Liar, Liar, Plame on Fire
It appears that 43 learned a lot from 42 on how to shade the truth:
President Bush 9/30/2003
"Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action... But I want to tell you something -- leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we've had them -- there's too much leaking in Washington."
AP 4/8/06
"President Bush declassified sensitive intelligence in 2003 and authorized its public disclosure to rebut Iraq war critics...an attorney knowledgeable about the case said Saturday...Bush merely instructed Cheney to "get it out" and left the details to him..."
21 comments:
The whole NIE estimate should have be mailed out to every American.
Plame's name not referenced in it but there was plenty to make you wonder about the CIA's competency in hindsight.
I think that's what this mostly about, the CIA covering up its failures.
Saddam's Generals themselves taken by surprize by lack of WMD.
We've created allies today among Muslims. Americans fight and die every day along Shia Arabs, Kurds, Iraqi Secularists, and radicals.
We'll need them come time to deal with Iran. Unless you think the Mullahs in Iran are joking about nukes and wiping Jews off the face of the earth. If you think that all a big lie too.
If so, say so, we'll worry about mass transit instead.
I think that is the poster's point.
Politicians have distorted the truth to the point where "saying there is too much leaking" and then "leaking" is not inconsistent.
Just because Bush declassified the information (merely for political purposes mind you) before he leaked it does not excuse his public lie.
His "declassification" trick may satisfy finger sniffing lawyers, but not history.
what was the trick? Dems asked him to declassify NIE... he did... he should have mailed it to every American too.
Here is what was declassified.
Libby was talking about this back in Feb.
He gave it to Judith Miller a few days before it went public back in July 2003.
This should have been sent to every American.
He declassified information and then it was leaked.... since when is that a bad thing. Now, this is better than leaking classified info right?ff
Libby linked it to Judith Miller. A few days before it was read into the Congressional Record.
It was in response to Democrats asking for it.
Apparrantly the leak isn't much of a crime because Fitzgerald didn't see fit to indict Libby for it.
This is way old news.
Again, The Weekly Standard was clamouring at the time that the NIE should have been mailed out to every American at this point. They were right.
The real question is why Bush waited to declassify it in the first place.
Why people are waiting until now to talk about something right into the Cong Record July 2003 is another question.
Read the NIE. It was sobering stuff.
Today's Wash Post editorial.
The problem was Scotter and Miller (that's a relationship I'm afraid we'll have to wait for the historians to tell us about).
Bush should have disclosed the NIE in a dumb, although not unusual way, and he should have followed the Bill Kristol's encouragement to mail it to every American.
It's a lesson he needs to remember today with Iran.
Bill Kristol, writing back in July 2003 on the NIE,
The Democrats' problem is not that Bush judged Saddam a present danger. Their problem isn't even that Bush based this judgment on American intelligence estimates to that effect. How could it be, since Bill Clinton and Al Gore made the very same judgment, based explicitly on the very same intelligence estimates?
George W. Bush's one great and unforgivable sin, it seems, was to have acted on the judgment that Saddam Hussein was a present danger--acted, as Clinton and Gore repeatedly threatened but failed to do, the way a serious president must. At his moment of decision, the American people supported Bush. They support him still. And the fact of that support--as the Democrats' hysterical attack on a 16-word sentence in the State of the Union suggests--is driving one of our two major political parties...stark, raving mad.
God knows the Bush administration is not beyond criticism for either its prewar planning or its execution of postwar reconstruction efforts. And it would be a valuable contribution to our politics if such criticism were mounted by the Democratic party--acting as an intelligent, loyal opposition. But it's a free country, and if the Democrats prefer instead to act as a pathologically disgruntled lunatic fringe, then it'll be their problem more than anyone else's.
That the Dems are still back on shows how tenacious the lunacy is..
Clinton's first term was the best for any President since the end of WW2. That is a fact. 2nd term not so good.
i'm not sure how rational it is to defend stupidity. this mis-named national intelligence estimate was *rushed* (a process that generally takes about 18 months was condensced into a couple), it's conclusions were *forced* (the vice-president calling up analysts who produced inferences different than he desired can be considered nothing but pressure), it's existence was mis-used (nothing new was decided, a contained meglomaniac posed no real threat to anyone but his own people, yet it was used to justify the invasion and occupation of a country that posed no real threat) and it continues to haunt us to this very day.
let's admit it: the president is an idiot. bush was deceived by a third-rate con man who successfully manipulated the greatest power on earth. bush dragged the country into a quagmire for no good purpose. bush acted immorally, according to the tenets of his own church. and he's reduced the credibility of the oval office to nil. this is a failure on a magnitude previously unknown to this country. bush no doubt covets the reputation of andrew johnson.
breast-beating doesn't alter the severe disadvantage that this president has placed us in. i agree with bill, the democrats haven't really offered an alternative to the bush doctrine -- a national security policy that no one seems to agree with (why should they, it's an utter failure!), but people seem afraid to oppose. there's no reason for this, given how common these threats have been to great powers through the centuries. but then, this president has no interest in building a consensus around his policy, thank god! we are just supposed to follow -- just because. i guess the american psyche is so weak that people are afriad to stand up for what were once considered american values. terrorists didn't spark our decline, a president of weak morals and incredibly poor judgment did.
it's sad that americans are so scared of living in the 21st century -- i consider raging fear to be a failure of character, even if it is politically expedient...
Bored,
You think Iran's threats are faked?
Say so if you do.
Anyone can look back and say what was right and wrong.
You want to pooh pooh Iran? Spend money on mass transit here instead. Iranians just incomptent and nothing to worry about?
Sure there nuts, but they mean it when the say they plan on wiping a Jewish State from the earth. You're confident that can't and we wouldn't be next?
Nuking Iran would be the stupidest thing that any President has ever done in US History. Conventional bombs might be necessary, but it would be better if we just let Israel do it.
Wow you BushCo fans are spinning it now - just like a bunch of mealy mouth lib trial lawyers. 'Oh he declassified it, then leaked it.' Pathetic. Shameless.
You're falling back on semantics when the intent is completely clear? Hmm, and why would Bush have that intent - to neutralize that wild and crazy ambassador Joe Wilson. I guess the fearless Preznit feared not just God back then but also anyone who could slow the march to glorious war. Good thing he had a trick up his lawyer's sleeve, one that he would wait years to learn everyone on how it worked...
What did you get yourself into when you bedded down with this loser, short-sighted President? But I respickt your loylty and I'm certain that the Preznit does too hehe. I'm off on a prayerful 20 mile bike ride ...
Dear Ignorant Lib, the declassification of information and then releasing it is DE FACTO the EXACT OPPOSITE of a "leak.
Get it?
bill, it doesn't matter if iran's threats are faked, there's not much we can do about it. bush's incompetency -- and this administration's general lack of strategic understanding -- have critically limited what we can do.
first of all, the three countries that bush lied to about bringing forth a second resolution before invading iraq -- they won't make *that* mistake again. diplomacy is only an option in this case if there are no legal threats attached to it. and, given all the difficulty we've had in iraq, it's really hard to see how bush can recklessly invade another country so far away without the support of our "allies."
secondly, no one will believe us, our intelligence is clearly manipulated even if it is correct (which, in the case of iraq, it wasn't). it's no coincidence that bush has to let france take the lead on the iran issue! third, our invasion of iraq gives iran cause for developing strategic weapons. no rational person can argue that iran (or any other country, for that matter) can have any confidence about what this administration will do, regardless of what it (iran) does. we are too unpredictable.
fourth, we are considerably weakened militarily by the quagmire in iraq. invading iraq was a push-over -- something that everyone expected. but we are now severely overstretched -- and we haven't achieved *any* of our strategic goals. invading iran -- even highly selective, strategic raids into iran (if you know what i mean, then you know what i mean) -- is much more dangerous than our excursions were into afghanistan and iraq, and would weaken our ability to stabilize the situation in those two countries. we are still limited by the number of physical assets on the ground and in the air. fifth, should we seek a policy of regime change in iran, we will have a much more difficult task than in iraq. our ties to the shah, including our part in imposing him upon iran, guarantees that. we can't very well use the excuse that we want to bring them democracy, can we? we already stole their democracy once; they've not forgotten.
there are other problems associated with this (which a seasoned researcher could probably discover online). finally, having discarded the international laws and conventions *we* established (we can't even play by the rules that we've imposed on others), iran has no recourse but to rely on itself.
we live in a *much* more dangerous world and the sheer recklessness of the breast-beaters are the cause of that. in a word, we're fscked. now *all* that we can really do is beat our breasts. too bad iran isn't scared. you can send your thanks to the white house...
Anonymous said...
"Dear Ignorant Lib, the declassification of information and then releasing it is DE FACTO the EXACT OPPOSITE of a "leak.
Get it?"
1:03 PM
Somebody needs a nap!
Ken Pollock talking about Clinton's beliefs which I shared at the time and one reason why I voted for Gore.
The U.S. Intelligence Community’s belief toward the end of the Clinton Administration [was] that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program and was close to acquiring nuclear weapons....
-January/February 2004 issue of The Atlantic
The choice we have before us is we either go to war now or we will never go to war with Saddam until he chooses to use a nuclear weapon and he chooses the time and place. The question for me is not war or no war. It’s a question of war now, when the costs may be significant, or war later when they may be unimaginable.
-January/February 2004 issue of The Atlantic
I feel the same about Iran today except I think the military options far fewer then we had with Iraq.
Rafsanjani announced they're enriching uranium today.
This isn't some game Bush playing. Iran intends to wipe Jews and others off the face of the earth. You can bet we're on the list.
They mean it. You pretend this isn't real at grave risk.
no, silly, i'm explaining to you the *reality* that bush's errant iraqi adventure allowed this to happen. iran *will* have nuclear weapons, in the next decade or so. there's nothing we can do about it. send your note of gratitude to the white house.
if you are really concerned about it (as opposed to fear-mongering), then start thinking of ways to build an international system where iran is a nuclear power but doesn't use them. withdrawal from iraq would be a smart step!
Rafsanjani thinks Iran can launch a first strike, wipe out a Jewish State, and absorb a retalitory strike with just damages to Iran:
"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.
You can't build an international system to contain a nuclear power willing to accept a retalitory strike on its own people in order to wipe out the Jews.
Iran has to be confronted and disarmed. Otherwise they'll enslave the middle east and us.
Respect them enough to understand they mean what they say.
Post a Comment