The recent Bush "bombshell" can't be explained much better than this...

Wow, that Scooter Libby would hafta be one giant dunderhead to lie and coverup something that was public knowledge all along!

Fitzgerald must be super incompetent to indict him - almost a big of a waste of money as Starr.

 

The law is so convoluted and complicated that it probably took a team of lawyers just to figure out what was or was not legal...

And, with all the hoopla and personal pride on the line it is not surprising that differences of opinion are going to require a judge to say what the law is or is not in this particular case...

Libby probably thought he was smart enough to believe the law was violated at the time he attempted the purported coverup...

Causing yet more confusion...

It's all pretty foolish and totally blown out of proportion...

According to some sources Plame's identity as an undercover officer was compromised at least twice previously...

But, because no one was head-hunting they were quietly forgotten and she stayed working even though it was possible she was in danger...

People were waiting for Novak to publish... They wanted a head to roll... The President's Head...

Or, at least someone high enough to compromise his presidency...

Libby is suspected of lying under oath and of impeding an investigation things he shouldn't have done and for which he will be punished.

What's sad, though, is if all this later information proves true...

All he had to do is trust the President was right about it being legal and speak the truth boldly...

Is this what they call mis-placed loyalty on Libby's part...

Yeah he probably does feel like dunderhead, a little embarrassed, and wants to strike out at someone or something so he can feel better.

Mike Sr.

 

Technically speaking, the president can decide what is and is not classified, and change it on a whim. He would not even be held legally liable for it.

 

In other words, Bush makes the rules and is accountable to no one.

 

Yes, of course.
I think they refer to it as unitary executive power..............

Regards,
BiR

 

Actually, the chief of staff has the right to determine wht secrets can be released to the public.

President Johnson told the world about the SR-71 Blackbird spy-plane way before the military wanted to release the information. A global event encouraged him to do this in order to threaten the enemy (don't remember who the enemy was--whether cuba or USSR or other).

A little interesting trivia:

The SR-71 was originally designed as a very high-speed attack aircraft to strike at any aircraft threat to the US--primarily high-speed bombers from Russia with nukes.

Its official designation was RS-71 for Recon/Strike. President Johnson turned it around accidently in his speech to the world. In order to save face, the military officially changed it to SR-71 to match Johnson's mistake.
The SR-71 was actaully named

 

What's legal and what's right are often two different things. Bush pretended to be outraged by the release of this information, which endangered the lives of US agents and their associates helping us.

Now we find out that it was managed by the White House to discredit a political enemy.

 

I certainly would not try to second guess the strategy involved based on the limited information we receive from a biased press.

Bottom line? There are obviously more secrets concerning the reason why it was released the way it was and the way it was leaked (concerning the release). Usually these things are planned for an expected response.

I don't know about you, but I am going to withhold judgement because I (for one) do not have enough data to make an opinion. We can have opinions, but without intel they are essentially worthless. IMHO.

 

I don't think Bush released it; I just pointed out that he can determine what is classified and what isn't.

With that being said, the leak didn't endanger anyone's life. She had not been a covert agent for a long time, and her husband had already spread the word to everyone who would listen.

 

The CIA says something quite different. They claim that she had contacts that are still in places where their lives were at risk.

All for some petty political vendetta.

No wonder people despise him.

 

Despise who? Her husband? After all, he's the one who repeatedly released her "secret" occupation at parties and such.

 

You imply almost that he reviews every piece of intelligence, rubber stamping unclass or top secret on it. No no no.

The President by Executive Order only deliniates classification standards.

These standards are followed by those who are considered an original authority. US governement officials as such, are designated in writing. Agencies that collect information, it is generally understood, have a much better comprehension of what is deterimental to the goverment by unauthorized disclosure and are the one's making that decision.

NSA and CIA websites discuss a lot of this in detail. You should check them out.

 

I've heard allegations that Wilson told people about his wife's duties.

But then, when you try to run them down, it's always "some dude told me about it."

Just another one of those "the victim deserved it" stories.

 

What nonsense! That is just Republican disinformation.

 

Exactly when and why was Plame's identity released to the public, Phillip? What was the motive for doing it? What public good could come of doing this?

Was a damage assessment performed by the CIA?

As for the claim that Wilson dropped her at parties, who and when?

Regards,
BiR

 

The President by Executive Order only deliniates classification standards.

These standards are followed by those who are considered an original authority. US governement officials as such, are designated in writing. Agencies that collect information, it is generally understood, have a much better comprehension of what is deterimental to the goverment by unauthorized disclosure and are the one's making that decision.

NSA and CIA websites discuss a lot of this in detail. You should check them out. </font>[/QUOTE]Excellent information and very sensible comments!

 

Exactly when and why was Plame's identity released to the public, Phillip? What was the motive for doing it? What public good could come of doing this?

Was a damage assessment performed by the CIA?

As for the claim that Wilson dropped her at parties, who and when?

Regards,
BiR </font>[/QUOTE]As with all classified things, we will never know the motives behind this unless we work in that area. But, I can certainly tell you one thing. As an employee that has a security clearance and works up to secret level. (You know the three main levels I speak of: confidential, secret, topsecret-comparmentalized)
I can tell you one thing. I have never seen an abuse of power by any government official. I cannot say that it doesn't occur, but in general most of our government leaders are doing what they think is best for the safety of our citizens.

I have never seen any sign of abuse of power coming from the Presidential office. Now, is Bush perfect? No...but, I think he has acted to be best of his ability with the knowledge he was given. I truly believe that he is a born-again Christian and tries to use those ethics.

Orders came straight from our commander and chief when it was thought there were ethical issues among workers in the whitehouse that every single person in a security position HAD to take a certain amount of training on the ethical responsibilities we had to the public for their best interest. I respect our commander and chief better than anybody who would play with cigars and loose women in the oval office.

 

Phillip:

Clinton's playing with cigars and loose women didn't cost the lives of our young men and women in Iraq.

If Bush is born-again Christian, he certainly answers to a different God than I do.

 

It's obvious that, as Commander-in-Chief the President did order the military to take the action they have and thereby put them in harm's way. How could they fight any war without being put in harm's way?

Are you saying that the President's actions have "cost the lives of young men and women in Iraq" by some irresponsible actions? Is it not the actions of any enemies that have taken the lives of our troops?

Do you believe all those who've been lost in that war are "young"? Are the lives of "young" troops worth more than older troops?

Are you saying that President Bush is not a "born-again Christian" or that you're not a "born-again Christian"? What right do any of us have to make such a judgment reserved only to He who saves whom He will?