Democrats & Liberals Archives

Bush Is The Leaker

Sweet Jesus Christ! President Bush authorized the leak of top secret CIA documents, as well as the identity of a CIA operative, to the media — solely as a ruthless act of revenge against a man who did nothing but tell the truth. Then, when the CIA called for an investigation, President Bush lied about having anything to do with it, and left “Scooter” Libby to take the fall. What an asshole.

President Bush said, "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." We now know it was President Bush himself who leaked classified information.

Legally, he can do that. But President Bush did it in secret, and then lied about it.

Legal scholars and analysts said yesterday that the president has the authority to selectively declassify intelligence reports But they also said it was highly unusual for senior officials at the White House to take such an action so stealthily, without notifying Cabinet officials or others in the administration, including the CIA authors of the National Intelligence Estimate.

And in a disgusting display of President Bush's character, he refused to own up to it and threw Libby to the wolves.

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."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan instead issued a more guarded statement, under pressure from Cheney, that Libby and Rove "assured me they were not involved in this," according to Fitzgerald's account. But as Libby approached his first FBI interview, Fitzgerald said, he knew the White House had "publicly staked its credibility on there being no White House involvement in the leaking of information about Mrs. Wilson" and that the president had vowed to fire leakers.

In that context, Fitzgerald said Libby lied about what he said to reporters and "repeated the story in a subsequent interview and during two grand jury appearances."

I don't even know what to say... Despicable.

Posted by American Pundit at April 7, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #138773

AP, I agree completely.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 7, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #138774

Leaker in Chief, 9/30/03:

“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.”

Leaker in Chief, 9/30/03:

“If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of… I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.”

Leaker in Chief, 10/28/03:

“I’d like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information.”

Leaker in Chief, 6/10/04:

Reporter: “Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?”

Leaker in Chief: “Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.”

Leaker in Chief, 10/28/03:

“I want to know the truth. … I have no idea whether we’ll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers.”

Leaker in Chief, 7/18/05 in USA Today:

“If someone committed crime, they will no longer work in my administration.”

Scott McClellan, 9/29/03:

“The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.”

Scott McClellan, 10/7/03:

“Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I’ll talk to you about what he wants …If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that’s not the way this White House operates, that’s not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business.”

As you say AP: Despicable

Posted by: Adrienne at April 7, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #138776

Is anyone willing to accept that this is Bush’s spotted blue dress …put on public display!!
Clinton made a bad morality judgement, which didn’t kill anyone that I have heard of. Bush’s lack of morality , to say nothing of intelligence and common sense….is now weighing on the conscience of this entire country. Even those of us who did not vote for him, and refuse to support to him to this day, have to go to sleep at night knowing that thousands of deaths didn’t have to happen!!!!!!!
This man was determined to carry out his plan, regardless of cost………
Iraq, although certainly the most major issue, is only the tip of the iceberg.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 7, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #138777

Please don’t act surprised. Anyone who would allow thousands to die for an unnecessary war is capable of anything.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 7, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #138781

American Pundit,

I’ll save them(the sheep) the trouble.
Clinton lied.
You’re aiding the enemy.
Saddam needed to be removed, he was a threat.
There are WMD, Iraq just moved them.
Something derogatory about M.Moore/Hillary/Libs.
Personal attack.
Question your patriotism and manliness.
Blame lib/media.
Only history can judge him.
etc. etc.
I think that about covers it.
Now that we got that over with, maybe this thread will not suffer the same fate, that so many fact based criticisms of the Bush administration have gone, right in the toilet.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at April 7, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #138787

“What an asshole.”

I’d say that pretty much sums up gwbush’s political career, and his most prominent character attribute.

Posted by: Norby at April 7, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #138791

IF the president did, in fact, allow this to happen….that’s impeachable!!!

….or maybe it’s just one of those laws he, as unitary power, can choose to or choose not to follow…

Posted by: Tom L at April 7, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #138792

It’s also despicable how they muzzle (real) scientists, and don’t allow them freedom of speech without censorship. Virtually nothing makes a ‘con froth at the mouth more than global warming being taken seriously. So they suppress legitimate science just because they don’t like its implications.

Seriously, it’s like in the soviet union. They also did this kind of thing, kept scientists in line for speaking the truth.

Posted by: john at April 7, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #138795

Bush choices:

Admit he ordered leaks for political revenge.

Hang Cheney out to dry by denying he gave Cheney orders to leak for political revenge.

Stand firm on the position that Libby is lying.

No comment!

Which would you choose?

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 7, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #138798

Where’s all our conservative friends?
Guess they don’t have much to say today.

Posted by: Norby at April 7, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #138799

Boy, am I sorry for ever voting for Bush/Cheney in 2004 (not 2000).
It was a huge mistake.
I, stupidly, got seduced into the powerful, petty partisan warfare, and grew too fond of wallowing in it.

This should be a lesson to many.
They may think their party is the end of the rainbow, but it ain’t.

Parties are neither the problem or solution.

But, I learned from that mistake, and am trying to make amends.
Many don’t agree with the new path), but our choices at the polls really sucked, then and now, and we’ve tried everything else but the one simple, common-sense thing we were supposed to be doing all along.
I’m no longer Republican (nor a member of any party).
No more wallowing in the petty, distracting, destructive, partisan warfare.
If this “leak” thing is true,
Libby, Bush, and Cheney deserve jail time.
Please Stop Repeat Offenders (i.e. Master Cheaters)
Don’t Re-Elect Them !

Posted by: d.a.n at April 7, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #138811

“Bush’s choices:”
“No comment!”

That is the one they’ve chosen — for today anyway.
During Lil’ Scotty McClellan’s whole press briefing it was still:
“no comment on an ongoing legal proceeding.”
Sickeningly typical non-answer.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 7, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #138812

Ah Norby, quit funny.
Me a conservative? Know many pro-choice, pro gay marriage conservatives who are atheists do you. Cool. Nice to know I’m not alone.

Like most people not on the hate Bush no matter what train, I will say that IF this is proven to be a FACT, then I expect the appropriate legal actions to be taken.
Although I’m not a big Bush fan, I believe most voters who support Bush will want the same thing.
Most of the voting RIGHT will not ignore or make excuses for what THEIR guy did.
IF this is true, they will probably feed the Rep party to the wolves on election day.

Posted by: kctim at April 7, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #138825

Hate to break yaall Democrats bubble, but there aint a thing going to happen to Bush over this. Even if yaall do get Congress back. There just won’t be enough votes.
But I hope that kctim is right. That his supporters won’t stand for this if it’s true.
Now I remember why I didn’t vote for him. He aint trustworthy. But then is any politician?

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 7, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #138828

Administrations have leaked classified information in the past with the intent of influencing political issues. What makes this particular case so extraordinary is that the leak was done not just to influence the debate over Iraq, but to conceal lies about Iraq. The leak was meant not only to influence the debate, but to take revenge against an opponent’s wife, even when revenge involved outing a CIA operative.

Adrienne, thanks for posting some specific examples of lies Bush told about this, beat me to it. It really is disgusting. Bush may be safe from impeachment over this, but if Libby is telling the truth, Cheney is vulnerable. Fitz is working his way up the ladder. It sounds like he may have turned Libby, and if so, Cheney may yet go before Bush.

Bush is one slimy guy.

Posted by: phx8 at April 7, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #138829

Tom L:;

Just for clarification, legal experts are saying that Bush has the authority to “unclassify” anything he chooses to. So there is nothing illegal about this, if he in fact did it. That’s not to say it would be the right or proper thing to do, but rather that its not illegal.

Seems to me that Joe Wilson was out to get Bush, whether rightly or wrongly. The proper approach would have been to show how Wilson’s facts were in error, and to show that there was some nepotism involved in him being selected. Those things would have done a decent job of casting doubt on his allegations.

That it wasn’t handled that way shows a sort of ham-handed attempt at discrediting Wilson. Even if not illegal, its certainly clumsy and poor political gamesmanship at the least.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 7, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #138830

kctim, the irony is, the safest route for Bush to take is admitting he ordered the leak. The reason is that there is no law preventing him from doing so.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 7, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #138835

A few thoughts:

1. Ron Brown wrote:

Hate to break yaall Democrats bubble, but there aint a thing going to happen to Bush over this. Even if yaall do get Congress back. There just won’t be enough votes.

Probably true, but there will be hearings. Lots and lots of them, and this time under oath.

2. Back in the days when trying to cover up sex in the Oval Office was an offense worth impeaching a president over, most Republicans in the House (but not a majority of the members) voted that lying to the public about it on TV constituted obstruction of justice. Given that there is a real criminal investigation going on, and Bush never said “yes, I authorized the leak,” would those Republicans agree that Bush’s comments equally can be considered obstruction of justice?

3. As I recall, Bush and Cheney were both “interviewed” about the Plame matter by Federal prosecutors. If what they said ends up being identified as a lie, is that an impeachable offense?

Posted by: Steve K at April 7, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #138836

Well, that’s Ron, kc, and joe…whispering instead of shouting…the end is near…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 7, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #138837


If it was legal for Bush to declassify the information, then why did he allow the investigation? Allowing the investigation to go forward if he did, indeed declassify the information, should be illegal. Surely we didn’t need that cost in this budget? Why not just admit it?

It would have been hard to show Joe Wilson’s facts were in error, from everything I have read and heard, they weren’t.

This secrecy and spin is getting old.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 7, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #138840

For me, it doesn’t really matter about the legality of the issue.
It’s just one MORE thing Bush has done secretly, while lying about it.
Somehow, this entire administration doesn’t seem to understand the concept of openness and honesty.
Ron is probably right. Nothing will happen to Bush because of this. That doesn’t make it right, it just makes it dishonorable.

Posted by: jack p at April 7, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #138843

Steve K,

I think you make a great point.


the White House is not denying that Bush is the source of the leak. What they are saying is that

“The president would never authorize disclosure of information that could compromise our nation’s security”

Even Democrats who didn’t think Clinton committed any crimes knew that the story about Monica was true. Exactly what form do you need the admission to take before you will believe it??

Has anyone noticed that, in this Plame matter, Bush has demonstrated remarkable agility in speaking around his leak?

It seems to follow the complaint of many insiders - that Bush’s plain spoken, not too bright persona is all an act to maintain his edge with the “common folk”.

AP - Despicable? yes.

But also - cunning.

As calculating and premeditated as the GOP accuses the Clintons of being.

Posted by: CPAdams at April 7, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #138844

phx8 - spot on. This is so obviously about them trying to conceal their lies so that the American public would go along with their illegal war, and for revenge against a person who might threaten that ability.

“the safest route for Bush to take is admitting he ordered the leak. The reason is that there is no law preventing him from doing so.”

The thing is, these men have no character. They aren’t honest, they’re insanely secretive, and clearly they don’t know the meaning of the word honor. The problem they have at the moment is that if they admit they ordered the leak, they immediately expose themselves as hypocrites for acting like they didn’t know anything, and therefore, allowed an expensive special investigation to go forward at the taxpayers expense. Moreover, by claiming time and time again that they were upset about this and wanted to get at the truth of how this information was disseminated to members of the press, they totally expose themselves as liars.
So, they probably don’t want to admit this, even if it wasn’t technically illegal, and won’t be grounds for impeachment?

Posted by: Adrienne at April 7, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #138847

steve k,

The simple answer to your question, “If he did lie is it an impeachable offense” is “NO.” Remember, neither Bush nor Cheney would testify before the committee under OATH. So, they can not be tried as Clinton was for lying before a congressinal investigation. Bush and Cheney learned a lot form the Clinton impeachment hearings. They know better than to testify under oath.
Secondly, all democrats need to think about the consequence of impeaching Bush if they take over the congress in 2006. Cheney would become president, and in my opionion he would be even worse than Bush…

Posted by: Rusty at April 7, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #138851
Remember, neither Bush nor Cheney would testify before the committee under OATH. So, they can not be tried as Clinton was for lying before a congressinal investigation.

But you’re missing my point: a great many of the House Republicans voted in 1998 that what Clinton said while NOT UNDER OATH was an impeachable offense as well. In that case, they said the impeachable offense was obstruction of justice, not perjury.

What I want to know is, what rationale would they give for not voting to impeach Bush for obstruction of justice in this matter, like they did to Clinton.

For the record, I don’t know of any Congressional Democrats in Congress who have flip-flopped on impeachment.

Posted by: Steve k at April 7, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #138852

One unintentionally funny aspect of all this- no one doubts for a minute that Cheney lied. A few wingnuts in the previous thread didn’t even bother to defend Cheney’s honor. It is funny, when you think about it:

‘Cheney lied? Whaaaaat? No! No! No! Say it isn’t so! (sob). Please, I just can’t bear the thought that Cheney might be a dishonorable liar. Can it be? Not CHENEY?!!!’

Posted by: phx8 at April 7, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #138853

This is exactly why it is a big deal that the president has claimed the right to warrantless domestic spying. Domestic spying must be subject to oversight. We are once again reminded of the fact that presidents and vice-presidents are political animals. They are the leaders of their political parties and it is simply too tempting and too easy for politicians to misuse the power and authority of their office for partisan political purposes. Nixon did it. J Edgar Hoover did it. Delay did it. Cheney apparently did it. GW Bush apparently did it.

Congress needs to quit playing politics with this issue and conduct meaningful hearings on domestic surveillance and insist that the president obey FISA. If he would use classified intelligence to further his own political ends and to punish his political enemies, can he be trusted with the authority to direct the NSA and CIA to spy on domestic subjects without some form of oversight? This president has repeatedly demonstrated the fact that he is simply not trustworthy.

Posted by: RMD at April 7, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #138855

Here is the complete statement by Scott McClellan today:

“There is a difference between providing declassified information to the public when it’s in the public interest and leaking classified information that involved sensitive national intelligence regarding our security,” he said.

I guess the Bush defense is

“just because you thought it was a leak and I let investigation happen doesn’t mean that I thought it was a leak”


“it doesn’t count - I had my fingers crossed behind the podium”


“I am king of the universe - I don’t answer to anyone”

Posted by: CPAdams at April 7, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #138856

Bloody amazing isn’t it? Somehow it’s supposed to be in the “public interest” and not “sensitive national intelligence regarding national security” to blow the cover of a CIA agent (and everyone who was ever connected with her) working on the assessment of unconventional weapons, for revenge on her ambassador husband who disagreed with the administration’s pre-war intelligence, and turned out to be absolutely correct.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 7, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #138859

Good summary, Adrienne.

Steve K, no one missed the point. There is the legal issue, and the moral issue. Morality, contrary to FREC’s belief, is not subject to legal penalty.

Legally, there are a number of ways for Bush to dodge this bullet, though, none of them leave him smelling to good in the public nose, so to speak.

Morally, just about everyone would agree it was an abuse of the power of the office. But, moral abuse of office is a whole other ball of wax from a legal abuse of office.

The facts are folks, Bush has enjoyed the benefit of some very astute legal minds to protect him and his actions. There is no law written that can’t be gotten around if you have the best legal minds money can buy working on getting around them.

But, it does raise the moral question of whether the President has faithfully fulfilled his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the U.S. and all the laws which emanate from it?

My view, he has failed that oath many times. Other’s mileage may vary.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 7, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #138864

The tragedy of this administration for its party, as Clinton’s was for mine, was that many of us ended up defending our presidents against accusations that ended up being truer than our defenses.

Bush’s tragedy here is that instead of this whole thing being merely about some peccadillo people half expected of him anyways (which is what made people so lenient about Clinton), the lies and his misleading statements his supporters are defending themselves against are pervasive regarding nearly all his policy and the entire history of his actions in office. This guy was even concealing stuff before he made it into office, sneaking his gubernatorial papers into his father’s library to keep them secret.

This latest revelation, though unexpected, was not surprising. It’s what I’ve come to expect of him. What I’ve come to expect of his supporters, unfortunately, is that they let him continue his deception.

In screenwriting class, we learned about the square of oppositions. At one corner was the Positive, which you could read as a good guy. at the next, you had the Contrary, where a character might be something like a rival, or simply a good guy who misunderstands the lead character. On the opposite corner on the diagonal, you had the Contradictory, where a character obviously hates, opposes, or wants to destroy everything the lead character stands for.

But the worst of all is The Negation of The Negation. That is when you have a character who masquerades as a positive character, but who is really as much a Contradictory as the mustache-twirling madman.

For quite some time now, I’ve come to believe Bush is like that. He tries to act like everybody’s best friend, warm and friendly, ostentatively steadfast and courageous, but really he’s just a Machiavellian power-addict. It might be that he’s something of a psychopath, or worse yet, and more tragic, it could very well be that he is just so sunk in his own heroic image of himself that he just doesn’t distinquish between acts he does for his own benefit, and those he does for the country as a whole.

The Republicans have paid the price for the isolation and secrecy of their leaders, and their self-righteous (if righteous at all) resistance to accountability and checks and balances. Sooner or later, the debts have to be settled. The sooner Republicans do this, the more they can prevent the objectionable (to them) liberalization of the country that will follow their loss of power.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 7, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #138871

If we don’t impeach Bush for this we are setting a horrible precedent for the future. I mean, what could you impeach a president for, if you don’t for this?

Posted by: Max at April 7, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #138878

This might have already been dealt with, but the charge of “obstruction of justice” does not require that the party accused was under oath when he/she lied.

I’ve been the first to advocate care in the prosecution of this matter and to say that opponents of this administration shouldn’t jump the gun in claiming to have nailed the president, but now it really does seem like Fitz could have BushCo in some serious shit.

I mean, nothing’s going to happen to any of them, but it’s still fun to watch them squirm.

Posted by: Yossarian at April 7, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #138879


It might be funny, except the cost is nothing to laugh at.

What a freaking waste! Of everything!

Posted by: womanmarine at April 7, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #138880

It has become plain to me that, The Office Of The President, should lead directly to a 6x9 jail cell. The past 8 could have enjoyed each others company at various times. It is time to hold all politicians accountable. I am taking back my vote, I believe VOID is the answer for the forseeable future. Our elected officials need to learn we employ them not the other way around.

Posted by: Ted at April 7, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #138884


Is this the ‘she was wearing a short skirt I had to rape her’ defense: “Seems to me that Joe Wilson was out to get Bush, whether rightly or wrongly.”?

Maybe I misunderstood.

Posted by: KansasDem at April 7, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #138901

So if Bush and Cheney get themselves impeached or resign who takes over as President and Vice President and do we really want to go there?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 7, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #138911


If my memory serves me correctly, in the event both pres and vp offices are somehow vacated I think the Speaker of the House is next in line.

Posted by: Tom L at April 7, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #138921

I keep hearing, is this an impeachable offense? The president has the power to release classified info, blah, blah, blah. Well, I’m far from being an attorney. My only study of law was through a community college so I could qualify as a Probation Officer, so I’m far from a “genious” when it comes to the law, but the most significant constitutional question about impeachment and removal is what the appropriate grounds for those actions are.

Consider the wording of Article II: “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

#1: Treason: IMO, yes, the act of exposing Plame was treason. (to those who might say her identity wasn’t a secret I’d simply ask, “who officially requested the investigation?” I’ll save you some time, it was the CIA)

#2: Bribery: The White House absolutely used the Plame affair to silence those who might present evidence contary to W’s desire to invade Iraq. Duh! That’s so clearly a stategy of “disagree and I’ll crush you” it’s ridiculous. (That’s also obvious with recent statements regarding, not only Plame, but the domestic spying program)

#3: High Crimes and Misdemeanors: Well, what nailed Clinton? Lieing under oath? Hmmmm, does anyone here know the oath that Bush swore to when he was sworn in as President? Bush swore under oath: “”I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Bush lied! Either that or he needs to be replaced for incompetence. Under what set of circumstances can a commander-in-chief be replaced for incompetence? Uh, 25th Ammendment, Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Well, we know dead-eye Dick ain’t gonna do it, so we need to impeach Bush. Censure is not enough. We need to put the pressure on! I’m thinking everyone that want’s Bush to resign should put a sign in their lawn that say’s: BUSH RESIGN NOW!

We’re all real good at bitching that the Democratic Party doesn’t do enough. We are the party. The party is us. It’s not just up to the leaders. It’s time to restore sanity to our America.


Posted by: KansasDem at April 7, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #138927
So if Bush and Cheney get themselves impeached or resign who takes over as President and Vice President and do we really want to go there?

It doesn’t matter. This is about trust, honor, and the rule of law, not petty political squabbling.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 7, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #138936

Is treason a capital offense for an AWOL airman?
Is hanging still a method of execution?
I’m generally against the death penalty for individual crimes, but Bushies level of treason against this nation makes me rethink that position.

Posted by: Dave at April 7, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #138941

Live Vote
Which of the following best describes the president authorizing the leak of intelligence information? * 10920 responses

His right as president, to exercise when he sees fit

Hypocritical, but not illegal

Wrong and cynical
Not a scientific survey. Click to learn more. Results may not total 100% due to rounding.

This is just a current poll on MSNBC….maybe not the pulse of the nation, but you see the numbers….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 7, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #138961

The best thing that could happen here is already under way. The nation as a whole is getting fed up with the whole administration and their I am God, I have no one that can tell me what to do attitude. Their own party is pulling away from them. They are afraid if they get to close they will be on the loosing end in the next election. It’s a sad time when a member of the homeland security is under arrest for child pornography and someone else was arrested for something else I just caught the end of it. So much for high moral standards in this administration.

Posted by: Sherri at April 7, 2006 11:09 PM
Comment #138968

“It doesn’t matter. This is about trust, honor, and the rule of law, not petty political squabbling.”

Bingo! Give that man a cigar.
Who gives a crap whether Dennis Hastert is going to be the president? I certainly don’t.
Bush and Cheney authorized the disclosure of the name of a CIA operative, which lead to many other operatives who daily risked their lives for this country to be seriously endangered (or killed?). Then, they lied about it, and caused an expensive and lengthy special investigation to go forward. Now, they are claiming that what they did was “in the public interest”.
Bullsh*t, you foul pieces of treasonous trash! No one believes you now but your idiotic Faux News sycophants.
And to think, these people had the nerve to shamelessly call Liberals traitors to our country, when they now find themeselves in the position of defending outright treason!

Posted by: Adrienne at April 7, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #138978

Even though it’s legal for the Prez to leak classified info, to do it for purely political purposes just isn’t cool. You don’t do stupid things just because you can. Is this an impeachable offense? I don’t think so, and an impeachment of a President is the last thing we need in a nation as divided as ours. Before the feathers start flying, let me just say that I was disgusted at the U.S. House for impeaching President Clinton on such ridiculous grounds.

Bush only has two years left. In ‘08, if the Republican candidate is a clone of or even vaguely resembles Dubya, I may have to bring myself to, I can hardly bring myself to type it, vote Dem. That is of course, if Hillary isn’t on the ticket. I would vote for Jack the Ripper before her.

Posted by: Duano at April 7, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #138992

Hmmmmm. FOX News talking heads are calling the entire matter a non-issue, because Bush can legally declassify anything he wants.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 8, 2006 12:50 AM
Comment #138993

What did Bush leak?

Not Plame.

Bush declassified the National Intelligence Estimate. He briefed the press about it and the information was published. Everybody knew about it at the time.

Why did they want this information out? It was to counter Wilson (that is true), since Wilson was lying about his role in the intelligence, what he knew and when he knew it. That is political, but it is also policy. If someone is going around misleading people about why America went to war (as Wilson was doing), it harmed national security.

This was NOT about Plame. The information released just refuted Wilson’s statements.

This particular news is very old. This news came out a long time ago. So no Plame. No crime. No nothin’. Go home.

Posted by: Jack at April 8, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #138997


Thanks for clearing that one up for me. Reading these posts and subsequent comments, I thought this thing was all about Plame. Shows who the real spinners are.

Please disregard anything I posted previously regarding voting Democratic. I’m pleading temporary insanity on that one.:(

Posted by: Duano at April 8, 2006 1:06 AM
Comment #139011

O there’ll be hearing alright. And they’ll cost the tax payers millions. And just like Clinton nothing will come of it. Bush might get a bill of impeachment, but there won’t be a conviction.
If there’s any truth to this I would like to see Bush go down for it. If leaking the names of CIA operatives aint treason it ought to be.

Who’s whispering? If Bush is guilty of this watch me lead the charge to get his ass thrown in jail.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 8, 2006 1:58 AM
Comment #139014

Jack and Duano:



I suggest you read your spin from FoxNews first before trying to fool the rest of us.

Posted by: Aldous at April 8, 2006 2:04 AM
Comment #139015


If someone is going around misleading people about why America went to war (as Wilson was doing), it harmed national security.

Do you honestly not see the irony in that statement? I agree completely. If anyone was going around misleading people about the cause for war, it definitely harmed national security. Especially if we went to war because of that misinformation.

Posted by: Brian Poole at April 8, 2006 2:06 AM
Comment #139016
So no Plame. No crime. No nothin’. Go home.

Jack, I never said Bush could or should be impeached over the intelligence leak. I just said he’s an asshole for lying about it and then throwing Libby to the wolves.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 8, 2006 2:11 AM
Comment #139034

All the lefties are on steroids tonight. In the interest of intelligent discourse, would it be possible to tone down the level of hostility?

Posted by: goodkingned at April 8, 2006 3:54 AM
Comment #139042

Real steadfast there, Duano. You see evidence and make up your mind to do the right thing and then Jack comes along and DOH, W’s ok, what was I thinking? Dope. Anyone else not think that Cheney is already running things, heaven knows this moron with the official title who can’t even successfully eat pretzels isn’t running anything.

Posted by: ray at April 8, 2006 8:25 AM
Comment #139084


At Watchblog I’ve seen President Bush portrayed as both a moron and a diabolical genious with evil cunning. His opponents gauge their estimates of his intellect on whether they want to criticize his character or his intelligence.

Whatever you think of Bush, it is realistic to recognize that he graduated from one of the best schools in the country. Furthermore, Bush has accomplished several items on his agenda that I didn’t think would happen, such as pushing through the UN resolutions against Saddam and the tax cuts.

It’s small minded to call anyone you disagree with stupid.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 8, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #139104

>>It’s small minded to call anyone you disagree with stupid.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 8, 2006 01:14 PM


Okay he’s a diabolical genious with evil cunning. And dishonest and lacks honor and lies like a rug and and and…have it your way.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 8, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #139135

bla bla bla no one in My Adim. leaked if they did I want to know who . bla hah ha ha bla bla what a line of stuff.

Posted by: George at April 8, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #139136

Yo’ kctim,

You said:

“Like most people not on the hate Bush no matter what train, I will say … “

That “hate Bush no matter what” argument is OLD dude. Try some new material. And, as for the “train” George’s train is just about down to the caboose. He’ll be pulling one soon enough.

ANY and ALL true Americans SHOULD hate and despise the man who has done so much damage to the country they are forever claiming THEY, and only THEY,love.

Ok kctim, give me a single example of something positive Bush has accomplished for America while he has been in the Oval office. Something to make him more loveable than hated, k? And lemme give you a clue, giving Paris Hilton a tax break is the wrong answer.

Just one. C’mon. “Bring It On”, “Mission Accomplished”.
P.S. where is bin Laden anyway?

Posted by: DA at April 8, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #139202

DUH….how bout 4.7% unemployment thats just one If you wer’nt so blind with hatred you would be able to see………..BUSH WON!!!!!! Get over it ya pimple its been Broughten MUHAHAHAHAH
How bout more Minorities own homes today then ever before……………..and theres more lets see if you can open your eyes and see it

Posted by: Phillip at April 8, 2006 7:41 PM
Comment #139220

Trust me, I wish it wasn’t so. But if it makes moronic moves, talks and stammers like a moron, it’s a moron. Period. That last little period thingy there was just to get the rah man going. I wasn’t calling him stupid, just the dope in our white house. Who is making us the laughingstock of the world. Ugh.

Posted by: ray at April 8, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #139223

Andre M. Hernandez:

Okay, now you owe me for a new keyboard as well as a perfectly good mouthful of excellent whisky! :o)


Boy, am I sorry for ever voting for Bush/Cheney in 2004 (not 2000). It was a huge mistake. … I learned from that mistake, and am trying to make amends.

d.a.n., I know that you style yourself a “Libertarian” (code phrase for not-quite-bat-shit-crazy Conservative wanker), and I know that you are “not quite There yet” in terms of realising the full scope of Damage caused by Conservatism - in this land and in many others - throughout history… But let me reveal something about myself to you: I love Prodigals more than the most dedicated dyed-in-the-wool Liberals I have ever met. They are few and far-between, those (like you) who use their god-given wit and wisdom to come to the conclusion that Everything They Knew Was Wrong - and to have the extreme courage to then make things Right. How much more precious to me is an Arianna Huffington, a Morton Downey, Jr., an Ehud Olmert - than even an F.D.R., a Russ Feingold, or an Al Gore? I would leave the ninety-and-nine to seek for the One who might be saved. God bless you, d.a.n., for having come so far towards the Light of Compassion and Reason. I hope you will join us Progressives all the way on our long march towards Societal Improvement. And Thank You, for having come as far as you have.


See above. For shame. Think and think and think and think. And then FEEL - but not Pride, nor Anger, nor Nationalistic Fervour; rather, feel Compassion, and Tolerance, and Hope for a better future for our Society. And then THINK again! Reject the Lies. Put down the Sabre you have been rattling. Seek out the Truth in alternative news sources. And be the Prodigal, returned from the wasteland of Conservatism to the warm fold of Progressive Thought. We are waiting for you hopefully, with open arms and eager hearts: do not join with the Nazis, the Klansmen, the Robber Barons, and every other evil which has as its prerequisite the embrace of Conservatism. Put Satan behind you, and the words of all his minions on this earth, concerned as they are only with Power and Wealth. You gave me hope, and then snatched it away again. :o(


The thing is, these men have no character. They aren’t honest, they’re insanely secretive, and clearly they don’t know the meaning of the word honor.

As always, spot on. And thank you (once again) for your careful research. I wish I could be as measured as you are, but I am naturally combative and prone to anger. `Tell you what: you prefer the Charges and I’ll execute Sentence, okay? ;o)

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 8, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #139280

Now there’s a match made in heaven.

Nobody expects the Liberal Inquisition!

Posted by: goodkingned at April 9, 2006 2:08 AM
Comment #139302

What a funny country!

The President walks all over the Constitution, leaving countless victims in his wake…

…and people still go to jail for smoking pot!

= why I live in China (a place where i can be free)

Posted by: Beijing Rob at April 9, 2006 4:19 AM
Comment #139306

Beijing Rob:

While I can appreciate your desire to smoke pot in China, I don’t understand what victims you are referring to.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 9, 2006 4:52 AM
Comment #139308

…how about Scooter Libby for starters?

Posted by: Beijing Rob at April 9, 2006 5:08 AM
Comment #139310


hehe…just for clarification - there is no pot in China, so unfortunately there is also no getting stoned here. I was just trying to draw a distinction between those crimes which have victims and those which do not.

Posted by: Beijing Rob at April 9, 2006 5:14 AM
Comment #139313



Regarding Scooter. I’m not saying that I think he is a victim, but I am saying that I think he is countable.

If it’s not too personal why are you in China?

Posted by: goodkingned at April 9, 2006 5:25 AM
Comment #139321


I am working with the Chinese government on education initiatives aimed at the further co-understanding between our two distinct and different cultures.

On a side note (or perhaps not?) I also am a Blues and Jazz Musician practicing my craft and making a few bucks.

Speaking of victims, I was once a motivated and ambitious educator in the USA. That was, before ‘No Child Left Behind’ was passed. Unfortunately, fallout from that legislation made a long-term teaching career in the states a bleak prospect at best (at least for us younger teachers).

They should of just called it “No Teacher Left Unscrewed”.

I love education and teaching, so I just went to a place which has a higher degree of respect for qualified educators (and found I wasn’t the only one).

Regardless, when you say “bummer”, I certainly am over here saying “ditto” about the pot :-)

Posted by: Beijing Rob at April 9, 2006 7:47 AM
Comment #139381

Beijing Rob,

The Commies close all the opium dens too? Damn! No fun at all in China…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 9, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #139518


If you touch Opium in China these days you had best be prepared to deal with A) the Chinese Mafia, or B) the Chinese Government.

Don’t wanna mess with either, here!

Posted by: Beijing Rob at April 10, 2006 5:21 AM
Post a comment