Posted on 04/07/2006 10:28:42 PM PDT by CyberAnt
Dems' Falsely Attack The President For "Leaking" Information That Was Declassified Legally And Appropriately (3 years ago).
FACT: The President And The Vice President Have The Authority To Declassify Information:
Vice President Cheney: "There is an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and it, obviously, focuses first and foremost on the President, but also includes the Vice President." (Fox News' "Special Report," 2/15/06)
"Cheney Was Referring To Executive Order 13292, Issued By President Bush On March 25, 2003, Which Dealt With The Handling Of Classified Material. That Order Was Not An Entirely New Document But Was, Instead, An Amendment To An Earlier Executive Order, Number 12958, Issued By President Bill Clinton On April 17, 1995." (Byron York, Op-Ed, "The Little-Noticed Order That Gave Dick Cheney New Power," National Review, 2/16/06)
FACT: On July 18, 2003, The NIE Was Formally Declassified Asserting "Compelling Evidence" Saddam Hussein Was "Intent On Acquiring" WMDs:
On July 18, 2003, CNN's Suzanne Malveaux Reported: "The White House declassified a small portion of the National Intelligence Estimate, eight of the 90 pages. It is a report from the six intelligence agencies that was used to shape President Bush's State of the Union address. It was also used to bolster his case for the war and the claim that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Africa." (CNN's "Live From," 7/18/03)
"The White House ... Released Newly Declassified Intelligence And Dispatched A Senior Administration Official To Explain How Erroneous Material Ended Up In The State Of The Union Address." (Joseph Curl, "White House Buttresses Iraq Claim," The Washington Times, 7/19/03)
"The Intelligence Declassified [July 18th, 2003] - Portions Of The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate [NIE], A U.S. Intelligence Summary Based On The Work Of Six Agencies - Asserts 'Compelling Evidence' That Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein Was 'Intent On Acquiring' Nuclear-Weapons Material." (Joseph Curl, "White House Buttresses Iraq Claim," The Washington Times, 7/19/03)
FACT: Valerie Plame's Name Does Not Even Appear In The Declassified NIE:
"Libby Testified That He Was Specifically Authorized To Disclose The Key Judgments Of The Classified Intelligence Document ..." (Pete Yost, "Bush, Cheney Directed Libby's Leak Campaign On Iraq Critics, Court Papers Indicate," The Associated Press, 4/7/06)
A Complete Search Of The Declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Reveals No Mention Of Valerie Plame. ("Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Program," Director Of Central Intelligence, October 2002)
FACT: According To Media Reports, There Is No Indication The President Or Vice President Authorized Disclosing The Identity Of Valerie Plame:
The Associated Press: "There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity." (Pete Yost, "Bush Authorized Leak Of Intelligence Data On Iraq, Says New Court Filing In CIA Leak Case," The Associated Press, 4/6/06)
Los Angeles Times: "The court filing makes no allegation that Bush ... encouraged or authorized the disclosure of [Plame's] identity." (Richard B. Schmitt And Peter Wallsten, "The Washington Leaks," Los Angeles Times, 4/7/06)
The Washington Post: "Legal experts say that President Bush had the unquestionable authority to approve the disclosure of secret CIA information to reporters ..." (Michael A. Fletcher, "Experts: Tactic Would Be Legal But Unusual," The Washington Post, 4/7/06)
Fox News' Carl Cameron: "[E]ven the prosecutor doesn't question the President's authority and power to declassify information ..." (Fox News' "Special Report," 04/6/06)
FACT: In 2002 And 2003, Dems Repeatedly Called For Declassifying More Data About Iraq:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): "[I] don't think that he presented enough evidence [on Iraq] for us to assess the threat in the manner that he does." (National Public Radio's "Morning Edition," 1/29/03)
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA): "This government is able to declassify documents quickly when necessary. ... That's the process that should be followed now." (NPR "All Things Considered," 5/2/03)
"[S]everal Senators Press[ed] The CIA To Declassify More Data About Iraq." (Frank Davies, "Democrats Urge Focus On Terror Instead Of Iraq," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/5/02)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): "It's troubling to have classified information that contradicts statements made by the administration ... There's more they should share with the public." (Frank Davies, "Democrats Urge Focus On Terror Instead Of Iraq," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/5/02)
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI): "There were some very difficult moments in [a hearing], relative to the CIA giving us timely information." (Frank Davies, "Democrats Urge Focus On Terror Instead Of Iraq," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/5/02)
Now Dems Criticize President Bush For Answering Their Calls And Falsely Claim President Bush "Leaked" Classified Information:
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): "I am troubled by news reports that President Bush may have authorized Mr. Libby to disclose intelligence information to support the Administration's case for war in Iraq." (Rep. Pelosi, "Intelligence Must Never Be Classified or Declassified For Political Purposes" Press Release, 4/6/06)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): "[T]hey were disclosing secret classified information from the national intelligence estimate to the press in hopes of bolstering the President's popularity. It is a grave disappointment." (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, p. S3186, 4/6/06)
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA): "I am absolutely stunned at the news. Our President turns out to be leaker in chief." (NBC's "Nightly News," 4/6/06)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): "[T]he fact is that the bottom line remains that if the President of the United States is authorizing for political purposes the release of classified information, you have a very serious issue." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 4/6/06)
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): "In light of today's shocking revelation, President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information. The American people must know the truth." (Sen. Harry Reid, "Reid: President Bush Must Disclose His Role In The Leak Of Classified Information," Press Release, 4/6/06)
DNC Chair Howard Dean: "The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put the interests of his political party ahead of America's security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe." (Pete Yost, "Bush Authorized Leak Of Intelligence Data On Iraq, Says New Court Filing In CIA Leak Case," The Associated Press, 4/6/06)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): "At the very least, President Bush and Vice President Cheney should fully inform the American people of any role in allowing classified information to be leaked." (Pete Yost, "Bush Authorized Leak Of Intelligence Data On Iraq, Says New Court Filing In CIA Leak Case," The Associated Press, 4/6/06)
This is all just a smokescreen to minimize to damage to the Dems when the arrests come down for the illegal leaks of the NSA program.
There is a huge difference comparing the release of noncurrent declassified intel about an about of power regime and a current top secret program which is protecting the country.
They will claim "Bush did it too!"
HI....I would like to use this information, but am having trouble finding it, as you posted it, on the RNC site. Do you have a direct link? TIA
The point is the CIA allowed Joe Wilson a known Democrat Hack and Bush hater go on this Fact finding mission to Niger at the behest of his wife Valerie Plame a CIA employee ,a case of nepotism which is illegal,and then to lie about it in his New York Times piece and get away without The Bush administration being able to respond because the information the Congress had refuting his lies was confidential .So the Bush administration tries to get thr truth out and they are accused of trying to out Valerie Plame ,which of course the allies in the commie press just jump on the story and before you know it old Joe wilson is the poor oppressed victim instead of the key perpetrator along with traitors in the CIA and State dept and the the press.
"Yeah, he leaked it, but so what? They all do it! And Bush did it for crass political purposes of trying to discredit a fine upstanding whistleblower by endangering his CIA agent wife! Rockefeller did it because he had to stop the abuse of the Constitution by this DangerouslyIncompetentTM administration."
"Yeah, that's the ticket."
I totally agree. One could argue that Joe Wilson's OpEd pieces were an disgusting leak of Classified info.
Unfortunately, the Repubs bunker mentality allows the Dems get away with it. Joe Wilson should have been arrested IMHO.
The only thing wrong with your defense of Rockefeller is that there IS NOT AN EXECUTIVE ORDER allowing him to "leak" any information he's been given.
If you go back to the "memogate" scandal where the repubs found the Rockefeller memos saying they were going to use their positions on the Intel Committee to take Bush down. Rockefeller has tried to do just that. Rockefeller is also the guy who travelled to the Middle East and told them we WERE GOING TO ATTACK IRAQ. That was also classified info.
Sorry .. Rockefeller is not THE PRESIDENT OR THE VP - both the President and the VP ARE BY LAW ALLOWED TO DE-CLASSIFY INFORMATION. The information supposedly "leaked" by Bush had been DE-CLASSIFIED for over 3 years.
You're talking apples and oranges and your theory is all wet!
You misunderstand me completely. I'm not defending Rockefeller. I'm saying this is what the dims will try and do and their mouth pieces in the MSM will completely ignore the facts that you mention. You probably need some more coffee if you read what I said and thought I was DEFENDING the rat!
You missed the Jon Lovitz "that's the ticket" reference? Or do you not have a clue about either satire or that particular cultural allusion? C'mon, you gotta work with me here!
Clinton was not impeached for BJs in the oval office - he was impeached FOR LYING UNDER OATH. He lost his licence to practice law for 5 years, he signed a document from the Prosecutor in which he admitted he had lied under oath, he received a letter from the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT forbidding him from EVER bringing a case before that court.
But .. notice how differently the dems reacted to Clinton's LYING vs. Nixon's cover-up. Clinton's whole cabinet stood before the public and LIED that they didn't know what was going on. Then Gore stood up and proclaimed Clinton would go down in history as the greatest president.
As for Nixon .. he covered up what his staff did at the Watergate Hotel. If he had brought it all out in the open, and fired all who were involved - I don't believe he would have had to resign. Don't ever let anyone tell you Nixon planned the Watergate - he didn't - but when he found out about it - he chose to cover it up.
At that time there was a full democrat house and senate. They immediately began drawing up articles of impeachment. However, Nixon was more concerned with not dragging America through such a spectacle, than he was in resigning. When the cowardly repubs from the house and senate confronted him - Nixon caved to their demands and resigned. What the media fails to tell people is that the articles of impeachment were voted upon - and they failed. There was no proof Nixon ever knew anything about the break-in to the Watergate Hotel. Nixon would not have been impeached - so he had resigned for no reason except to appease the repubs in congress.
And .. guess who one of the lawyers was for the Nixon impeachment - none other than HILLARY CLINTON.
But .. this time around .. the impeachment of Bush is more about getting back at Bush for WINNING ELECTIONS. The dems still have not gotten over losing 2000. And .. the media has failed to tell the "kooks" that some of the premier left-wing newspapers in the country joined together and one year after the election - according to law - these newspapers (WP, Boston Globe, NYT, etc.) sent teams down to Florida and RE-COUNTED THE BALLOTS. Funny thing about that recount - I believe it showed Bush actually won by over 1500 votes - not the 537 the dems allowed him to have. So .. GORE DID NOT WIN 2000 - and Bush did not steal 2000.
While the dems say that with 64,000 votes (which is an incorrect number) Kerry would have won Ohio and would have had the electoral college votes needed to win, the real number Kerry needed was over 100,000 votes (because that was the margin of win over Kerry by Bush in OH) - which means Kerry needed more than that in order to win Ohio.
And .. Bush had more than FOUR MILLION more popular votes than Kerry. And .. although Gore had 400,000 or so more popular votes than Bush - of course winning FL gave the electoral votes to Bush.
This popular vote thing is what started the "scrap the electoral college" movement. It's still going - even though Bush won both the electoral college and the popular vote in 2004.
Neither election was stolen .. the dems lie to the "kooks" and the "kooks" are so ignorant they believe the junk.
But .. with Bush .. threatening to "impeach" him is falling on deaf ears because hopefully even the cowardly repubs (who are the majority) in both the house and senate would never allow that to happen.
THIS IS WHY THE NEXT ELECTION IS SO CRUCIAL. I WILL HOLD MY NOSE AND VOTE FOR SOME REPUBS I DON'T LIKE (like Arnold for Gov), but my house repub is already a strong repub so all I only have to vote for is pres in 2008. And even then - if I have to vote for McCain to keep Hillary out of the WH - I would do it - but I seriously doubt he can win the nomination.
You're right - this has got to stop - but the dems will keep trying - because when they tried to impeach Nixon, they were at the height of their power and they want to be back there again. And .. I do believe Hillary is guiding this little impeachment stuff because it's HER REVENGE at the repubs for impeaching her husband.
I saw your "sarcasm" tag - but writing that kind of erroneous stuff even as sarcasm is very dangerous. A lot of people will not read to the end and see the tag - and I just wanted to get the real reason out there in the discussion. And .. what you said was really not "sarcasm" to me - because although there was an element of truth in what you said, sarcasm is saying the opposite of what the real truth is - to the point of being ridiculous.
Starr was too moderate to stomach the hard as nails backbone required to fight through such an investigation. While I believe there was plenty of evidence to support a case of selling technology to our enemies for donations - nobody had the stomach for it. And .. the Clinton machine was very formiddable in those days - not so today.
And .. at the time .. the internet was not the tool for truth that it is today. While the drive-by media continues to put out erroneous stuff - between FOX News and the internet - we can counter it with the truth in very short order.
Usually, when I post this kind of story - it's from an email that I receive from the RNC Research. Then, I go to either RNC.org or GOP.com - click on NEWS and then click on THE RESEARCH NEWS STAND. There is where I usually find the info that was in the email.
I don't find it there either. You might want to contact somebody you know in the RNC and ask them for a link to the article - if there is one.
HOWEVER, PLEASE NOTE THAT EACH STATEMENT IN THE E-MAIL IS "SOURCED MATERIAL" - so you shouldn't have any difficulty using it.
thank you!
http://www.gop.com/media/PDFs/4606DemHypocrisy.pdf
Here ya go! At the bottom of the email is a PDF file link and that is the link I should have posted.
Hope this helps!
Bump
Ah, Sen Dick Durbin (D-Hypocrite) ...
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): "It's troubling to have classified information that contradicts statements made by the administration ... There's more they should share with the public." (Frank Davies, "Democrats Urge Focus On Terror Instead Of Iraq," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/5/02)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): "[T]hey were disclosing secret classified information from the national intelligence estimate to the press in hopes of bolstering the President's popularity. It is a grave disappointment." (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, p. S3186, 4/6/06)
Doesn't this whole mess boil down to somebody within our government was trying to protect Saddam. Joe Wilson was "selected" to produce the "INTEL" that would make the case that Saddam wasn't nearly as bad as the world thought.
bump
Of course .. part of the reason was that Russia, France and Germany had very lucrative contracts with Saddam and some of the equipment and arms they had sold to Saddam had not been paid for .. meaning those 3 countries would be out millions of dollars.
Personally, I believe Bill Clinton was involved in those deals - I don't have any evidence, but when the run-up to the war started, Clinton was all over Europe (on the pretense of hawking Hillary's book), and he was twisting the arms of smaller countries on the Security Council to keep them from voting for going to war, which was a direct act against his own country. You want a TREASONOUS ACT - there ya go!
And .. while he was doing that .. Rockefeller was flitting all over the Middle East warning the Arab nations that Bush was going to attack Iraq. This was classified information. You want a TREASONOUS ACT - there ya go!
Please explain this to me. Why do they keep saying Bush "never de-classified the info before he spoke of it"?
Because the dems have no other message except "Bush lied".
Even though Saddam's papers which are not being revealed - PROVE BUSH WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG. Saddam was just waiting for sanctions to be lifted and he was going to restart his WMD programs.
The second reason they lie is because the "kook left" wants to hear that .. they don't want to hear that Bush might have been right.
Remember these are the same people whose mantra is "Bush stole the election in 2000" .. the "kook left" bought into it and the "kook left" has chosen to believe Bush lied about everything. The dems consult daily with "DailyKos" to get their talking points. The dems have already gone off the cliff and they just aren't smart enough to figure it out. You can't allow 5-6 percent of your base to direct what the party does as a whole.
Oh yes, this is a confirmation of part of what I just told you:
Leaky News Judgment
From The Wall Street Journal
Editorial
April 8, 2005
PDF Format
"[L]eak" has always been a slovenly word, but this is absurd. No one disputes that the President has the authority to declassify documents or to authorize the disclosure of secret information. But never mind the facts. ... In Congress, Democrats were quick to jump on the exploitation wagon. Perpetually affronted Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called the revelation "shocking," and Jane Harman, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, branded President Bush "leaker-in-chief." ....
So what "leak" did Mr. Bush authorize? Not the disclosure of Ms. Plame's name and the fact that she was employed by the CIA -- revelations that under certain circumstances could be considered a crime. ....
Rather, the President is believed to have authorized the disclosure of portions of the NIE to counter illegal leaks that had distorted its contents. He did so both to correct the record and to fight back against critics such as Ms. Plame's husband Joseph Wilson, who were accusing him of lying about Iraq. ...
Surely the President has a right -- even a duty -- to set the record straight. ...
To View Entire Article Please Visit: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114445000371420611.html?mod=todays_us_opinion (Subscription Required)
_______________
And .. the President and VP have an executive order to DE-CLASSIFY documents - Clinton wrote the EO - and Bush just amended it. I don't recall the dems having a cow when Clinton de-classified documents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.