Scooter Libby Says Bush OK'd Leak

Esoteric

Tragic Hero
Registered Senior Member
Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors that President Bush authorized the 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's 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.

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

The most recent instance is the administration's launching of a probe into who disclosed to The New York Times the existence of the warrantless domestic surveillance program authorized by Bush shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The authorization involving intelligence information came as the Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the president and his aides had given for going to war.

Libby's participation in a critical conversation with Miller on July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate," the papers by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stated. The filing did not specify the "certain information."

"Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller — getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval — were unique in his recollection," the papers added.

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.

Libby is asking for voluminous amounts of classified information from the government in order to defend himself against five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in the Plame affair.

He is accused of making false statements about how he learned of Plame's CIA employment and what he told reporters about it.

Her CIA status was publicly disclosed 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060406...Wqv.sas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
 
Bush needs to at least urinate on a 12 year old girl, rob a bank and then smack a black kid in a wheelchair on his way out the bank on live TV before any action is taken against him and his administration.
 
You know i wonder why we are giving any credit to a man being indicted for perjury? Especially when what he is saying would clear him of more wrong doing if he is right.
 
Bush needs to at least urinate on a 12 year old girl, rob a bank and then smack a black kid in a wheelchair on his way out the bank on live TV before any action is taken against him and his administration.
that is true, he has done so much to piss people off, that we are so used to being pissed off that there is not a big enough single eruption with enough power to get him thrown out of office. I mean, what did Nixon to that was so much worse than bush?

if you throw a frog in boiling water, it will jump out. if you put a frog in room temp water, and slowly boil it, the frog will die.
 
I don't think Libby is just saying it, but proving it with documents. I could be wrong about that.
Although you do have to wonder what it takes to get Bush impeached, this latest news could be the last straw. Republicans don't have much to lose.
 
spidergoat said:
I don't think Libby is just saying it, but proving it with documents. I could be wrong about that.
Although you do have to wonder what it takes to get Bush impeached, this latest news could be the last straw. Republicans don't have much to lose.

Truer words were never spoken......Let's hope it comes true. :D
 
Libby's claim is all but confirmed by Bush's decision to not challenge the claim.

This is one more sign that Bush is political genius. It is legal for a President to leak classified info. Technically it's not a leak; it's an implicit declassification. Before Libby's revelation would bring Bush down, it would be the illegal wiretapping, but the public already okayed even that.

I agree with Esoteric about what it would take to get Bush impeached. It ain't gonna happen.
 
zanket said:
Libby's claim is all but confirmed by Bush's decision to not challenge the claim.

This is one more sign that Bush is political genius. It is legal for a President to leak classified info. Technically it's not a leak; it's an implicit declassification.
.

And no where did Libby say he was told by the Pres to leak her name.

Case closed. Sorry libs. Try again.
 
Esoteric said:
Bush needs to at least urinate on a 12 year old girl, rob a bank and then smack a black kid in a wheelchair on his way out the bank on live TV before any action is taken against him and his administration.

Yeah but even then they'd probably just agree to centure him and then come out with a simultaneous resolution which supports the president's defense of this nation, and his wisely putting out the fire on the child (which the liberal media won't report on) stealing the bags of money from the bank because they were full of anthrax (Which again CNN forgot to mention) and then punching the black child because he got uppity. . . er I mean be cause he was a Muslim (and as such a terrorist). It's terrible how the liberal news media has spun the whole lifesaving pee-bankrobbery-terrorpunch issue.
 
OliverJ said:
And no where did Libby say he was told by the Pres to leak her name.

Case closed. Sorry libs. Try again.

OOOH Okay so he was only leaking info about IRAQ it doesn't say in black and white that he was also to be givin <i>that</i> particular classified bit of info which he also just happend to know from Dick Cheney form whom he was taking his orders to leak all that other info to the very same reporter no less.

Noo that doesn't seem the least bit suspicious at all!
 
So now it's OK that the president ordered the leak of the identity of an undercover CIA agent for political purposes? What the hell is your problem?
 
spidergoat said:
So now it's OK that the president ordered the leak of the identity of an undercover CIA agent for political purposes? What the hell is your problem?

No he didnt. Are you paying attention?
 
OliverJ said:
And no where did Libby say he was told by the Pres to leak her name.

I was referring to the leak of "sensitive intelligence information about Iraq", whatever that was.

Although Bush could surely squeeze through a legal gray area when leaking almost any info, including about Plame's CIA position. Turns out it's legal for him to do almost anything, no matter how damaging to the country.
 
zanket said:
I was referring to the leak of "sensitive intelligence information about Iraq", whatever that was.

Dude went to Africa , confirmed that Sodumb was indeed trying to buy yellow cake , came back and said all of that, filed no written report on it at all. then after the dems got a hold of him began to twist and turn everythig about his trip to Africa. The man is a proven liar and not one of you libs care to deal with the truth. You want to blame G.W. for lying about this and that , when in fact his reports on Sodumb trying to buy yellow cake in Africa were in fact confirmed by this ladys husband until he denied it. Like I said the man is a proven liar not G.W.

But once again facts are irrelevant with you.
 
The relevant facts are these:

Libby says he was ordered by Cheney to leak information Libby knew to be classified. Upon expressing his discomfort with leaking classified information, Libby said Cheney told him that the President had authorized the leak. Not that the information was declassified - just that the leak was authorized.

There's no evidence, of course, beyond the testimony of Libby. There are no documents and of course no audio tapes. But Bush is in a difficult position - the leaks undeniably did happen, and Libby's story is the only one out there. Bush had two choices. He could have distanced himself by denying that he authorized anything. This would require him to ask for Cheney's resignation, but such an action would have restored some of his credibility and provided an opportunity to bring in a superstar vice president to then run in 2008.

His other choice was not to deny that he (Bush) authorized the leak. This might actually be legally defensible, since there appears to be some question about how presidents can declassify information. But it's too late for that - it would seem that when Bush claimed ignorance in July 2003 he was not telling the truth. Whether or not it is legal for him to declassify information in this manner is irrelevant and whether or not he specifically told Cheney to tell Libby to leak Plame's status is irrelevant.

An apparent crime was committed in July 2003, Bush said that he knew nothing about the circumstances of the event, and now it turns out that he was the author of it. He might be able to build a case that there was no actual crime, but he cannot escape the fact that he lied about it for over two years. He never lied under oath, if his case for declassification procedure holds up in court then he has committed no impeachable offense under the letter of the law. The court of public opinion, however....
 
And why do you think he lied if in fact he did ?

Because he wanted the truth to be known. See my prior post.

Ironic though isnt it ?
 
he DID lie!!
he specifically said that anyone tied to this scandal would be immediately be removed from the administration. now, it is PROVEN that he was involved at least in a small way....by his own words, he should be handing his resignation in YESTERDAY.
 
Back
Top