Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak

advertisement

Bush Named As Leak Originator

FROM THE TOP: Court papers say Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq.

PRECARIOUS POSITION: I. Lewis Libby's testimony puts the president and vice president in the awkward position of authorizing leaks _ a practice both men have long said they abhor.

POLITICAL MANEUVERING: Bush's political foes jumped to the attack.

This article is over 14 days old and has been removed by requirement of the Associated Press.
  • 116 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
25
8.3
6.6
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
{"commentId":87504,"authorDomain":"phaedrus72"}

Sugar, we're goin' down!!

{"commentId":87504,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"phaedrus72"}
  • 4 votes
Reply#26 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 4:40 PM EDT
{"commentId":87545,"authorDomain":"thepef"}

The prez is the biggest crook I have ever seen. Makes Whitewater look like a case of shoplifting, and Watergate look like a peeping tom case.

{"commentId":87545,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"thepef"}
  • 8 votes
Reply#27 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 5:06 PM EDT
{"commentId":87587,"authorDomain":"webquacks"}
WebQuack StudiosDeleted
{"commentId":87596,"authorDomain":"phaedrus72"}

I guess until he gets extra martial fellatio, he won't be impeached. What else does the man need to do?

{"commentId":87596,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"phaedrus72"}
  • 8 votes
Reply#29 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 5:31 PM EDT
{"commentId":87733,"authorDomain":"brgiant"}

Just receiving oral sex would not be an impeachable offense. However, if like Clinton, he perjured himself to a Grand Jury then I would be the FIRST to start calling for impeachment.

{"commentId":87733,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"brgiant"}
  • 3 votes
#29.1 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 6:57 PM EDT
{"commentId":87745,"authorDomain":"bradfarris"}
However, if like Clinton, he perjured himself to a Grand Jury then I would be the FIRST to start calling for impeachment.

Do we have your word on that, brigant?

It ain't over till it's over.

;-)

{"commentId":87745,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"bradfarris"}
  • 1 vote
#29.2 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 7:06 PM EDT
{"commentId":87844,"authorDomain":"dougunderscorenelson"}

Phaedrus, are you saying you'd be okay with Bush getting regular marital fellatio?

*shudders*

{"commentId":87844,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"dougunderscorenelson"}
  • 1 vote
#29.3 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 8:22 PM EDT
{"commentId":87847,"authorDomain":"brgiant"}

While I may be Conservative to the core of my being I value one thing above all else, the rule of law. If Bush commits a crime, akin to Clinton's perjury, I would call for his impeachment. Remember though, the House of Representatives impeaches the president (consider them the Grand Jury) and the Senate hears the impeachment trials (akin to a trial before a jury).

If Bush were to be impeached, but not be "convicted" that would be the end of it and hopefully like many of the Dems wanted to do after Clinton got off in the Senate..... no pun intended.

{"commentId":87847,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"brgiant"}
  • 3 votes
#29.4 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 8:23 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":87599,"authorDomain":"phaedrus72"}

That was meant as extra marital. Extra martial fellatio would be kind of weird. Brokeback whitehouse. lol

{"commentId":87599,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"phaedrus72"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#30 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 5:32 PM EDT
{"commentId":87618,"authorDomain":"bradfarris"}
Extra martial fellatio would be kind of weird.

Martial art?

;-)

{"commentId":87618,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"bradfarris"}
    #30.1 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 5:45 PM EDT
    {"commentId":87967,"authorDomain":"danish"}

    Phaedrus, you just created two witty new idioms that deserve to get spin off in the blogosphere:

    *Extra martial fellatio*
    *Brokeback whitehouse*

    I think that will get W to start talking about farming in a real hurry...

    {"commentId":87967,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"danish"}
    • 2 votes
    #30.2 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 9:40 PM EDT
    {"commentId":87974,"authorDomain":"phaedrus72"}

    Glad I could be of service.

    {"commentId":87974,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"phaedrus72"}
      #30.3 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 9:46 PM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":87627,"authorDomain":"rockman"}
      rockmanExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

      The Bush-haters have outdone themselves. The good news is they are beating a dead horse, not achieving voter good will in the next two elections.

      I wish a Democrat would run in my district so I could vote against him or her. But we threw them all out long ago. Well, maybe there are a few judges left, but unless they open their mouth and spew hatred, they can stay.

      {"commentId":87627,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"rockman"}
      • 4 votes
      Reply#31 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 5:52 PM EDT
      {"commentId":87666,"authorDomain":"bradfarris"}

      < irony >

      The Bush-haters have outdone themselves. The good news is they are beating a dead horse, not achieving voter good will in the next two elections.

      I wish a Democrat would run in my district so I could vote against him or her. But we threw them all out long ago. Well, maybe there are a few judges left, but unless they open their mouth and spew hatred, they can stay.

      < /irony >
      Ever think about writing for The Colbert Report?

      {"commentId":87666,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"bradfarris"}
      • 4 votes
      #31.1 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 6:19 PM EDT
      {"commentId":87693,"authorDomain":"kmak"}

      The Bush-worshippers are really outdoing themselves, as well. And that dead animal being beaten is actually an elephant.

      Congrats for establishing a completely one-sided community - sounds like a real center for culture and tolerance.

      {"commentId":87693,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"kmak"}
      • 3 votes
      #31.2 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 6:33 PM EDT
      {"commentId":87715,"authorDomain":"tang"}

      Lets discuss specific issues. The 'Democrats vs. Republicans suck' debate can go on forever without bearing fruit.

      {"commentId":87715,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"tang"}
      • 6 votes
      #31.3 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 6:44 PM EDT
      {"commentId":87738,"authorDomain":"hallo"}
      Daniel A. HalloDeleted
      {"commentId":87756,"authorDomain":"kmak"}

      Sorry Calvin, cant resist:

      between 'Democrats vs. Republicans suck' ... i choose 'Republicans suck'

      {"commentId":87756,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"kmak"}
        #31.5 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 7:13 PM EDT
        {"commentId":87762,"authorDomain":"tang"}

        I'm not going to disclose my political orientation, that is personal and I don't bring it to work, I bring it in the form of my vote come election time. We have quite a diverse group of folks here at Newsvine (the company), so each side of these arguments usually speaks to someone's background or opinion, though not always in a manner that is flattering.

        In my earlier comment, I was just trying to steer the conversation back to actual issues on the heel of some comments that simply consisted of saying "the opposing camp sucks... because they are the opposing camp."

        {"commentId":87762,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"tang"}
          #31.6 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 7:17 PM EDT
          Reply
          {"commentId":87750,"authorDomain":"SimplyTRUE"}

          How can this administration be trusted? To out a undercover CIA officer working to STOP WMD from coming to America is impeachable. These guys killed years of covert spy operations, not to mention all the agents that were working for us. I say throw the bums out!

          {"commentId":87750,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"SimplyTRUE"}
          • 9 votes
          Reply#32 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 7:11 PM EDT
          {"commentId":87781,"authorDomain":"kjnoesmith"}

          Wow, this is just insane! What is ironic is that Lynne Cheney's brother-in-law's stepson himself was a CIA agent. I wonder how they would've reacted if he had been outed while in office.

          {"commentId":87781,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"kjnoesmith"}
          • 4 votes
          Reply#33 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 7:31 PM EDT
          {"commentId":87852,"authorDomain":"mountaineerdave"}

          So, I apologize, but I haven't read the whole thread of comments. If I'm repeating someone's ideas, sorry.

          Why the focus on Bush here?
          Clearly, he did not approve the declassification of this information. How do we know? They never claimed that it was declassified information. They don't have to explain why they declassified any info... not really, so they could easily have declassified the info and said, "See! It's just declassified information. Leave us alone and let us have our war." Instead, the Prez put on his indignant response face and spouted his "I'll fire anybody involved..." crap.

          Cheney LIED to Libby. When Libby was uncertain about what he was revealing, its classified status, etc., he balked. Only after Cheney told him the Prez declassified it, and then after speaking to Addison, did he then start spouting information.

          Also, how often in recent months have we heard that the VP has the authority to declassify information his own self. He has made claims of late that the Prez signed an executive order at the beginning of their reign that gave him permission to do this stuff himself. So why in hell did he need to claim the Prez needed to declassify information?

          Because Cheney is a liar. Cheney manipulated the whole thing.
          And Cheney is, and has always been, Fitzgerald's target.

          {"commentId":87852,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"mountaineerdave"}
          • 3 votes
          Reply#34 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 8:26 PM EDT
          {"commentId":87863,"authorDomain":"MGDasef"}

          Okay, let's hear a big huzzah from everybody who thinks the President and Vice President are allowed to commit treason.

          When are conservatives going to get fed up? I certainly surpasseth all understanding.

          {"commentId":87863,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"MGDasef"}
          • 1 vote
          Reply#35 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 8:33 PM EDT
          {"commentId":87869,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}

          huzzah!!!

          {"commentId":87869,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
          • 1 vote
          #35.1 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 8:37 PM EDT
          Reply
          {"commentId":87884,"authorDomain":"se7en"}
          se7enExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

          Worst President. Ever.

          {"commentId":87884,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"se7en"}
          • 8 votes
          Reply#36 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 8:46 PM EDT
          {"commentId":87906,"authorDomain":"hallo"}
          Daniel A. HalloDeleted
          {"commentId":87924,"authorDomain":"dougunderscorenelson"}

          Confusing. Man.

          {"commentId":87924,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"dougunderscorenelson"}
            Reply#38 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 9:08 PM EDT
            {"commentId":87931,"authorDomain":"thepef"}

            I am not typically a believer of conspiracy theories, but! And there is a huge but here. It just seems like everything this administration has done, has been with the underlying theme of destabilizing the oil markets. Attacking Iraq, consistently threatening Iran, and other exporters.

            Halliburton and the ExxonMobils of the world are profiting hand over fist from the destabilization. In case people haven't noticed the price is back over $67 per barrel.

            {"commentId":87931,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"thepef"}
            • 5 votes
            Reply#39 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 9:13 PM EDT
            {"commentId":87940,"authorDomain":"dougunderscorenelson"}

            But I thought that when the pump prices hit $1.27 under Clinton, GW blasted him and said he'd pressure countries into lowering the prices if he was the President? Surely he's done SOMETHING about our oil prices.

            {"commentId":87940,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"dougunderscorenelson"}
            • 8 votes
            #39.1 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 9:19 PM EDT
            Reply
            {"commentId":87981,"authorDomain":"cinergy75"}

            brgiant you asked "Can you tell me what high crime Bush has committed?"

            On April 20, 2004, President Bush said, "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

            Isn't this a lie?

            {"commentId":87981,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"cinergy75"}
            • 2 votes
            Reply#40 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 9:51 PM EDT
            {"commentId":87994,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}

            If a lie when not under oath is now a high crime, then I think 95% of politicians should be locked up.

            {"commentId":87994,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
            • 2 votes
            #40.1 - Thu Apr 6, 2006 10:07 PM EDT
            Reply
            {"commentId":88120,"authorDomain":"webquacks"}
            WebQuack StudiosDeleted
            {"commentId":88148,"authorDomain":"jimdent"}

            A few points I think are important here. Some here say the president has the authority to declassify information. Does that extend to declasifying a CIA agents identity who still has hard earned contacts in the field who will also be "outed?" Granted, the article points out that it's unknown if Cheney (or Bush) gave the nod for outing Plame, but if outing her and embarrassing Wilson wasn't the intent here, exactly what was the intent of declassifying?

            It's a giant he said, she said puzzle. But what started this, if not the desire to discredit Wilson?
            And if you go on the predication that, that was the intent, everything else seems to fall in place quiet badly for the Bush team.

            {"commentId":88148,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"jimdent"}
            • 3 votes
            Reply#42 - Fri Apr 7, 2006 12:24 AM EDT
            {"commentId":88263,"authorDomain":"categorythree"}

            if the info was declassified by the president, an executive order given by clinton, that dick cheney has flouted on several newstalkshows, then the leak was clearly thought out and precisely maneuvered so that their asses would be covered, and also they wouldn't really have to talk about this. i guess that one question could be well, what does this mean to out an non-renagade agent legally, even though it would normally be a felony. another question is, does the ability of the executive to declassify materials include agent information, especially if that agent is still operating in good faith. clearly this was only a political move and served no purpose other than to cause trouble for one of their own people. one can see the behind the scenes confusion that all these "ideas" have probably caused the bushies. but i guess that the moral values candidate is again found be the central agent of corruption. so if a felon happens and no one presses charges against the true perp as found through grand jury testimony than what the hell is the judicial system all about, how many millions in prison for lesser crimes?

            {"commentId":88263,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"categorythree"}
            • 1 vote
            Reply#43 - Fri Apr 7, 2006 3:44 AM EDT
            {"commentId":88294,"authorDomain":"daweb"}

            CategoryThree, you are making a lot of assumptions here. One of which is the idea that the information referred to in this article includes the outing of Valerie Plame. No where has it been said that the President or the Vice President or even Libby outed Valerie Plame or that anyone gave anyone else permission to do that.

            {"commentId":88294,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"daweb"}
            • 1 vote
            Reply#44 - Fri Apr 7, 2006 6:12 AM EDT
            {"commentId":88375,"authorDomain":"mikerupert"}

            DanielHallo - that was one funny...long comment you put up...

            {"commentId":88375,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"mikerupert"}
            • 1 vote
            Reply#45 - Fri Apr 7, 2006 9:20 AM EDT
            {"commentId":88527,"authorDomain":"hallo"}
            Daniel A. HalloDeleted
            Reply
            {"commentId":88686,"authorDomain":"thepef"}

            My conscience is clear. I did not vote for Bush in either election.

            {"commentId":88686,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"thepef"}
            • 1 vote
            Reply#46 - Fri Apr 7, 2006 1:36 PM EDT
            {"commentId":88884,"authorDomain":"steidler"}

            I don't think we're making assumptions on this anymore:

            /www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040600333.html">Washington Post April 7, 2006: Bush Authorized Secrets' Release, Libby Testified - Prosecutor Says Disclosures on Iraq Were Aimed at War Critic

            Quoting from the article:

            President Bush authorized White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to disclose highly sensitive intelligence information to the news media in an attempt to discredit a CIA adviser whose views undermined the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, according to a federal prosecutor's account of Libby's testimony to a grand jury.

            Further ...

            The White House did not challenge the prosecutor's account of Bush's and Cheney's role in orchestrating the effort to discredit Wilson yesterday.

            And, further ...

            Once the disclosure of Plame's name became the target of an investigation, Libby "implored White House officials" to issue a statement exonerating him, according to Fitzgerald's account. When he was rebuffed, Libby requested that Cheney intervene. He also wrote a draft statement by hand, asserting that he "did not leak classified information."

            This is yet another despicable act in a despicable presidency.

            Or, maybe a despicable vice-presidency. It's entirely possible that Dick Cheney lied to Libby about Bush's release of the information. The release didn't follow any of the channels normally used, so, of course, there's no documentation with a presidential signature. And, as much as I dislike Bush, that might explain this statement:

            Three months before Fitzgerald began his probe in December 2003, Bush said at a news conference that "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. . . . If there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

            I don't believe Bush is evil. I just believe he's detached, uninformed and an incompetent manager. I could pretty easily believe that he made this statement without any knowledge that Cheney had "released" this information under the guise that it had been authorized by Bush.

            What happens now? At a minimum, Cheney should go. I can't see how honest genuine Republicans could argue with that. Were I a Republican, I'd have been clamoring for Cheney to go long ago.

            {"commentId":88884,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"steidler"}
            • 2 votes
            Reply#47 - Fri Apr 7, 2006 4:08 PM EDT
            {"commentId":90789,"authorDomain":"daweb"}

            I don't think we're making assumptions on this anymore:

            /www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040600333.html">Washington Post April 7, 2006: Bush Authorized Secrets' Release, Libby Testified - Prosecutor Says Disclosures on Iraq Were Aimed at War Critic

            Quoting from the article:

            President Bush authorized White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to disclose highly sensitive intelligence information to the news media in an attempt to discredit a CIA adviser whose views undermined the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, according to a federal prosecutor's account of Libby's testimony to a grand jury.

            OK, but So What? If he is releasing 'highly sensitive intelligence information', i.e. he is releasing some of what the government knows, that is a good thing. I have heard over and over again how you want to know what the president knew. Now he declassifies/authorizes the release of some information to combat bad information being given press by someone that doesn't support the administration and you wonder why? It makes perfect sense to me.

            Further ...

            The White House did not challenge the prosecutor's account of Bush's and Cheney's role in orchestrating the effort to discredit Wilson yesterday.

            Why should they? it was legal and even made sense. I would merely point out that perhaps the goal was less to 'discredit' Wilson and more to provide the truth instead.

            And, further ...

            Once the disclosure of Plame's name became the target of an investigation, Libby "implored White House officials" to issue a statement exonerating him, according to Fitzgerald's account. When he was rebuffed, Libby requested that Cheney intervene. He also wrote a draft statement by hand, asserting that he "did not leak classified information."

            Not sure what you mean here. During the investigation there was no need for them to come out and say anything. The investigation is into who leaked the identity of Plame. Just because you are assuming that person was Libby, does not make it so. I don't see the Whitehouse rejecting Libby's story now either. Sounds to me like he is being supported.

            Or, maybe a despicable vice-presidency. It's entirely possible that Dick Cheney lied to Libby about Bush's release of the information. The release didn't follow any of the channels normally used, so, of course, there's no documentation with a presidential signature. And, as much as I dislike Bush, that might explain this statement:

            Three months before Fitzgerald began his probe in December 2003, Bush said at a news conference that "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. . . . If there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

            If Bush authorized the release of information then it was not a leak. No problem here. I am curious how you seem to think you know so much about the 'channels normally used' and how you seem to be so sure that because this didn't follow your pattern of what you think of as 'normal' it must be baaaad.

            I don't believe Bush is evil. I just believe he's detached, uninformed and an incompetent manager. I could pretty easily believe that he made this statement without any knowledge that Cheney had "released" this information under the guise that it had been authorized by Bush.

            And what reason do you have for thinking he is detached? Is it perhaps because he doesn't react to polls? I personally like that fact. Polls can too easily be manipulated to provide a specific result.

            What happens now? At a minimum, Cheney should go. I can't see how honest genuine Republicans could argue with that. Were I a Republican, I'd have been clamoring for Cheney to go long ago.

            Hmm, you have given no real reason for Cheney to go, and yet you seem to think that anyone that fits your definition of an 'honest genuine' Republican should agree with you. I like Cheney, and I think he should stay. I wish he was in better health and could make a serious run at the 2008 presidency. I think he would have a very good chance of being elected!

            {"commentId":90789,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"daweb"}
            • 1 vote
            #47.1 - Sun Apr 9, 2006 5:46 PM EDT
            Reply
            {"commentId":90693,"authorDomain":"rhinecyrus"}

            The above comment by Kelly Jonesmith is a complete fabrication. It was part of an experiment on Newsvine users by Rhine Cyrus. You can read more about it here.

            {"commentId":90693,"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524","authorDomain":"rhinecyrus"}
              Reply#48 - Sun Apr 9, 2006 4:17 PM EDT
              Jump to discussion page: 1 2
              {"canLink":false,"threadId":"13282","isPrivate":false}
              Leave a Comment:
              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
              {"threadId":"13282","contentId":"158524"}
              Start TrackingStart Tracking
              Stop TrackingStop Tracking