OT: Bush lies

What Bush said:

"There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington," he
said after the Plame news broke in 2003.

"There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the
legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And 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."


Well, I guess that the cause of the leak is question is quite a
mystery... Guffaw.

[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/06/politics/main1478822.shtml[/url]

"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:hk9842t64tkuk87sf12ah0c8fjbhsg7bp7@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> What Bush said:
>
> "There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington," he
> said after the Plame news broke in 2003.
>
> "There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the
> legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And 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."
>
>
> Well, I guess that the cause of the leak is question is quite a
> mystery... Guffaw.
>
> [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/06/politics/main1478822.shtml[/url]
>[/color]

The US President has the legal right to declassify information so long as no
laws are broken. Disclosing that Valerie Plume was a CIA operative would
have been illegal, but that is not the information that Bush declassified or
disclosed according to Libby.

So there is a big difference between the President legally declassifying
information (not leaking it), and classified information being leaked by
people (mostly Dems in Congress) without authorization and to other people
who do not have security clearance (the press).

So the big lie here is your post.

dizzy, 4/17/2006,7:40:37 PM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> What Bush said:
>
> "There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington," he
> said after the Plame news broke in 2003.
>
> "There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the
> legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And 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."
>
>
> Well, I guess that the cause of the leak is question is quite a
> mystery... Guffaw.
>
> [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/06/politics/main1478822.shtml[/url][/color]


Contrary to published reports, a State Department memorandum at the
center of the investigation into the leak of the name of a CIA
operative, Valerie Plame, appears to offer no particular indication
that Ms. Plame's role at the agency was classified or covert.
[url]http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=31062[/url]


It will come to pass that her identity was no secret and henceforth no
security leak was committed. You can keep on reaching as much as you
want, but nothing will come of this.

Mark A wrote:
[color=blue]
>"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> What Bush said:
>>
>> "There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington," he
>> said after the Plame news broke in 2003.
>>
>> "There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the
>> legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And 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."
>>
>> Well, I guess that the cause of the leak is question is quite a
>> mystery... Guffaw.
>>
>> [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/06/politics/main1478822.shtml[/url][/color]
>
>The US President has the legal right to declassify information so long as no
>laws are broken. Disclosing that Valerie Plume was a CIA operative would
>have been illegal, but that is not the information that Bush declassified or
>disclosed according to Libby.
>
>So there is a big difference between the President legally declassifying
>information (not leaking it),[/color]

Did he not refer to it as a leak?
[color=blue]
>and classified information being leaked by
>people (mostly Dems in Congress)[/color]

Typical right-wing bullshit.
[color=blue]
> without authorization and to other people
>who do not have security clearance (the press).[/color]

Did he not pretend to not know who was responsible for the leak?
Would that not be a lie?
[color=blue]
>So the big lie here is your post.[/color]

Nope. Seems to me that he lied about it.

"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:hpb84254f2muh4018m0lckr34kdasf7rd5@4ax.com...[color=blue]
>
> Did he not pretend to not know who was responsible for the leak?
> Would that not be a lie?
>[/color]

In your defense, the news reports about this incident are misleading. But if
you read them carefully you will find that Libby testified that Bush
authorized (legally) the release (not the leak) of certain aspects about the
Africa trip to find information about WMD. But Bush did not authorize the
leak or disclosure of information that Valerie Plume was a CIA operative
(which would have been illegal).

Please read the fine print of the news stories, and you will see that you
have been duped by CBS News (and some others).

Libby's defense is that he claims a reporter told him about Valerie Plume
being a CIA operative, so he did not think it was a problem discussing it
with a different reporter. Libby has never testified that either Bush or
Cheney authorized him, or told him to disclose, that Valerie Plume was a CIA
operative. Other information about the trip was declassified by Bush, but
that is perfectly legal if done by the President. Bush did that so that the
particulars of the evidence could be debated openly in a public forum
(especially after the Dems leaked information from Valerie's husband about
the Africa trip).

In article <hk9842t64tkuk87sf12ah0c8fjbhsg7bp7@4ax.com>,
dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> What Bush said:
>
> "There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington," he
> said after the Plame news broke in 2003.
>
> "There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the
> legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And 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."
>
>
> Well, I guess that the cause of the leak is question is quite a
> mystery... Guffaw.
>
> [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/06/politics/main1478822.shtml[/url][/color]

Once again providing a link to questionable source, CBS new??? What a
laugh.

Dizz you are a bitter person. Gore lost, get over it. Sheeezzzzz.
--
"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."

-- Vice President Al Gore

You can call selective leaking anything you want but it is still leaking.


"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OYKdnfRsaKqurtnZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com...[color=blue]
> "dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hpb84254f2muh4018m0lckr34kdasf7rd5@4ax.com...[color=green]
>>
>> Did he not pretend to not know who was responsible for the leak?
>> Would that not be a lie?
>>[/color]
>
> In your defense, the news reports about this incident are misleading. But
> if you read them carefully you will find that Libby testified that Bush
> authorized (legally) the release (not the leak) of certain aspects about
> the Africa trip to find information about WMD. But Bush did not authorize
> the leak or disclosure of information that Valerie Plume was a CIA
> operative (which would have been illegal).
>
> Please read the fine print of the news stories, and you will see that you
> have been duped by CBS News (and some others).
>
> Libby's defense is that he claims a reporter told him about Valerie Plume
> being a CIA operative, so he did not think it was a problem discussing it
> with a different reporter. Libby has never testified that either Bush or
> Cheney authorized him, or told him to disclose, that Valerie Plume was a
> CIA operative. Other information about the trip was declassified by Bush,
> but that is perfectly legal if done by the President. Bush did that so
> that the particulars of the evidence could be debated openly in a public
> forum (especially after the Dems leaked information from Valerie's husband
> about the Africa trip).
>[/color]

The memo itself was classified making all the information in it classified.


"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0el3g43lgtg000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> dizzy, 4/17/2006,7:40:37 PM, wrote:
>[color=green]
>> What Bush said:
>>
>> "There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington," he
>> said after the Plame news broke in 2003.
>>
>> "There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the
>> legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And 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."
>>
>>
>> Well, I guess that the cause of the leak is question is quite a
>> mystery... Guffaw.
>>
>> [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/06/politics/main1478822.shtml[/url][/color]
>
>
> Contrary to published reports, a State Department memorandum at the
> center of the investigation into the leak of the name of a CIA
> operative, Valerie Plame, appears to offer no particular indication
> that Ms. Plame's role at the agency was classified or covert.
> [url]http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=31062[/url]
>
>
> It will come to pass that her identity was no secret and henceforth no
> security leak was committed. You can keep on reaching as much as you
> want, but nothing will come of this.[/color]

Mark A wrote:[color=blue]
> "dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hk9842t64tkuk87sf12ah0c8fjbhsg7bp7@4ax.com...[color=green]
> > What Bush said:
> >
> > "There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington," he
> > said after the Plame news broke in 2003.
> >
> > "There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the
> > legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And 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."
> >
> >
> > Well, I guess that the cause of the leak is question is quite a
> > mystery... Guffaw.
> >
> > [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/06/politics/main1478822.shtml[/url]
> >[/color]
>
> The US President has the legal right to declassify information so long as no
> laws are broken.[/color]

There's the rub, my friend. The US President does NOT have the right
to declassify information for malicious intent, such as to sully the
reputation of a foe.

[color=blue]
> Disclosing that Valerie Plume was a CIA operative would
> have been illegal,[/color]

You think? (Do you think? Ever?)
[color=blue]
> but that is not the information that Bush declassified or
> disclosed according to Libby.[/color]

Libby is on trial for lying, not for leaking information, you buffoon.
[color=blue]
>
> So there is a big difference between the President legally declassifying
> information (not leaking it),[/color]

What is the difference, Poindexter?
[color=blue]
> and classified information being leaked by
> people (mostly Dems in Congress)[/color]

And the "Dems in Congress" were in the White House inner circle?
[color=blue]
> without authorization and to other people
> who do not have security clearance (the press).[/color]

Hey genius... how would the "Dems in Congress" and "the press" get
access to classified White House documents, lest they were already
leaked by the White House? Or....... unless Bush himself declassified
the documents, for obviously malicious reasons?
[color=blue]
>
> So the big lie here is your post.[/color]

FWAP FWAP FWAP. Here Dizzy, I'll hold him, and you can smack him in
the head repeatedly.

badgolferman wrote:[color=blue]
> dizzy, 4/17/2006,7:40:37 PM, wrote:
>[color=green]
> > What Bush said:
> >
> > "There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington," he
> > said after the Plame news broke in 2003.
> >
> > "There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the
> > legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And 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."
> >
> >
> > Well, I guess that the cause of the leak is question is quite a
> > mystery... Guffaw.
> >
> > [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/06/politics/main1478822.shtml[/url][/color]
>
>
> Contrary to published reports, a State Department memorandum at the
> center of the investigation into the leak of the name of a CIA
> operative, Valerie Plame, appears to offer no particular indication
> that Ms. Plame's role at the agency was classified or covert.
> [url]http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=31062[/url][/color]

BULL shit.
[color=blue]
>
>
> It will come to pass[/color]

Someone heard the Donald Rumsfeld interview on Rush recently.
[color=blue]
> that her identity was no secret and henceforth no
> security leak was committed.[/color]

The trial is about lying, not leaking. Keep up.

[color=blue]
> You can keep on reaching as much as you
> want, but nothing will come of this.[/color]

Lets see.... multiple felonies, ruined careers, high level White House
operatives permanently painted as traitors and pariahs... 60%
disapproval ratings for the Commander in Chief... High level
resignations under questionable circumstances... something has already
come of this!

It keeps getting better and better. Watch the Republicans fall like
dominoes.

On 18 Apr 2006 04:11:08 -0700, "Learning Richard"
<learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>Mark A wrote:[color=green]
>> "dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:hk9842t64tkuk87sf12ah0c8fjbhsg7bp7@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
>> > What Bush said:
>> >
>> > "There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington," he
>> > said after the Plame news broke in 2003.
>> >
>> > "There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the
>> > legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And 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."
>> >
>> >
>> > Well, I guess that the cause of the leak is question is quite a
>> > mystery... Guffaw.
>> >
>> > [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/06/politics/main1478822.shtml[/url]
>> >[/color]
>>
>> The US President has the legal right to declassify information so long as no
>> laws are broken.[/color]
>
>There's the rub, my friend. The US President does NOT have the right
>to declassify information for malicious intent, such as to sully the
>reputation of a foe.
>[/color]
Welllll. He can do it for whatever reason he wants, but it can come
back to haunt him. In this case, it's quite similar to what happened
with Clinton. It's not that he DID it, it's that he LIED to cover it
up.


[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> Disclosing that Valerie Plume was a CIA operative would
>> have been illegal,[/color]
>
>You think? (Do you think? Ever?)
>[color=green]
>> but that is not the information that Bush declassified or
>> disclosed according to Libby.[/color]
>
>Libby is on trial for lying, not for leaking information, you buffoon.
>[color=green]
>>
>> So there is a big difference between the President legally declassifying
>> information (not leaking it),[/color]
>
>What is the difference, Poindexter?
>[color=green]
>> and classified information being leaked by
>> people (mostly Dems in Congress)[/color]
>
>And the "Dems in Congress" were in the White House inner circle?
>[color=green]
>> without authorization and to other people
>> who do not have security clearance (the press).[/color]
>
>Hey genius... how would the "Dems in Congress" and "the press" get
>access to classified White House documents, lest they were already
>leaked by the White House? Or....... unless Bush himself declassified
>the documents, for obviously malicious reasons?
>[color=green]
>>
>> So the big lie here is your post.[/color]
>
>FWAP FWAP FWAP. Here Dizzy, I'll hold him, and you can smack him in
>the head repeatedly.[/color]
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================

Gary L. Burnore wrote:[color=blue]
> On 18 Apr 2006 04:11:08 -0700, "Learning Richard"
> <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >
> >Mark A wrote:[color=darkred]
> >> "dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:hk9842t64tkuk87sf12ah0c8fjbhsg7bp7@4ax.com...
> >> > What Bush said:
> >> >
> >> > "There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington," he
> >> > said after the Plame news broke in 2003.
> >> >
> >> > "There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the
> >> > legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And 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."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Well, I guess that the cause of the leak is question is quite a
> >> > mystery... Guffaw.
> >> >
> >> > [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/06/politics/main1478822.shtml[/url]
> >> >
> >>
> >> The US President has the legal right to declassify information so long as no
> >> laws are broken.[/color]
> >
> >There's the rub, my friend. The US President does NOT have the right
> >to declassify information for malicious intent, such as to sully the
> >reputation of a foe.
> >[/color]
> Welllll. He can do it for whatever reason he wants,[/color]

Oh no he can't. The President is not above the law.
[color=blue]
> but it can come
> back to haunt him. In this case, it's quite similar to what happened
> with Clinton. It's not that he DID it, it's that he LIED to cover it
> up.[/color]

That is the argument... he lied. That is breaking the law.

On 18 Apr 2006 04:40:11 -0700, "Learning Richard"
<learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>Gary L. Burnore wrote:[color=green]
>> On 18 Apr 2006 04:11:08 -0700, "Learning Richard"
>> <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> >
>> >Mark A wrote:
>> >> "dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> >> news:hk9842t64tkuk87sf12ah0c8fjbhsg7bp7@4ax.com...
>> >> > What Bush said:
>> >> >
>> >> > "There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington," he
>> >> > said after the Plame news broke in 2003.
>> >> >
>> >> > "There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the
>> >> > legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And 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."
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, I guess that the cause of the leak is question is quite a
>> >> > mystery... Guffaw.
>> >> >
>> >> > [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/06/politics/main1478822.shtml[/url]
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The US President has the legal right to declassify information so long as no
>> >> laws are broken.
>> >
>> >There's the rub, my friend. The US President does NOT have the right
>> >to declassify information for malicious intent, such as to sully the
>> >reputation of a foe.
>> >[/color]
>> Welllll. He can do it for whatever reason he wants,[/color]
>
>Oh no he can't. The President is not above the law.[/color]


There's no law that says he +CAN'T+ do it for X reason or only do it
for Y reason.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> but it can come
>> back to haunt him. In this case, it's quite similar to what happened
>> with Clinton. It's not that he DID it, it's that he LIED to cover it
>> up.[/color]
>
>That is the argument... he lied. That is breaking the law.[/color]

That was after the "leak".
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================

Gary L. Burnore wrote:[color=blue]
> On 18 Apr 2006 04:40:11 -0700, "Learning Richard"
> <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >
> >Gary L. Burnore wrote:[color=darkred]
> >> On 18 Apr 2006 04:11:08 -0700, "Learning Richard"
> >> <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Mark A wrote:
> >> >> "dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> >> >> news:hk9842t64tkuk87sf12ah0c8fjbhsg7bp7@4ax.com...
> >> >> > What Bush said:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington," he
> >> >> > said after the Plame news broke in 2003.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the
> >> >> > legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And 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."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well, I guess that the cause of the leak is question is quite a
> >> >> > mystery... Guffaw.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/06/politics/main1478822.shtml[/url]
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> The US President has the legal right to declassify information so long as no
> >> >> laws are broken.
> >> >
> >> >There's the rub, my friend. The US President does NOT have the right
> >> >to declassify information for malicious intent, such as to sully the
> >> >reputation of a foe.
> >> >
> >> Welllll. He can do it for whatever reason he wants,[/color]
> >
> >Oh no he can't. The President is not above the law.[/color]
>
>
> There's no law that says he +CAN'T+ do it for X reason or only do it
> for Y reason.[/color]

Oh yeah? We will see how well that holds up in 2007 when we impeach
him.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> >[color=darkred]
> >> but it can come
> >> back to haunt him. In this case, it's quite similar to what happened
> >> with Clinton. It's not that he DID it, it's that he LIED to cover it
> >> up.[/color]
> >
> >That is the argument... he lied. That is breaking the law.[/color]
>
> That was after the "leak".[/color]

And that is breaking the law.

Sounds like what we heard two years ago from the Dims when the Republican
increased their margins in the House and Senate. ;)


mike hunt



"Little Richard AKA Dick" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145359161.765947.143910@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
>
> badgolferman wrote:[color=green]
>> Contrary to published reports, a State Department memorandum at the
>> center of the investigation into the leak of the name of a CIA
>> operative, Valerie Plame, appears to offer no particular indication
>> that Ms. Plame's role at the agency was classified or covert.
>> [url]http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=31062[/url][/color]
>
>
> It keeps getting better and better. Watch the Republicans fall like
> dominoes.
>[/color]