Will President Bush Fire Himself?

[Kirk]

Sure he should! Sometime around Jan 21, 2009!

 

[eclectics]

Okay, let's try it this way...

Do you believe there's ANY government information that the media and/or a political opponent or critic might leak to the public that would gravely damage our national security? If so, and if it actually happened, what should President Bush's response be?

No. And by saying that I am giving Bush credit for hopefully not revealing anything really important about our security to person(s) capable of sharing it with whomever they please. If some catastrophic info was to leak out, Bush's response should be taking the blame for allowing it to happen, not trying to, or allowing others to, punish someone he thinks is somehow to blame for it.

 

[bsnyder]

No. And by saying that I am giving Bush credit for hopefully not revealing anything really important about our security to person(s) capable of sharing it with whomever they please. If some catastrophic info was to leak out, Bush's response should be taking the blame for allowing it to happen, not trying to, or allowing others to, punish someone he thinks is somehow to blame for it.

You've lost me totally, especially with your qualifier.

You're saying there's no classified government information that would be damaging to our national security if it were made public? None at all?

 

[eclectics]

You've lost me totally, especially with your qualifier.

You're saying there's no classified government information that would be damaging to our national security if it were made public? None at all?

We are playing with words here. Of course there is information that could damage our security. Is it plausable that this information is freely discussed with every Tom, Dick, and Jane in the west wing? Of course not. Of the security info that is most likely discussed with underlings or aides, I doubt there is any that would put us in danger. Embarrassment yes, danger, no.

 

[wvrevy]

1 - Spare me the self righteousness, TCPluto. You're free to whatever opinion you'd like. I wasn't arguing with anyone's opinion (at the time). Simply stating the facts. How you choose to spin those is entirely up to you.

2 - Bet - Of course there is information that should not be released, and of course anybody doing so should begin an intimate relationship with the inside of a federal prison cell. The difference is, I view the identity of a CIA agent and the identity of her front organization as just that type of information, particularly so when the administration is making so much noise about WMD's. By your support of Bush, you obviously do not view that as vital to national security information. That is where the disconnect is occuring.

 

[bsnyder]

2 - Bet - Of course there is information that should not be released, and of course anybody doing so should begin an intimate relationship with the inside of a federal prison cell. The difference is, I view the identity of a CIA agent and the identity of her front organization as just that type of information, particularly so when the administration is making so much noise about WMD's. By your support of Bush, you obviously do not view that as vital to national security information. That is where the disconnect is occuring.

But we're not debating the leak of a CIA agent's identity. Go back and read what the question was.

 

[bsnyder]

We are playing with words here. Of course there is information that could damage our security. Is it plausable that this information is freely discussed with every Tom, Dick, and Jane in the west wing? Of course not. Of the security info that is most likely discussed with underlings or aides, I doubt there is any that would put us in danger. Embarrassment yes, danger, no.

Huh? What about people that work at CIA, State, DOD. The Senate Select Intelligence committee? They don't know things that could put us in danger, if leaked?

 

[bsnyder]

2 - Bet - Of course there is information that should not be released, and of course anybody doing so should begin an intimate relationship with the inside of a federal prison cell. The difference is, I view the identity of a CIA agent and the identity of her front organization as just that type of information, particularly so when the administration is making so much noise about WMD's. By your support of Bush, you obviously do not view that as vital to national security information. That is where the disconnect is occuring.

wvrevy, here, I'll help you out.

Here are the facts:

He declassified and released the pre-war intelligence five months after that war started, and after Saddam had been overthrown.

He made a "public stink" as you call it, about the leaking of classified information about an ONGOING national security program that the Administration believes is vital to protect us against FUTURE threats.

Setting aside any argument about whether that program is vital in protecting us, surely you don't claim the two situations are equivalent?

 

[wvrevy]

Ok, setting aside that (though, to me, that is the truly criminal act in all of this...the outing of a CIA agent in attempt to politically embarrass a critic)...yes, I can easily see where releasing that information could potentially be damaging to national security. I will have to go back and re-read the precise document that you are talking about (since you refuse to look at the bigger picture), but the administration itself has used the same argument I would use to reclassify thousands of pages of documents since it took office. Namely, that just seeing the results of intelligence gathering can often give our enemies clues as to how that intel was gained. If you give them that clue, they can then take precautions against our using that method against them in the future.

So yes...releasing any intel should be approached with trepidation, and should never be done for nothing more than personal vendetta against someone who dared to criticize your policies.

But again, there is a bigger picture here than just "releasing some pre-war intelligence".

 

[eclectics]

Huh? What about people that work at CIA, State, DOD. The Senate Select Intelligence committee? They don't know things that could put us in danger, if leaked?

I thought we were talking about the White House. Now we are in the suburbs? Okay, same rules apply. I would hope the really top secret stuff at the CIA would stay close to the heart, so to speak, of a privilaged few. If the Asst. Director is foolish enough to spill his guts to Sally Sunshine in appropriations, then shame on him if he does put the country in danger, and the buck still stops with Bush for the actions of his staff.

 

[bsnyder]

Ok, setting aside that (though, to me, that is the truly criminal act in all of this...the outing of a CIA agent in attempt to politically embarrass a critic)...yes, I can easily see where releasing that information could potentially be damaging to national security. I will have to go back and re-read the precise document that you are talking about (since you refuse to look at the bigger picture), but the administration itself has used the same argument I would use to reclassify thousands of pages of documents since it took office. Namely, that just seeing the results of intelligence gathering can often give our enemies clues as to how that intel was gained. If you give them that clue, they can then take precautions against our using that method against them in the future.

So yes...releasing any intel should be approached with trepidation, and should never be done for nothing more than personal vendetta against someone who dared to criticize your policies.

But again, there is a bigger picture here than just "releasing some pre-war intelligence".

Okay, now that I've gotten you to set that aside, and answer the original question, let's discuss the issue, because you think that is truly the criminal act.

Believe me, I'm looking at the bigger picture alright. And it's not pretty.

This is a sincere question (acknowledging that I sometimes ask sarcastic ones ).

Do you have any idea why Fitzgerald is so intent on arguing that it no longer matters who leaked Valerie Plame's name and that it no longer matters whether or not she was covert or whether the leaking of her name did any damage to national security. Because that, in fact, is what he is now arguing in court documents, and I can't figure out why.

 

[Teejay32]

The difference is, I view the identity of a CIA agent and the identity of her front organization as just that type of information, particularly so when the administration is making so much noise about WMD's. By your support of Bush, you obviously do not view that as vital to national security information. That is where the disconnect is occuring.

You're right in this case, that's the disconnect. I don't think Valerie Plame's cover was vital to national security information, because I don't think her husband would have effectually leaked himself to the NYT if she was. He's not that clueless. So I'll always wonder why no one was trying really hard to preserve this cover, and just hope that her example isn't SOP for all of our agents.

 

[LuvDuke]

It's been a few hours, so I'm bumping to see if people still in the "36%" missed the thread, or if there's just no way to spin this....

Oh, they're spinning all right. They're doing the masochism tango using the old discredited arguments shuffle, the 6-delusional steps to get to the point sidestep, and for the grand finale, the dancing-with-neo-con-fall-flat-on-your-face bow.

This calls for a dancing banana.

 

[eclectics]

I believe this whole thing boils down to; This administration wants to selectively declassify and leak items that they believe are in the public's good (i.e. something that shows Bush/Cheney in a good light) but on the other hand, they also want to publicly hang anyone declassifying anything they believe is not in the public's good (i.e. something that shows Bush/Cheney in a bad light). To me, that is just another example of arrogance and I believe the majority of Americans will see this for the double standard it really is.

 

[LuvDuke]

I believe this whole thing boils down to; This administration wants to selectively declassify and leak items that they believe are in the public's good (i.e. something that shows Bush/Cheney in a good light) but on the other hand, they also want to publicly hang anyone declassifying anything they believe is not in the public's good (i.e. something that shows Bush/Cheney in a bad light). To me, that is just another example of arrogance and I believe the majority of Americans will see this for the double standard it really is.

Psst, the majority of Americans already have. Hence, the "36%".

But, keep it on the QT .............. the Bushies still think they're in the mainstream. They haven't figured out the old mojo just isn't working anymore.

 

[eclectics]

Psst, the majority of Americans already have. Hence, the "36%".

But, keep it on the QT .............. the Bushies still think they're in the mainstream. They haven't figured out the old mojo just isn't working anymore.

Polls tend to make me nervous but I'm pretty sure now they will indeed loose the House this November.

 

[Viking]

Polls tend to make me nervous but I'm pretty sure now they will indeed loose the House this November.

Hopefully!!!!

 

[bsnyder]

You guys crack me up! Hope springs eternal....all the way up until the day after an election.

And in other political news:

AP Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Associated Press

April 7, 2006, 11:03 PM EDT


WASHINGTON -- The senior Democrat on the House ethics committee said Friday he won't step down from his post, contending there's no truth to allegations by a conservative group that he violated financial disclosure laws.

Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia accused Republicans of orchestrating the complaint by the congressional watchdog group and then using it to call for him to leave the ethics committee.

The National Legal and Policy Center said Friday it filed a complaint in February with federal prosecutors, alleging that Mollohan consistently undervalued assets on congressional financial reports and also omitted assets. Mollohan denied any wrongdoing.

Channing Phillips, principal assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, said Friday that he could not confirm receipt of the complaint or comment on any pending criminal investigation.

The chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., said the allegations should lead Mollohan to resign from the ethics committee.

Democrats have made ethics a major campaign issue this election year. They accused majority Republicans of allowing "a culture of corruption" that included an influence-peddling scandal involving a former lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Republicans have blamed Democrats for partisan battles that have kept the evenly divided ethics committee from opening any major investigations since the current Congress convened in January 2005.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California must decide whether Mollohan should step down but indicated she should take that course. Hastert said he asked a Republican committee chairman, Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio, to step down from his chairmanship because he's being investigated in the Abramoff scandal.

"There's a precedent for it," Hastert said. "I was wondering why (the ethics committee members) ere dragging their feet on this whole ethics thing. I don't know if that has anything to do with it or not. We'll see."

Pelosi said she would not ask Mollohan to step down.

Mollohan said the complaint, coupled with Reynolds' statement, is "the best evidence of the partisan political nature" of Republican allegations that Democrats are responsible for the ethics panel's stalemate.

"No, I'm not going to resign because of this spurious attack. The attack is unethical on it's face," Mollohan said. "I have not heard from any prosecutor."

Kenneth Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, said he has been contacted by federal prosecutors about his complaint.

Boehm refused to release what he said was a 500-page complaint because some of the information it contains has not been thoroughly verified.

However, he said the center did verify that between 1996 and 2004 Mollohan repeatedly failed to disclose real estate and financial assets and loans. The center has deeds and other records to prove its allegations, Boehm said.

The center began investigating Mollohan's assets after his financial disclosure reports showed a significant jump in his net worth between 2000 and 2004, Boehm said. The center had been looking at all the disclosure reports of members of the House Appropriations Committee.

Mollohan's 2000 report indicated he had assets worth between $170,012 to $562,000 and liabilities of $170,000 to $465,000. The disclosure reports allow congressmen to report their finances within broad ranges.

Mollohan's 2004 report showed he had assets of $6.3 million to $24.9 million and assets of $3.66 million to $13.5 million.

"The question remains, so where did his greatly improved financial holdings come from?" Boehm said.

The Wall Street Journal, in Friday's editions, first reported on Mollohan's finances.

The NYTimes also has a 3 page article today, outlining some of Mr. Mollohan's more suspicious dealings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/08/washington/08earmarks.html

Isn't this fun?

 

[wvrevy]

Bet, the answer to your question is..."I don't know" Not trying to be a smart alec, but the only person who could definitively answer that question is Fitzgerald himself.

I do have a theory that would explain it, however. It's entirely possible that he actually is trying to prosecute the case without making it into a partisan witch hunt. There is a legitimate legal question as to whether leaking the name itself was a crime, due to technicalities surrounding Plame's "covert" status. If that is the case - and I honestly don't know if it is or not - then Fitzgerald would not be doing his job if he truly believed that and still went after the person that leaked the name.

But again, that is just speculation on my part. Even if that is the case, I still think that leaking the name (and, thus, blowing not only her cover but the cover of the agency she "worked" for) was wrong, even if it escapes illegality by the thinnest of technicalities.

 

[wvrevy]

You guys crack me up! Hope springs eternal....all the way up until the day after an election.

And in other political news:



The NYTimes also has a 3 page article today, outlining some of Mr. Mollohan's more suspicious dealings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/08/washington/08earmarks.html

Isn't this fun?

Oh, please....PLEASE...let's turn this into a "who's more corrupt" discussion, Brenda. How anyone could support people like Tom Delay, Dick Cheney, Dennis Hastert, and company and still try to call someone else corrupt is just baffling.

I'll tell you what...If Mollohan is guilty, he should resign. But then, so should every REPUBLICAN currently under investigation for ethics violations. Course, I'm not sure there would be any Republicans left by the end of that.