# Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

OUCH!!!

Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.

But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.

The authorization came as the Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the president and his aides had given for going to war.

Libby's participation in a critical conversation with Miller on July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate," the papers by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stated. The filing did not specify the "certain information."

"Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller - getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval - were unique in his recollection," the papers added.

Libby is asking for voluminous amounts of classified information from the government in order to defend himself against five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in the Plame affair

He is accused of making false statements about how he learned of Plame's CIA employment and what he told reporters about it.

Her CIA status was publicly disclosed eight days after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

In 2002, Wilson had been dispatched to Africa by the CIA to check out intelligence that Iraq had an agreement to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger, and Wilson had concluded that there was no such arrangement.

Libby says he needs extensive classified files from the government to demonstrate that Plame's CIA connection was a peripheral matter that he never focused on, and that the role of Wilson's wife was a small piece in a building public controversy over the failure to find WMD in Iraq.

Fitzgerald said in the new court filing that Libby's requests for information go too far and the prosecutor cited Libby's own statements to investigators in an attempt to limit the amount of information the government must turn over to Cheney's former chief of staff for his criminal defense.

According to Miller's grand jury testimony, Libby told her about Plame's CIA status in the July 8, 2003 conversation that took place shortly after the White House aide - according to the new court filing - was authorized by Bush through Cheney to disclose sensitive intelligence about Iraq and WMD contained in a National Intelligence Estimate.

The court filing was first disclosed by The New York Sun.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Glad to see you hopped on this one before I did. It is sick to see a president who is willing to sacrafice the security of our nation, our secret agents and those they work with for political payback.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

President Clinton's decision to give Iran doctored blueprints for key nuclear components that allowed the Iranians, in Risen's words, to "leapfrog one of the last remaining engineering hurdles blocking its path to a nuclear weapon.

Hows that for sacrificing the nations security.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The only difference being that the Clinton case was done with good intentions, to throw Iran off course in order to slow their progress, as opposed to Bush, who gave the thumbs up to leaking one of our nation's own spys for payback.

Excerpt from the court papers



> Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversations with reporter Miller - getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval - were unique in his recollection. *Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the vice president to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare 'on the record' statement, and to provide 'background' and 'deep background' statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson.* During the conversations that followed on July 12, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson's employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time). Even if someone else in some other agency thought that the controversy about Mr. Wilson and/or his wife was a trifle, that person's state of mind would be irrelevant to the importance and focus defendant placed on the matter and the importance he attached to the surrounding conversations he was directed to engaged in by the vice president."


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> The only difference being that the Clinton case was done with good intentions


What is it they say about the road to hell?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I'm certain the shortcut to hell is selling out one's own nation and or secret agents for political payback.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Good intentions, what kinda freakin dunce gives anything to the Iranians pertaining to nuclear weapons.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> President Clinton's decision to give Iran doctored blueprints for key nuclear components that allowed the Iranians, in Risen's words, to "leapfrog one of the last remaining engineering hurdles blocking its path to a nuclear weapon.
> 
> Hows that for sacrificing the nations security.


I find it quite amusing that the conservatives on this board continue to accuse liberals of "spin", while they address an allegation of Bush misconduct with a comparison to Clinton. What does Clinton's actions with Iran have to do with Bush's alleged release of intelligence information? Does this fall under the term, "moral relativism"... oh, wait, that's supposed to be a liberal tactic.

Nice try, racer.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Every politician out there does something stupid once in a while that offends everyone. Then there are some that do stupid things often. We would often do better addressing policy in place of people.

I think it was Lincoln that said " you can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time". I would like to modify that to fit the politicians instead of the people. It should go something like this: " some of the politicians do stupid things some of the time, some of the politicians do stupid things all of the time, but not all of the politicians do stupid things all of the time".

A current stupid thing that most of the politicians are doing (perhaps not doing is a better description) is taking care of the unsecured boarder, and dealing with illegal aliens.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I'm afraid calling it a "stupid mistake" won't get Bush nor his administration off the hook on this one. This was purposeful payback against someone whose husband had opposed this administration's policy. Not only do their thug tactics show what little regard they hold for opposing opinions, but it also shows what lengths they are willing to go to just to prove a point. Namely, threatening the life of a spy, every one of their associates, and possibly our national security.

Plainsman I ask myself what it will take for you to denounce this administration. When an issue this serious arises it is time to cut political ties and look at the bigger picture.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

And because scooter libby said it it is absolutely, 100% true? I believe Barry Bonds said he never used steroids knowingly also.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> And because scooter libby said it it is absolutely, 100% true? I believe Barry Bonds said he never used steroids knowingly also.


Well, Cheney trusted him enough to make him his chief of staff and advisor to the president. I don't see why we shouldn't trust him now.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

And because scooter libby said it it is absolutely, 100% true? I believe Barry Bonds said he never used steroids knowingly also.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Strange that the report doesn't mention that the President first declassified the information that Libby put out. Not much of a leak since it was then available to anyone that wanted to see it. The game played was first declassification from secret to unclassified without anyone knowing it had been declassified. Then Libby was safe to disclose the information. Bottom line is classified information was not leaked. These games are played all the time in Washington and if you don't know that by now then you haven't paid much attention. Anyone really think the President didn't know this information would be public sooner or later....


----------



## wyogoose (Feb 11, 2006)

Good work Gohan. You took the words right out of my mouth. MT would trust anybody or anything said as long as it was negative towards Bush.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Gohon this one went over your head. You see, the president released information which outed a secret agent for political payback. Libby was but a pawn in the act.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gohon, thank you for the reminder. Us old guys forget things. Time will tell what really happened. Meanwhile, I'm just going to sit back and wait for more information.

This is like coyote trapping, the young dumb ones take the bait first.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> the president released information which outed a secret agent


Christ, don't you ever get anything right. The information the President authorized Libby to talk about was about prewar intelligence on Iraq. Go back up and read the OP's post and try not to skim over it this time. Pay particular attention to this section......


> was authorized by Bush through Cheney to disclose sensitive intelligence about Iraq and WMD contained in a National Intelligence Estimate.


 Over my head..... :laugh:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Bush gave the thumbs up to the documents being declassified, and in doing so endangered the life of Valerie Plame, possibly her associates and possibly our national security. Libby was told to talk about the subject with a reporter.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I thought I would give this forum another chance and I threw this post up because Like Bobm I find current events to be interesting and educational. In the back of my mind I was wondering how long it would take for it to turn into a right vs. left spin it pissing match. It only took two additional posts. Un-frigginbelievable :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

If any of you had the political insight and knowledge you claim to have seems to me you would be interested in proving the "liberal Media" wrong and posting up some of your own information to disprove the allegation that President Bush is accused of, instead you choose to dig up a has been from 10 years ago and beat a dead horse to shift blame and bolster your cause what ever that may be.

You guys don't give a crap about current events just your own fragile egos.

I am done with this forum. It is of no benefit to nodakoutdoors that I can see.

You all just go ahead a rip me apart if you wish I could care less.

For the record IMO it (the original post) is just another smear campaign,the truth will come out eventually, it will not have any connection to a has been from 10 years ago. The legal system in today's environment will do whatever it takes to make their clients look like a poor misunderstood pinion. Blaming higher authority is not beyond the limits they will go to for "reasonable doubt"

Bob


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Bob, why would someone want to prove something wrong that is probable true. Bush is not being accused of anything in the sense that he did something wrong. Libby simply has said that Cheney gave him authorization to let out certain declassified Iraq pre war intelligence reports, and that the President had said it was okay because he had declassified them. Remember, Libby did work for Cheney so it is no surprise where the original authorization came from. This had nothing to do with Valerie Plame as MT wants to turn it into.

With all due respect I get the impression that your disappointment that no one is rushing to post information to disprove the allegation is because you expected to see another mud slinging thread. I may well be very wrong and if so I apologize but again, I don't see the big deal about the article anyway. Nothing illegal or immoral that I can see. Just politics as usual and the only thing that is identifiable in the article at present as being wrong is the use of the word leaks. You can't leak something that is available to the public. Just because the public didn't know it was available doesn't make it less so.........


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Bush is not being accused of anything in the sense that he did something wrong.


You don't consider outing a secret agent for political payback wrong? Because that is what he is accused of.


----------

