apparently despise. You really ought to take yourself less seriously. If someone responds with an insult using your name, you know they are strecthing, unless of course they make a valid argument. Just because you insult someone doesn’t mean your point is any less valid. It just makes you a dick, unless it’s all in good fun.
16 words of the SOTU Dugger. It is false and the intent is to deceive.
Dugger, can you prove that George Bush has ever intentionally told the truth?
George Bush: NOT ONE TRUTH, NOT ONE!
Bush administration history of deception
What makes a lie and other semantic games
Catch the “lie” euphemisn express
More links
And still more links
From Wikipedia:
Some have held that various other forms of intentional deception should be counted as telling lies. Hence the expression “lie of omission” or “concealment lie”. This is when a person refrains from making some statement or statements, with the intention that another person believe a false statement to be true, produced entirely by the person doing the refraining. However, it is interesting to note that special expressions have had to be coined to refer to these so-called “lies”. This suggests that these acts of omission are not lies, but rather may be consider as strategic positioning of truth. An example is omitting in conversation to one’s boss that they have stolen in the past as a child to prevent the boss from making misjudgements into present day behavior; in contrast one may not necessarily need to omit this to one’s mother or close friend who knows and understands this earlier deviating behavior to have been completely deconditioned in the normal process of learning.
A fascinating part of this passage is the desperate attempt by Wikipedia to cling to the absolute literal meaning of the word “lie” to avoid including other “forms” of deception, even creating the ridiculous bs that they are more accurately “strategic positioning of the truth.” This is the very rock most Bush defenders cling to on the whole lie issue. Focus not on Bush’s intent, and obsess on the execution.
The recent release of the video showing Bush being briefed about the danger to the NO levees before Katrina hit is a prime example. Critics charged that Bush lied when he said no one anticipated the breaching of the levees. Apologists chimed in with the contention that the warning given to Bush in the meeting was that the levees would be “topped” and not “breached,” therefore Bush didn’t lie. This completely sidesteps the underlying point that he knew the levees would likely fail and NO would flood.
How much and how bad would NO have flooded with topping? When would the flooding had ended? The immediate rescue of tens of thousands of people demonstrates that the administration was ready for limited flooding. No one was ready for the levees to fail and dump that much lake water into NO.
JWG, you cannot possibly be serious. The Army Corps of Engineers predicted a levee failure all the way back in 1985. Multiple administrations gave the NO problem the brush off, not just Bush, but Bush has positioned himself as the security president, “keeping America safe.” The Fed arrived days late. Besides, I think the government’s job where disasters are concerned is to prepare for the worst, not sit back and hope for the best.
Katrina timeline
Brown warned Bush even before the taped meeting
The levees have been an ongoing problem for years, going back well before Bush
Watch the video
Bill L Are you seriously suggesting that Bush is all the more to blame, because he promised to pay more attention to security?
The security issue involved in the levees’ integrity is?
“Promised to pay more attention to security?” You say that like it hasn’t been the cornerstone of this administration’s reign of (t)error.
Let’s use or imaginations:
1.)Katrina demonstrated the governments poorly coordinated emergency response capability. If they couldn’t handle a hurricane with several days warning, how could they be expected to handle a terrorist attack with none. The whole administration seems to have a thing for going on vacation precisely when the nation needs them at the wheel. Instead, they chose to provoke hugely expensive conflicts with nations that are not an immediate threat to our nation, thereby creating even greater security problems. How does any of this not directly relate to national security?
2.)Had the levees been strengthed properly, as has been “in the works” for decades, and had Bush not seen fit to actually be the first president to cut the budget for their maintainence (which is not to excuse Nagin and the other NO morons), then we might not be looking at a massive cleanup and reconstruction effort that will take years and cost hundreds of billions (cronyism and graft aside, naturally). That money could have gone elsewhere and been put to better use. How about port security? How about armor for our troops?
3.)How many of our security resources are occupied (or were for a significant amount of time) in NO and not working on other, more Frank worthy security issues?
4.)And so the U.S. debt grows bigger and our fiscal security continues to crumble.
Those are just some possible LITERAL security issues at play.
I’ve posted the link several times before in previous threads (I don’t have time to hunt it down once again…but I’ll find it if you can’t search for yourself). The portions that failed had been RECENTLY upgraded. Funding issues had nothing to do with the levees that failed.
Well, I believe I won again. No takers oon my lie challenge. Just a few Clinton carpers and finely thought-out taunts that we can’t prove Bush told the truth.
Guess what. “Lie” is the compassionate progressives propaganda technique. Not mine. You throw out the smear, you should have hard core documentation. It is and has been part and parcel of the left’s psychotic hate-Bush strategy. When called to task, progressives have no intellectual capital to back up their assertion (same as AWOL claim, etc) and fail. But I remember.
Dugger, No lies, not one. “But you can’t prove Bubba lied!’ Got me there.
Dugger, the 16 words in the SOTU were false. The US government did not believe that Hussein sought Uranium from Africa, they had specifically debunked these claims. To repeat them as true and credible is lying.
mitter,
The words were true. Go back and relook them. But if you would like to cite this as the ‘best case” that Bush has lied, just say so and we’ll have a go, but you won’t like the results. Its easy to win a debate with someone consumed with hate.
Dugger
mikebdot,
Exactly. You can’t prove it. And it is exactly true that many on the left have “faith” that Bush lied. Faith is a belief asopposed to verified fact. What drives that belief? For some it may be honest intellectual judgement (but not very good judgement) but for many its pure old fashioned hate. See it here everyday. A major mainstream periodical has already informed us that it is OK to hate Bush.
‘Lie’ is a serious charge – particularly when the charge assumes that the liar does it for greed, selfishness and doesn’t mind killing thousands in support of his lies. Should there not be some solid standard of proof for such charges?
Of course, no lie has been documented and the brain-dead charge continues to be thrown out by those who apparently use it as a means to avoid serious policy discussion. So we don’t need to discuss the pros and cons of Iraq, because we progressives magically know Bush lied! Ain’t we great!
Dugger
Dugger, you cannot prove something for which no evidence exists. Bush is not going to keep a diary that says “hehe, duped the public again”. You may as well tell us to prove God does not exist (or does exist). The fact that many people on the left have faith that Bush lied is not a signal of their hatred but a signal of their world view (IMHO). So, if you see someone say ‘Bush lied people died’ or some other such jingoism, ignore them. But they have the right to deduce that he lied, just as you have the right to deduce that they hate Bush.
If Bush actually believed the Niger/yellowcake report, he is just as blind to the available intelligence as you are claiming we are blind due to hatred of him.
Bill
Nice try, man. I tried a couple of months ago. I linked to several of the same things you did to prove Bush’s dishonesty to Mr. Dugger. He replied by chastising me for cutting and pasting; not one mention of the content of said items. I have no idea of what constitutes a bald-faced lie in DuggerLand. Something about not having sexual relations or something…
I’m not trying to fool anybody, Frank.
1.)Bush has long positioned himself as the “security” president, and while that claim was made largely to capitalize on 9/11 and the ensuing paranoia, it carries over to all aspects of this administration. You can’t claim that you are competent to wage a war (or wars) but all bets are off when the weather turns bad. People are far more likely to to find themselves the victim of a tornado, flood, hurricane, wild fire, what have you, than a terrorist attack. If you are going to claim that you can protect America, then that goes for ALL threats, and not merely the hazy notion of fighting an endless war against an ill defined enemy. Nobody expects 100% success, but coming up short in the face of a Cat 5 hurricane with several days warning shouldn’t even be an issue.
2.)Bush’s lack of competence (though it shouldn’t need pointing out, when I and many others say “Bush” we mean the whole administration, not just the clueless frat boy figurehead) costs this country valuable resources drawn from a finite pool. You cannot credibly claim that doesn’t weaken this nation in significant ways that may very well extend beyond our shores. Infrastructure damage, over extended military assets, lost productivity, fiscal strain, and so on all have repercussions not only for NO, but for the nation and even the world.
Dugger, clearly you are a fan of the “plausible deniability” strategy.
it carries over to all aspects of this administration.
Only in yout feverishly anti – Bush mind.
I am not citing that as a best case Dukker, I am saying it was false, and intentionally misleading. In what way was it true?
Bill L: I don’t know who thin you’re fooling with that comment, but it’s not me.
You know, and I know, that when the President talks about security and safety in relation to terrorism, he is not referring to the Mississippi, or the budget.
At least, I hope so.
Nice try, though.
Mikebot, we don’t need a Bush diary or admission, all you need to do is look at what he says and determine if it’s true or not. Much of what he says is false. We are left with three possibilities as to why, 1) a president whose information is controlled by his underlings. 2) a president that doesn’t bother to do his research or 3) a president who lies. Which is worse? Incompetent, Puppet or Liar?
Dukker likes to argue semantics, intention, and whether Bush knows the veracity of his statements. It all boils down to a staggering lack of credibility. And liar, inc0mpetent, or puppet, it’s not a good thing for the office of the president.
Mitter,
Again. You guys are running the ‘lie’ smear campaign. Don’t ask me to disprove it. You brought this baby into the world. You support it.
The truth is you don’t agree with what he’s doing and evidently the only way you know to argue against it is to guess at negative motivation. A standard but shabby technique of the times. (because you are clueless when it comes to understanding a person on the other side – Bush has to be doing all of this for evil reasons – the real world, over time, will help you there)
Dugger, Can you prove a magically powerful Easter Bunny does not exist?
No Dukker, those 16 words are a lie. The CIA informed the White HOuse it wasn’t accurate. Bush’s people wanted it in the SOTU and put it there to intentionally deceive people. THe statement was false, the intention was to deceive. Lie. It isn’t a smear campaign. I don’t have to know their motives the two elements of a lie is there; known false statement, made intentionaly. Now you want to say I can’t prove it is a lie because I don’t know his motive? Grow up. You have faith in his motive, fine, now explain how that statement was true and how it’s intention was to honestly inform the people of AMerica.
Dukker, I don’t know, what would the Easter Bunny’s motive be?
From factcheck, first Google.
* A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush s 16 words well founded.
* A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from a number of intelligence reports, a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
* Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush s 16 words a lie , supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
* Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA’s conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
I would say there is not a very conclusive case for even a contradiction, much lessa lie. Is this your best shot, mitter??? You’re carrying water for progressives hear and they need something better.
Dugger
You’re damn right it’s ok to hate Bush, just as it’s ok for you to hate us. Very few of your posts could pass for actual discourse. It is nearly all accusatory and vindictive. Hate is another emotion that is difficult to control. I, for one, do not hate Bush. My father is a staunch Republican and accuses me of hating him all the time when I am simply being critical of something he has done. There is a very large difference. It’s funny, too, because my father constantly brings up Clinton in our discussions and he accuses me of blind hatred. The point typically has nothing to do with Clinton, but his name is constantly dropped (and no, he’s not talking about Hillary).
You are engaging in the same activity that you are are describing as bullshit. You do realize that, right? Jumping to a conclusion and saying “Bush hater! Bush hater” As opposed to having an actual argument. I think there have been plenty of well laid out cases that Bush has in fact lied to the American people. SOTU, war as last resort, going after the leakers and firing them (when he knew perfectly well who the “leakers” were, which will be proven in time), McCain smearing, swift boating, AWOL, drug taking. Something in there is not true. You can only give someone the benefit of the doubt so many times before you say “gee, maybe this guy IS a douche”. Maybe you should join the overwhelming majority of the country who have come to this realization.
Regardless of whether or not he lies, he’s a terrible president. He is a terrible public speaker. He has very little wit (if you think saying things like “I’m not your favorite guy” to someone that is telling you what he feels is witty, then, well, I don’t know what to say to that) and has yet to pass anything substantial. He campaigned in 2000 on social security and, how’s that going for him? The debt is increasing like crazy because of his tax cuts without a substantial cut to spending to offset the cuts. It’s just stupid. Today’s generation is stealing from the future. And, yes, I am in favor of a balanced budget every year (after paying off the debt of course).
The only substantial thing this man has done is invade Iraq and cut taxes (yes, for everyone, I’ll admit it), and we don’t agree with this action, so it’s not a wonder there are many that hate the man.
Funny, you have to go to Bitain to back it up. The CIA said the claim was dubious. THe seperate sources you credit the US with having were all dubious and known to be. Most telling, the CIA objected to the claim forcing Bush speechwriters to change the wording attributing the claim to Britain. Claim=false. The Bush admin even admitted it shouldn’t have been in there and tried to shift the blame back to the CIA. Final point, British intelligence should not be included in the SOTU unless backed up by our intelligence experts.
More Bush lies:
“By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt.” wrong, 3/4 of the money would be available which i a better percentage than a Bush budget.
“[Castro] welcomes sex tourism,” Bush told a room of law enforcement officials in Florida, according to the Los Angeles Times. “Here’s how he bragged about the industry,” Bush said. “This is his quote: ‘Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world.’”
“You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons….They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two.* And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong. We found them.”
“There was only one problem with President George W. Bush’s claim Thursday that the nation’s top economists forecast substantial economic growth if Congress passed the president’s tax cut: The forecast with that conclusion doesn’t exist.Bush and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer went out of their way Thursday to cite a new survey by “Blue-Chip economists” that the economy would grow 3.3 percent this year if the president’s tax cut proposal becomes law. That was news to the editor who assembles the economic forecast. “I don’t know what he was citing,” said Randell E. Moore, editor of the monthly Blue Chip Economic Forecast
Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were “six months away from developing a weapon.” no such report or conclusion existed
Or my favorite while running for cngress Bush claimed to have served in the AIr Force.
More??? You haven’t documented the first one.
Dugger
Let’s see, before Bush makes the claim in the SOTU:
-the claim was removed from a speech October previous at the insistence of the CIA.
-The CIA informs Cheney and the White House the claims are unreliable.
-THe UN asks for the forged documents, US does not release them until after the speech several weeks after the request, with the qualification; ‘we cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims’.
-The UN declares the documents to be forged in March after giving the US and Britain two weeks to present any other evidence of the claim. None.
-The US State department finds the claims unpausible before the speech.
-The CIA warns Britain the previous September not to make that claim.
–The CIA objects to the claim for the SOTU, after which, Bush staffers change it to attributei it to the British.
-Colin Powell refuses to use the claims in his UN presentation one week later.
Do I have any reason to believe the claim was true or even believed to be credible? No. Quite the contrary.
mitter,
We can go into all of your points, but where do you address intent? Even if you were right on each point, which I do not at all concede, you still need intent to have a lie. Its not a lie. For instance, how does Colin Powells non mnetion of the claim constitute a Bush lie???
people aren’t as evil or bad as you think. they can just disagree.
Dugger
how does Colin Powells non mnetion of the claim constitute a Bush lie???
Perhaps because Powell knew it to be false, misleading and/or deceitful and refused to go along. Notice how he wasn’t Sec. of State for very long after that?
mitter, I commend you for doing a great job documenting the lies and untruths. Again, I don’t know what constitutes a documented lie in DuggerLand.
See the president who always tells the truth!
Watch in Shock and Awwe as classified documents appear and disappear into thin air!
Ride the Homeland Security roller coaster of Multi-colored Doom!
This way to the Egress!