Americans overwhelming support President Bush in wiretapping.

[aps]

So far , there has been one indictment. And it wasn't for leaking a CIA agent's name.

If somebody did that < leaked a covert agent's name> there would be more than one indictment.

there hasn't been .

comments?

I know what you're saying. I have read through Fitzgerald's indictment. He cites to the statute that addresses leaking classified information to those who are not entitled. He states that Plame's status at the CIA was "classified." But then he makes no conclusion as to whether or not Libby leaked classified information, which didn't make sense to me.

Here's the part I am talking about:

Beginning on or about January 20, 2001, and continuing through the date of this indictment, defendant I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY," was employed as Assistant to the President of the United States, Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. In the course of his work, LIBBY had frequent access to classified information and frequently spoke with officials of the U.S. intelligence community, as well as other government officials, regarding sensitive national security matters.

In connection with his role as a senior government official with responsibilities for national security matters, LIBBY held security clearances entitling him to access to classified information. As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure.

On or about January 23, 2001, LIBBY executed a written "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," stating in part that "I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government," and that "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation."

...

Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson ("Valerie Wilson"). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. . . .


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801086_pf.html

 

[aps]

Well assuming that you can show how the technique was developed and taught by Republicans, I will accept this that you do admit that the Democrats are fostering the stated lies and that a whole bunch of people on the Left are dumb enough, gullible enough, or dishonest enough to believe and/or perpetuate them.

If that was your intent, then hey, way to go. Great post. :smile:

I would suggest you read "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock. Here is part of the description of the book from bookreporter.com:

Can David Brock be believed when he names names and kicks some serious booty in BLINDED BY THE RIGHT? Today Show host Matt Lauer posed the question in an interview when the book was first released in hardcover. Brock writes in a new preface to the paperback version of the New York Times bestseller that "as a leading conservative writer in the 1990s, I was confessing to having been complicit in a propagandistic campaign of lies against liberal targets --- Anita Hill and the Clintons, among others. The question, of course, is one that all whistle blowers, publicly exposing nefarious activities in which they themselves were largely compromised, inevitably must confront."

He says that the "once a liar, always a liar" question is nearly impossible to answer. He finally decided to throw himself on the mercy of the court: "People could choose to believe me and my account of 'the vast right wing conspiracy,' or they could choose not to."

http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/1400047285.asp

Thank you, and have a nice day.

 

[cnredd]

Yeah AlbqOwl!

That's factual proof that Liberals lie now because Conservatives did before...

Some guy wrote it in a book!...:roll:

 

[aps]

Yeah AlbqOwl!

That's factual proof that Liberals lie now because Conservatives did before...

Some guy wrote it in a book!...:roll:

I recommend you read the book, young man.

 

[Stace]

Yeah AlbqOwl!

That's factual proof that Liberals lie now because Conservatives did before...

Some guy wrote it in a book!...:roll:

Because conservatives did it before?

Ha! They do it now, too, my friend. :2razz:

 

[aps]

Because conservatives did it before?

Ha! They do it now, too, my friend. :2razz:

You, young lady, are ordered NOT to read the book. It will make you way too angry, and I don't want you that angry while pregnant. You hear? I'm joking.... but I'm not. :shock:

 

[KCConservative]

You, young lady, are ordered NOT to read the book. It will make you way too angry, and I don't want you that angry while pregnant. You hear? I'm joking.... but I'm not.

The guy (David Brock) was outed for being gay, so he went on a rampage and defected to the left. Poor guy.

 

[Stace]

You, young lady, are ordered NOT to read the book. It will make you way too angry, and I don't want you that angry while pregnant. You hear? I'm joking.... but I'm not. :shock:

Yes ma'am! I'll just put it on my list of things to read, and I'll read it AFTER the baby is born, when it keeps me up till three a.m. :doh

 

[AlbqOwl]

I would suggest you read "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock. Here is part of the description of the book from bookreporter.com:



Thank you, and have a nice day.

Actually I have read David Brock's book, or at least most of it, and found it to be an interesting mix of fact and fiction. I have also heard him speak on various occasions and he frequently contradicts himself. I have him pegged as a mediocre journalist who got caught not sufficiently checking his facts and who is trying his damndest to put the best face on it.

But if one is going to take David Brock as an authority on this subject, then surely we must also take into account books written on this subject by Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Bill Bennett, Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, and many others, yes?

Or does it make more sense to see this as one man's opinion and that the man is neither the divine authority nor the last word on the subject.

 

[VoiceOfReason]

Getting back on topic.

It's another example of the 'tin ear" of the left, not to mention hypocrisy.

If< and this is all we know now> Bush was advised by his Justice Dept that this was legal and he was spying on terro supsects, i.e not abusing the program, do yuo REALLY think he should be impeached for that? Especially given the make-up of the Senate-do you REALLY think it's good for the Country to to through that exercise?

That's mostly a rhetorical question because the left < and I agreed > sure didn't think that way when Clinton was in office.

Give me a break.

 

[aps]

Didn't Bush and company say that they don't listen to the polls? I wonder why he is so defensive on this issue since Americans supposedly overwhelmingly support his spy program. Hmmm, maybe he's trying to convince himself.

Bush on the offensive over secret spy program
President kicks off public relations campaign to counter controversy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10991763/

 

[VoiceOfReason]

Didn't Bush and company say that they don't listen to the polls? I wonder why he is so defensive on this issue since Americans supposedly overwhelmingly support his spy program. Hmmm, maybe he's trying to convince himself.

Bush on the offensive over secret spy program
President kicks off public relations campaign to counter controversy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10991763/

well you tell us. which is it? does he listen to polls or doesn't he?

If he does, as you imply, why is he going on the offensive?

 

[aps]

well you tell us. which is it? does he listen to polls or doesn't he?

If he does, as you imply, why is he going on the offensive?

He is clearly listening to the polls. He's going on the offensive because he knows he is on weak legal standing and he's hoping that by going on the offensive, people won't see it for what it is--trying to defend the spy program that violated FISA.

 

[oldreliable67]

A couple of additional comments from the media related to the speech today by Bush and appearances over the weekend by various folks:

Pres adviser Dan Bartlett:

"We consulted at the highest levels of the leadership and the intelligence committees, both Republican and Democrats, Senate and House," Bartlett told FOX News. "And the very conversation came up as to whether we should go and try to change law and the fact of the matter is, during those consultations, the conclusion was 'no,' the president had the authority to do what he was doing, the program was vital to the security of the American people. So we went forward, continuing to brief them as appropriate."

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich:

"The president's program on surveillance is an essential program to help keep America safe," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich. "We've got some disagreements on exactly where we move from here, how many people are briefed on the program."

Hoekstra told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that in the 15 months that he has been chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, he has been briefed on the program four times.

Gen. Michael Hayden

Gen. Michael Hayden said the NSA program was more effective than the FISA system because investigators were able to target suspected communications if they had "reason to believe" that someone is connected to Al Qaeda, rather than the "probable cause" standard required by the FISA court. The difference, he said, is that the detection methods don't target individuals but trap communications. The probable cause standard, on the other hand, relates to individuals.

Hayden made clear NSA has often used FISA, especially after Sept. 11, but that in some cases, it is not as effective.

"The purpose of all of this is not to collect reams of intelligence, but to detect and prevent attacks. The intelligence community has neither the time, the resources nor the legal authority to read communications that aren't likely to protect us. And NSA has no interest in doing so. These are communications that we have reason to believe are Al Qaeda communications," Hayden said.

Source.

 

[cnredd]

He is clearly listening to the polls. He's going on the offensive because he knows he is on weak legal standing and he's hoping that by going on the offensive, people won't see it for what it is--trying to defend the spy program that violated FISA.

You are confusing "listening to the polls" with "legislating according to the polls"...

There's a big difference between recognizing the polls are down and changing your opinon so they go back up and recognizing the polls are down and explaining your position which is unwavering...

 

[VoiceOfReason]

He is clearly listening to the polls. He's going on the offensive because he knows he is on weak legal standing and he's hoping that by going on the offensive, people won't see it for what it is--trying to defend the spy program that violated FISA.

Wait , I thought the polls supported what he is doing?You're contradicting yourself.

What influence would polls have on the legality of the thing ? Are ' the people ' going to decide that?

BTW, do you think he should be impeached for doing this?

 

[aps]

Wait , I thought the polls supported what he is doing?You're contradicting yourself.

Some polls support him more than others. If you notice, I said "supposedly" regarding the polls supporting him.

What influence would polls have on the legality of the thing ? Are ' the people ' going to decide that?

I'm not sure. I just see him going out of his way to defend the program.

BTW, do you think he should be impeached for doing this?

I don't know.

 

[VoiceOfReason]

Sounds to me like you just wanted to a cheap shot with that poll comment.

If he said nothing at all bout this, would you be accusing him of haughtiness and arrogance? C'mon, the truth?

 

[aps]

A couple of additional comments from the media related to the speech today by Bush and appearances over the weekend by various folks:

Pres adviser Dan Bartlett:

"We consulted at the highest levels of the leadership and the intelligence committees, both Republican and Democrats, Senate and House," Bartlett told FOX News. "And the very conversation came up as to whether we should go and try to change law and the fact of the matter is, during those consultations, the conclusion was 'no,' the president had the authority to do what he was doing, the program was vital to the security of the American people. So we went forward, continuing to brief them as appropriate."

Hmmm, does that conflict at all with what Gonzales said at his press conference on December 19, 2005?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: This is not a backdoor approach. We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance. We have had discussions with Congress in the past -- certain members of Congress -- as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html

Okay, so on one hand, the Bushies say that because Bush had the authority under Article II, they didn't need to amend FISA.

But on the other hand, the Bushies say that because the legislation passed after 9-11, Bush had the authority. But Gonzales also points out they had spoken to certain members of Congress who told them it would be "impossible" to amend FISA.

I would call that a contradiction if I ever saw one.

 

[VoiceOfReason]

Pres adviser Dan Bartlett:



Hmmm, does that conflict at all with what Gonzales said at his press conference on December 19, 2005?



Okay, so on one hand, the Bushies say that because Bush had the authority under Article II, they didn't need to amend FISA.

But on the other hand, the Bushies say that because the legislation passed after 9-11, Bush had the authority. But Gonzales also points out they had spoken to certain members of Congress who told them it would be "impossible" to amend FISA.

I would call that a contradiction if I ever saw one.

It would be if Gonzales made both statements.

One statement is by a spokesman, whose expertise is PR, not the law. The other was by a lawyer, whose expertise is the law.

 

[cnredd]

Pres adviser Dan Bartlett:



Hmmm, does that conflict at all with what Gonzales said at his press conference on December 19, 2005?



Okay, so on one hand, the Bushies say that because Bush had the authority under Article II, they didn't need to amend FISA.

But on the other hand, the Bushies say that because the legislation passed after 9-11, Bush had the authority. But Gonzales also points out they had spoken to certain members of Congress who told them it would be "impossible" to amend FISA.

I would call that a contradiction if I ever saw one.

Try again...

"We consulted at the highest levels of the leadership and the intelligence committees, both Republican and Democrats, Senate and House,"

We have had discussions with Congress in the past -- certain members of Congress

You are making the broadbased assumption that...

a) These are the exact same people...

b) They were the exact same meetings...

If Gonzales was referring to questioning people like Kennedy & Biden...who told Gonzales "no dice", and Bartlett was referring to Intelligence Committee members...who told Bartlett "GWB has the authority"...

...then that sounds like two different conversations...thus, no contradictions...

 

[oldreliable67]

But on the other hand, the Bushies say that because the legislation passed after 9-11, Bush had the authority. But Gonzales also points out they had spoken to certain members of Congress who told them it would be "impossible" to amend FISA.

I would call that a contradiction if I ever saw one.

I think if you go back and use the whole quote, the AG also said words to the effect that, it was "impossible to do so without compromising the technology". Just my impression: the admin explored new legislation but opted for not doing so because they felt they had the "inherent authority" as a backstop and chose to rely on that authority rather than put the program at risk by revealing too much of the technology and/or capabilities in the legislative process. YMMV. I know I put that quote up on one of the multitudinous threads on this topic - will see if I can locate it.

 

[aps]

Try again...

You are making the broadbased assumption that...

a) These are the exact same people...

b) They were the exact same meetings...

If Gonzales was referring to questioning people like Kennedy & Biden...who told Gonzales "no dice", and Bartlett was referring to Intelligence Committee members...who told Bartlett "GWB has the authority"...

...then that sounds like two different conversations...thus, no contradictions...

cnredd, you're better than I thought. That's an interesting way to read those two statements. That is possible.

And VoiceofReason, I was sure that Bartlett was an attorney since he is "Counselor to the President," but you are right--he is not.

oldreliable--okay okay.

How dare you three try to rain on my contradiction parade! :naughty

 

[oldreliable67]

Note the added considerations about "killing the program" from the AG quote:

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. [emphasis added] And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.

Source same as furnished by aps.

 

[aps]

Note the added considerations about "killing the program" from the AG quote:



Source same as furnished by aps.

Hmmmm. Interesting......

Well, I find it hard to believe that his use of "impossible" was related to the possibility of jeopardizing the program.