Thanks SO much for NOT answering my question again. I wish you would refrain from parroting your talking points and actually have a debate on this.

Why, Monica and Cylinder, among others, are you defending Bush on this? And, why are you ignoring the issue of Bush lying?

Because the President is – and always has been – the sole classification and declassification authority. The SoD, the DCI nor the Congress has any power to classify any document that does not derive from the personal order of the President. When the President condemns unauthorized disclosure of classified information he is explicitly exempting himself and those who fall under the delegation of this power by executive order – same as it ever was.

The point is that everyone wants to know what was and was not declassified, what was or was not authorized by the Pres, and what was or was not leaked and by whom and for what purpose. This post is about Arlen Specter asking Bush and friends for a “detailed explanation” of all this junk. Many people commenting here are acting like they know the answers to all these questions and are already satisfied that nothing inappropriate was done. I think that’s a little strange and very defensive. Don’t you want to know what happened?

Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

Why, Monica and Cylinder, among others, are you defending Bush on this? And, why are you ignoring the issue of Bush lying? No one is saying one way or another whether he did something illegal. I think most people assume that it was within the bounds of the law. The point is that the man lectured about leaks and firing people and completely condemned the persons responsible for these types of things. Now, it appears that the person responsible (not in a legal way) was him.

Guys, please stop dodging the real issues here.

I believe the biggest problem with Bush’s alleged ‘declassification’ is that it was not, in fact, a declassification � the paper was still stamped ‘SECRET’ and anyone besides Scooter Libby discussing its contents would be in violation of an Executive Order, and likely subject to criminal penalties.

The President did not release the document itself at the time of the Libby disclosure to Miller et al. He authorized the release of certain information contained within that document. The NIE itself has not to this day been released in its entirety. As far as criminal santions, you need to persuse 18 USC – it is not illegal to disclose classified to persons authorized by the President.

Will you point me towards where you’re getting your information about the information not actually being declassified, and therefore illegal?

From my reseach it looks like on July 19th major news organizations, specifically Knight Ridder, had an article claiming that the Bush administration had released parts of their classified information about the Iraq war.

What is your understanding of when it was declassified?

You believe that the declassification of the information is why Plame’s name came out – but have you considered that Plame’s name came out because she had recommended her husband, Wilson, for the job/trip and Wilson was claiming it was the VP who had suggested he go? She was involved with this situation for the word go, and Wilson lied to the public by saying that the VP was the one who sent him. This information was produced from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report.

Here is some support to that:

The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence received not only testimony but ACTUAL DOCUMENTATION indicating Wilson’s wife proposed him For trip:

“Some CPD, [CIA Counterproliferation Division] officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a MEMORANDUM to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, ‘my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’� (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,� U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/pdf/libbyplame.pdf pg. 27

[During this time, while the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President’s Chief
of Staff and National Security Adviser had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson’s CIA
employment, defendant implored White House officials to have a public statement issued
exonerating him. When his initial efforts met with no success, defendant sought the assistance of the
Vice President in having his name cleared.

Don’t assume that because Bush declassified the NIE that automatically means he knows who leaked Plame’s name. One does not follow necessarily from the other. I don’t know if he did. But Bush declassifying the NIE is hardly the smoking gun some make it out to be.

The President has the authority to declassify documents, but he doesn’t have the authority to have his cake and eat it too.

Wasn’t the discussion of the ‘leak’ about the Plame affair, and not the release of the intelligence information?

For those who are outraged by this – will you please explain to me what the problem is here because I’m clearly not seeing it.

Thanks.

I also find it a little strange that he said he wanted the leaker found and punished. But he was the leaker?!?

BTW: when you start to whine “but Clinton did it” you have already lost the argument.

I agree with you on that. But what if the information he declassified was already known to be inconclusive in the same document?

“One striking feature of that decision — unremarked until now, in part because Fitzgerald did not mention it — is that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before. United Nations inspectors had exposed the main evidence for the uranium charge as crude forgeries in March 2003……

Unknown to the reporters, the uranium claim lay deeper inside the estimate, where it said a fresh supply of uranium ore would “shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons.” But it also said U.S. intelligence did not know the status of Iraq’s procurement efforts, “cannot confirm” any success and had “inconclusive” evidence about Iraq’s domestic uranium operations.”

Deliberately “leaking” or “declassifying” information when all you have is inconclusive evidence supporting it? Surely you see the problem here.

You cannot separate the disclosure of certain portions of the 02 NIE from the legal issues. Clinton did the same back-channel disclosure in the immediate aftermath of Operation Infinite Reach in 1998. His explanation had something to do with the nexus of Iraq, WMD and al Qaeda.

The President as commander-in-chief – as a constitutional matter – simply cannot be guilty of unauthorized disclosure of classified. President Bush has every right to denounce unauthorized leaks of classified at the same time he himself is disclosing classified to support US foreign policy objectives.

Don’t like it? Change the Constitution.