Comments on: Two Things To Keep In Mind About The President And Joe Wilson

By: Louisiana Libertarian » Blog Archive » RINO Sightings

Louisiana Libertarian » Blog Archive » RINO Sightings — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 03:18:06 +0000

[...] Decision ‘08 has a post about how the liberal media is misrepresenting Scooter Libby’s claims that Bush authorized the leak. [...]

By: topsecretk9

topsecretk9 — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 00:30:07 +0000

then he certainly has an obligation to be forthcoming about why we used discredited and obsolete intelligence to invade Iraq, among many other things.

It is certainly ashamed the CIA provided their boss, the President such discredited and obsolete intelligence and I wonder why Bush wasn’t more forthcoming about the agencies incompetence and negligence. It would have certainly been an eye-opener that that years of intelligence gathering by the CIA in WINPAC was 1- a waste of time and resources and 2- so dangerously careless.

By: peter

peter — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 16:01:55 +0000

Well, first of all, it is a leak. Assuming Libby’s deposition is correct, when you have a proxy (i.e., Libby) reveal classified information to a reporter, describe it as classified, and ask her to identify the source as a retired Hill staffer, then you have leaked information.

Secondly, if “the President has an obligation to set the record straight,” then he certainly has an obligation to be forthcoming about why we used discredited and obsolete intelligence to invade Iraq, among many other things.

This is not about setting the record straight. It is about a Presidency on the defensive striking out against those who (correctly) challenged the rationale for going to war.

By: too many steves

too many steves — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:26:13 +0000

And the Boston Globe continues, in today’s edition, to call it a “leak” (and so does Peter): “White House defends CIA data leak”, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/08/white_house_defends_cia_data_leak/

As has been said by others, in the face of criticism, lies, and misinformation, the President has an obligation to set the record straight. In that context, declassifying and releasing the information is the opposite of unethical and immoral.

By: topsecretk9

topsecretk9 — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:33:49 +0000

case the rebuttal would be evidence that Iraq had nuclear plans which justified an invasion, and not a personal attack on Wilson or his wife.

Then Wilson shouldn’t have lied to reporters telling them Cheney sent him, then reporters wouldn’t be asking the WH and OVP if Cheney sent him. Wilson had NO regard for his wife’s status when he lied.

By: peter

peter — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:22:56 +0000

The President is certainly entitled to rebut his critics, but in this case the rebuttal would be evidence that Iraq had nuclear plans which justified an invasion, and not a personal attack on Wilson or his wife. It should certainly not include the leaks of classified information. As Bush said in September 2003, “”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 appropriate action.” If Libby’s claim that Bush authorized the leaks is true, then you can include the September quote in the pile of other Bush statements which are now (to quote Ron Ziegler) inoperative.

By: Muffin the Cat

Muffin the Cat — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:19:33 +0000

Mark,

A “teensy bit out of proportion”. A monstrous bit out of proportion. The Kansas City “Red” Star covered it’s front page this morning with this “story”. I agree with Anonymous that you could find this action “immoral or unethical” but that is an opinion for the editorial page, not the front page. The “Star” referred to this “story” as a “scandal”. One of the problems I have with the LSM is that they have turned into a tabloid publication. They remind me of the Drudge Report. Totally sensationalized with no substance behind the story.

The only reason the Star comes into our house is because my wife likes to read the FYI section and comics. The rest of the paper is basically unread. The last time they wanted us to subscribe, it was offered at $5 a month.

By: All Things Beautiful

All Things Beautiful — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 22:03:03 +0000

The President Declassified

So, what is the breaking news story here? Properly declassified information has been released to the press who have demanded it ad nauseam. And? Equally if the President had not declassified the information the same accusers would be shouting him down …

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:50:28 +0000

Ummm, no, we’re not talking about all of those things. We’re talking about a report by Joe Wilson that involved the accuracy of intelligence that Saddam sought uranium from Niger. It was a part of the pre-war argument, but only a part. Regardless, it remains the case that the President is entitled to rebut arguments by his critics. Note that rebuttal in this case took the form of a National Intelligence Estimate, not just some random stuff pulled out of the President’s, um, posterior…

By: Dave Johnson

Dave Johnson — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:42:11 +0000

“Is it possible that Bush was out to discredit Wilson? Sure…it’s more than possible, it’s a reasonable assumption. After all, the President is entitled to rebut arguments by his critics.”

We are not talking about some game between the President and “critics.” We are talking about the Government of the United States making the case to invade another country, launching a war that has killed tens of thousands of people, potentially destabilized a region, and cost the United States upward of a trillion dollar (adding in ongoing costs like medical to injured vets…)

The question here is was it for the good of the country that the President authorized a covert leak of classified intelligence, or was it for other reasons? We should all be concerned about this. We all now know enough that it is clear it was not for the good of the country.