Matt, Matt, Matt.

How very convenient of you to leave out the most important part of that declassified intelligence. You know, the part where Bush talks about luring Saddam into a fight and by scheduling the war for March 10th even if Saddam backed down and gave in to demands. The shocking part was that this war was planned in advance and Bush wanted it to happen. The disgusting part is that not only did Bush contradict himself in his own speeches about his intentions, but also that the war was planned so badly, with so few resources, that we are now in a lasting quagmire of civil war and grief.

Thanks Prez! Yes, this is an issue. Quit trying to sweep the important stuff under the carpet.

"...even if..." PJ

The point being that Saddam didn't backdown so your hypotheticel means nothing.

Quit trying to dream up fantasy scenarios to justify your hatred of President Bush.

Matt,

How exactly does this settle anything?

There are two points to this story. One, Bush let on that he knew nothing of these leaks when this story first broke. Now it turns out that he declassified the information so it could be leaked. Also, he's long spoke out against leaking classified information to the press. Now you have this:

"You're not supposed to talk about classified information, and so I declassified the document,"

For a president who's spoken so harshly about those who leak classified information, this is quite a revelation. This was classified information that he wanted to leak. The only reason it was unclassified was so it could be leaked. To me, and I think to a lot of Americans, this is essentially leaking classified information.

Just makes him look bad -- makes him look like a hypocrite and does nothing but damage his already damaged reputation. And I haven't even mentioned that this was done for purely political reasons. This information was leaked as part of an attack on Wilson (justified or not). If he wanted to merely set the record straight, he could have declassified all the information -- even the intell that didn't back up his assertions -- and let the public see it.

Second, if Plame was a covert agent (and I think both sides can agree there is no definitive answer on this, even though a federal judge said Fitz presented evidence to him that showed she was), then it looks like Bush declassified documents that stated she was a CIA agent and asked for it to be disseminated to the press. If this is true, he'll be lucky to get of with a censure.

Ship,

No one is saying that Bush leaked the identity of Valerie Plame are they? And either way, there's plenty more evidence to suggest she was not covert.

Matt,

From how I understand it, Libby and Rove knew Plame worked from the CIA from the declassified documents. If Plame was covert, that means the president declassified documents and ordered "get them out there" that contained the identity of a covert CIA agent.

You don't think this would be a problem for the president?

"And either way, there's plenty more evidence to suggest she was not covert."

As I said, I don't believe there's a definitive answer on this, though I believe the fact that a judge saw evidence and came to a conclusion that she was a covert agent is strong evidence that she was.

Since when does Bush comment on an ongoing investigation? I guess he can answer question on whether he approved the leak of Plames identity?

"I voted for President Bush twice, and contributed to his campaign twice, but held my nose when I did it the second time. I don't consider myself a Republican any longer. Thanks to this Administration and the Republicans in Congress, the Republican Party today is the party of pork-barrel spending, Congressional corruption — and, I know folks on this web site don't want to hear it, but deep down they know it's true — foreign and military policy incompetence. Frankly, speaking of incompetence, I think this Administration is the most politically and substantively inept that the nation has had in over a quarter of a century. The good news about it, as far as I'm concerned, is that it's almost over," - George Conway, National Review.

Ship, the fact that a judge 'saw evidence and came to a conclusion' is easily debunked.

Our judicial system is a crock full of political appointees. A judge can make a ruling based on their personal biases (rather than following the law) and ultimately be overruled by higher courts that have enough political stiffs to rule the other way.

Whether its Dem or Rep issues....don't take the courts word for anything. They are corrupt. ml

ML,

I disagree with your assessment that there are many judges out there that will make decisions soley because they would benefit the party that appointed them.

Personally, I don't think Alito will overturn Roe v. Wade. We'll see, but I generally have faith in judges that they will abide by the rule of law over any political views they may have.

Second, what proof do you have that this judge was ruling by political opinion rather legal reasoning?

Your "easily debunked" argument is just wishful thinking on your part, in my opinion.

The opinion of Judge Tatel, of the U.S. Court of Appeals, referenced above, “…of Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as "a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last five years - representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support. (8/27/04 Aff. at 28 n.15.)

According to former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson "The law actually requires that a covered person 'served' overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job.

If the president followed appropriate protocol for declassifying this information, then. . .

* why would Scooter insist on being referenced as "a former hill aide", instead of just using his name and true position? (answer: because the document as yet was not de-classified, and he had to protect his identity)

* why wasn't the entire document released to the press corp? ( answer: because the rest of the NIE contained the part where the CIA debunked the claims made about yellow cake, and aluminum tubes.)

* why would George Tenet know nothing about the declassification? (answer: he would have, had the information been de-classified properly)

so let me get your position straight,
to declassify information, the president should:

1. select only the parts of the classified document that support his argument
2. contact the VP's office, notifying Dick Cheney, and Scooter Libby, but not the CIA,FBI, or anybody else.
3. instruct Libby to give this information to one, predetermined reporter who is supportive of the cause.
4. instruct Libby to use an alias when doing so, so that the newly declassified info can't be traced back to the VP's office, or the WH

do you guys realize how ridiculous you sound defending this action?

Answer the following question for me.

The press secretary speaks for the President. If the press secretary makes a public statement in the course of his duties as the PS, related to the actions of the President, that is complete wrong would the President or the press secretary immediately follow up with a correction? If no, than no problem, but if yes….. the press secretary said on 6/18/03 that the President officially declassified the NIE today (6/18/03). Yesterday the President said he officially declassified the NIE on 6/8/03. Why did the President wait almost three years to correct this obvious error? He had to know.

It sure makes it look like the President was caught lying to the American public, or least being very sneaky (I’ll bring honor and integrity to the WH).

Correction, the dates are 7/8/03 and 7/18/03.

There is no question that the CIA considered Plame to be "covert" -- that's why they requested an investigation.

The question now is: Did Bush "declassify" Plame's employment? If he did, then there is no "crime" and you have to wonder why Libby would risk prison to cover up a "legal" act.

If he did not, then we are back to finding out who actually did leak to Robert Novak and other reporters.

You can go back and forth about Ms. Plame's "covert" status, but "outing" her was a crime -- unless her status was declassified -- something that even the CIA apparently did not know about.

GALLOP Poll 4/11/06: "Overall, 63% of Americans believe Bush did something either illegal (21%) or unethical (42%), while 28% say he did nothing wrong. While many more Democrats are critical, 3 in 10 Republicans also find that Bush did something illegal or unethical."

Barney,

Your poll shows one of two things:

1. If it is an accurate poll, then it shows that the Big Lie works. After endlessly repeating that there was something wrong, a substantial number of people have concluded there must be something wrong.

2. If it is an inaccurate poll, then it shows that you and the MSM are still living in your echo chamber.

I go with number 2. It is absurd to find that 30% of Republicans think President Bush did something illegal or unethical...he's still getting support from 80-90% of the GOP...meaning that if Gallup is right, then some GOPers are supporting President Bush even though they think he's a crook...and that is just a stupid thing to believe.

Salve,

Plame worked at CIA - and she's a long-time supporter of the Democratic left...likely, the person who referred it to Justice was just another long-time leftwing supporter in CIA.

The one thing we've determined about the left is that anything is permissable if it undermines the GOP...even sacrificing national security. Lie, cheat, steal...as long as it helps a Democrat or hurts a Republican, it is ok.

Fortunately, we've now got the people at State and CIA who are cleaning house...

Mark,
Don't you mean "purging?"

"Plame worked at CIA - and she's a long-time supporter of the Democratic left...likely, the person who referred it to Justice was just another long-time leftwing supporter in CIA.

The one thing we've determined about the left is that anything is permissable if it undermines the GOP...even sacrificing national security. Lie, cheat, steal...as long as it helps a Democrat or hurts a Republican, it is ok."

Once again, Mark, in lieu of facts, you just make stuff up. Hard to take you seriously. Seriously.

I go with number 2. It is absurd to find that 30% of Republicans think President Bush did something illegal or unethical...he's still getting support from 80-90% of the GOP...meaning that if Gallup is right, then some GOPers are supporting President Bush even though they think he's a crook...and that is just a stupid thing to believe.
Posted by: Mark Noonan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/10/AR2006041000259_pf.html
The survey found that 38 percent of the public approve of the job Bush is doing, down three percentage points in the past month and his worst showing in Post-ABC polling since he became president. **Sixty percent disapprove of his performance.***

So I guess that only 38% of America is republican and 62% is Democrat?

"if Gallup is right, then some GOPers are supporting President Bush even though they think he's a crook...and that is just a stupid thing to believe."
Mark Noonan

Why is that so hard to believe?

I know lots of Republicans who continued to support Nixon after it became clear that he was "the One." I also know plenty of Republicans that continued to support Reagan after Iran/Contra.

"You CAN fool some of the people all the time."

Actually, the people I know were not "fooled," but were so driven by ideology that they didn't care what crimes had been committed -- as long as their party held power.

Funny how intense the left becomes in their talking points when they find yet another meaningless poll to support their particular point of view. Polls are a piece of crap - designed to arrive at the predetermined conclusion reached before the first respondent was interviewed. The only poll - I repeat - THE ONLY POLL that matters is the one taken every two years on election day.

Cram that sinister "must be a nefarious plot" crap! It's all a game of smoke and mirrors.

Voice your opposition and/or support in November! In the meantime, spare us the litany of whining "the polls say..."

I, for one, have a great many disagreements - some of them extreme disagreements - with this Administration. But I'm not such a fool as to try to buttress my point of view by acting like a sychophant and regurgitating some vapid poll statistic... It's like arguing with a log. It's not going to get you anywhere, and the log won't change its position, either...

Can we all just move beyond this insipid tendency to take some stupid poll results as gospel?

How about this "scientific poll," recently done by a well-known poster to these blogsites... (regarding the illegal immigration demonstrations demanding their "civil rights"):

Polls show that the illegal immigrants are here simply to show up to the protests that the Americans won't show up for themselves...

Makes about as much sense as any other "scientific poll," I've seen...

P.S. Thanks Keefer, for the poll results!!!

The latest revelation of lying to drum up support for the war became public today:

The Bush administration publicly asserted that two trailers captured by U.S. troops in Iraq in May 2003 were mobile "biological laboratories" even after U.S. intelligence officials had evidence that it was not true, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

On May 29, 2003, President George W. Bush hailed the capture of the trailers, declaring "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

But a Pentagon-sponsored fact-finding mission had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons, the Post reported, citing government officials and weapons experts who participated in the secret mission or had direct knowledge of it.

The Post said the group's unanimous findings had been sent to the Pentagon in a field report, two days before the president's statement.

Bush cited the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction as the prime justification for invading Iraq. No such weapons ever were found.

So much for the "bad intelligence" that pro-war supporters have been trying to cram down our throats. Fact is, and it is becoming clearer to the public every day, that the rationale for the war was based on lies that the administration knew were lies.

Do I see any more rats jumping ship?

dbogdan,
You comments on polls... does that apply to only hated Democrats, or to everyone?
Did you make these claims in this post:
---------------------------
GOP Trusted on Immigration
By Mark Noonan at 12:16 PM
Not that polls matter, but this will usefully annoy all the lefties who come here - from Rasmussen:
April 11, 2006--In a political season when most of the news has been bad for Republicans, the Congressional debate over immigration has produced a bit of movement in favor of the GOP.
-------------------

I find it even funnier that you and ESPECIALLY Mark Noonan say how ridiculous polls are when they don't benefit you, but when they do... wow does Mark love to site them.

Enough hypocracy.