Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information

[chshkt]

http://news.google.com/news?sourceid...d+Libby+ Leak

NEW YORK Lewis ?Scooter? Libby testified to a federal grand jury that he had been "authorized" by his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, according to an article posted today by the National Journal.

Reporter Murray Waas writes that this information comes from attorneys familiar with the matter, and from recently released court records. Waas has broken several stories on the Plame/CIA leak case in recent weeks for the nonpartisan National Journal.

?Libby specifically claimed that in one instance he had been authorized to divulge portions of a then-still highly classified National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons,? Waas writes, according to correspondence recently filed in federal court by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

?Beyond what was stated in the court paper, say people with firsthand knowledge of the matter, Libby also indicated what he will offer as a broad defense during his upcoming criminal trial: that Vice President Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials had earlier encouraged and authorized him to share classified information with journalists to build public support for going to war. Later, after the war began in 2003, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war.

?Libby testified to the grand jury that he had been authorized to share parts of the NIE with journalists in the summer of 2003 as part of an effort to rebut charges then being made by former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson that the Bush administration had misrepresented intelligence information to make a public case for war. ?

One of those journalists was former New York Times reporter Judith Miller. She has written that at a July 8, 2003, meeting with Libby he offered some details from the then-classified NIE. Libby apparently is now saying he was authorized to give her that information.

This raises the issue of whether the vice president knew Libby was meeting Miller that day.

Besides sharing details of the NIE with reporters during the effort to rebut claims by Wilson, ?Libby is also accused of telling journalists that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, had worked for the CIA,? Waas observes. ?Libby and other Bush administration officials believed that if Plame played a role in the selection of her husband for the Niger mission, that fact might discredit him."

A federal grand jury indicted Libby on October 28, 2005, on five counts of making false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice, alleging that he concealed his role in leaking information about Plame.

In a January 23 letter, Fitzgerald wrote to Libby's attorneys: "Mr. Libby testified in the grand jury that he had contact with reporters in which he disclosed the content of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) ? in the course of his interaction with reporters in June and July 2003.? We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors."

The public correspondence does not mention the identities of the "superiors" who authorized the leaking of the classified information, ?but people with firsthand knowledge of the matter identified one of them as Cheney,? Waas states. Libby also testified that he worked closely with then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in deciding what information to leak to the press to build public support for the war.

In the correspondence, which emerged last week, Fitzgerald also asserted that Libby testified that he had met with Judith Miller on July 8, 2003, with the "purpose" of intending "to transmit information" to her "concerning the NIE."

Asked about the National Journal article today, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan replied: "I heard about this story earlier today, but I think you know our policy when it comes to this ongoing legal proceeding, and it hasn't changed."

[directfiesta]

Americans are now listening how George " warlord " Bush defuzed a terraaaaarist attack on the west coast in 2002!

They push buttons and yell " BOO " and they all tremble in fear.

[Matt 26z]

Our duel presidents, Bill & Hillary, can't come soon enough for me.

[jjjay]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Americans are now listening how George " warlord " Bush defuzed a terraaaaarist attack on the west coast in 2002!

They push buttons and yell " BOO " and they all tremble in fear.

god you're obsessed with the US admin

[chshkt]

The sad thing is that if just several big webmasters here unite and use their sites/resources for the best they can open the eyes of millions americans for their absurdly corrupt government in the matter of days
That's the most important thing now, the electorate to bring them down.
And that's what this Bush CLONE is doing now, he's making a joke out of himself with everything he do, until finally the people understand and say "enough is enough"!
He's the wake-up call!

[PatrickKing]

Its treason.

[chshkt]

L.A. Mayor Blindsided by Bush Announcement
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060209/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl
AP - 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
LOS ANGELES - Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said Thursday he was blindsided by President Bush's announcement of new details on a purported 2002 hijacking plot aimed at a downtown skyscraper, and described communication with the White House as "nonexistent." "I'm amazed that the president would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels," the mayor told The Associated Press. "I don't expect a call from the president - but somebody."

[chshkt]

VIDEO: McClellan Confronted With Abramoff Emails
During today?s press briefing, Scott McClellan was asked to respond to claims made by Jack Abramoff in emails published yesterday on ThinkProgress.
Reporter Victoria Jones asked whether President Bush was sticking by his assertion that he does not remember meeting Jack Abramoff in light of the Abramoff emails, which discuss ?almost a dozen? meetings with the President.
McClellan dodged the question, falsely claiming that Bush had already addressed the issue, but did not dispute the validity of Abramoff?s emails.

Watch it:
http://streaming.americanprogress.or...0.240.mov.html

Transcript:
JONES: Back at the January press conference the President said he didn?t know Jack Abramoff. Abramoff?s saying he met with the President in nearly a dozen settings and that the President joked with him ?about a bunch of things, including details of Abramoff?s kids. He also says the President has one of the best memories of any politician he?s ever met. Does that help the President perhaps to remember that there were many meetings at which he met Jack Abramoff?
MCCLELLAN: I think what the President says still stands. Mr. Abramoff is someone who was involved in wrongdoing. He acknowledged that himself. He is being brought to account and there?s an investigation going on by the Justice Department. They are continuing to pursue the matter and go after anybody else that was involved in wrongdoing. I think as the President also indicated, he?s taken at least five photos with many people in this room at the annual holiday reception. And so I think you need to put this in context.
JONES: Would he still then be saying that he does not remember meeting Abramoff on a dozen occasions?
MCCLELLAN: You heard directly from the president on this matter. Go ahead ?
JONES: No, we haven?t. We didn?t know there were as many meetings as this at that time.
MCCLELLAN: Go ahead.

[tony286]

they are scumbags is anyone actually surprised lol

[jjjay]

cheney is untouchable

[chshkt]

Domestic Spying: A Clear and Present Danger to Democracy

?The administration cannot unilaterally assume that they have the answers to get around or go over a law.... The balance must be preserved between the executive branch and the legislature.? - Sen. Chuck Hagel (R - NE)


?When I voted for [the authorization of the use of military force], I never envisioned that I was giving the president or any other president the ability to go around FISA carte blanche.? - Sen. Lindsey Graham (R - SC)

?We make the laws. If you believe you need new laws, then come and tell us.? - Sen. Patrick Leahy (D - VT)

These senators, and several others, were reacting this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales? defense of the president?s decision to authorize a secret domestic spying program by the National Security Agency (NSA).

Under the secret domestic spying program, the NSA has been monitoring, without court approval, thousands of e-mails and phone calls involving people in the U.S. for at least the past four years. This domestic surveillance program is so secret that on Monday the attorney general refused even to provide the date when the president first authorized it. Most troubling though is the fact that the program clearly violates at least one federal law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Asked by senators why the administration did not seek congressional approval for this program, Gonzales responded, ?The short answer is that we didn?t think we needed to, quite frankly.? The administration argues that the congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force to chase down the perpetrators of the attacks of September 11, 2001 provides the legal basis for ignoring federal laws and authorizing the covert surveillance program.

The president also claims that his inherent authority as Commander-In-Chief to fight potential enemies of the U.S. as he sees fit provides another legal basis for his actions.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R - PA), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said simply that this argument ?is not sound.? Sen. Lindsey Graham agreed, ?In all honesty, Mr. Attorney General? the argument that you?re making is very dangerous.?

These senators were joined in their pointed questioning of the attorney general by Sen. Mike DeWine (R - OH), Sen. Sam Brownback (R - KS), and all Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. See a full list of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee here: http://capwiz.com/fconl/directory/co...t?commid=sjudi. Because Republicans hold a majority in both chambers of Congress and thus on all congressional committees, these Republican senators will be critical to any effort to challenge the president?s failure to uphold the constitutional balance of powers and his refusal to consult Congress and the courts in devising and implementing this domestic surveillance program.

The president believes he is above the law. Members of Congress should be encouraged to challenge the legal basis for any domestic spying program and to defend the separation of powers that is an essential component of our democracy.

FCNL has collected a number of resources on the NSA program, the expansion of domestic surveillance programs since September 11, 2001, and the broader constitutional issues at the heart of this debate. Follow this link for further readings on the subject. http://www.fcnl.org/civil_liberties/nsa_spying106.htm

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by jjjay

god you're obsessed with the US admin

No, just with liars, thieves and traitors ...

Oh, I forgot: he brought back " dignity " to the WH ...

Was way better with the cum stained rugs ...

[chshkt]

http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_01/3.020806B.gif

[stereolab]

if Libby starts copping a plea and ratting out the big guys, he might commit 'suicide' - with 5 bullets to the BACK of his head.

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by stereolab

if Libby starts copping a plea and ratting out the big guys, he might commit 'suicide' - with 5 bullets to the BACK of his head.

[chshkt]

haha yeah just like the one that shot himself TWICE in the head with a shotgun

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by stereolab

if Libby starts copping a plea and ratting out the big guys, he might commit 'suicide' - with 5 bullets to the BACK of his head.

and no powder gun on his hands ....

But others are also sitting at the table :

Abramoff says Bush met, even joked, with him

as I was saying : liars ....

It must feel like shit to have voted for the idiot and realized later on that you have been played like a first year school kid .. no wonder denial is omnipresent: it saves the face.

[chshkt]

no one believes these bullshits anymore

Q But is it just a coincidence? You had February 6th circled on the calendar for the hearings, the NSA hearings. Is it just a pure coincidence that this comes out today?



http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1001994881


White House Briefing: Reporters Wonder About Timing on News of L.A. 'Terror' Attack

By E&P Staff

Published: February 09, 2006 7:30 PM ET

NEW YORK The claim today by President George W. Bush of a thwarted terrorist attack on Los Angeles was news to nearly everyonehahaha8212;including, in large measure, the mayor of that cityhahaha8212;and raised a few eyebrows around the White House press room, as suggested by a series of exchanges between Press Secretary Scott McClellan and several reporters at the daily briefing today.

Here are a few excerpts.

*
Q Can I ask you a question about the timing of the speech today? Why now, given the ongoing discussion that is taking place about tactics in fighting the war on terror, why did the President seek to disclose the details today, specifically?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, for the reasons I just stated. This is a speech that we have been working on for the last few weeks. The President has been having an ongoing discussion with the American people about the war on terrorism. This is the nation's highest priority. It's the President's top priority. It's about protecting the American people. And we're always looking for ways to inform the American people about our efforts and provide them additional information.

As you know, it takes time to declassify information. And as time goes by, you might be in position to share more information about plots that were disrupted. Remember, back in October, the President talked about, I think it was, 10 or so plots that were disrupted or broken up. And we provided some general information at that time. One of these was the plot that the President talked about today.

But I think it's -- what he was highlighting -- the purpose of the speech was to highlight the strong international cooperation that is going on.

Q But is it just a coincidence? You had February 6th circled on the calendar for the hearings, the NSA hearings. Is it just a pure coincidence that this comes out today?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you're talking about the -- let me mention, the terrorist surveillance program is a vital program, and it's been a very valuable tool. I'm not going to get into discussing any of the tools that may have been used when it comes to disrupting this plot. We provided you some additional information about this plot. But the purpose of this speech is the way I stated it. And I would discourage you from suggesting otherwise&hellip.

*
Q Scott, I wanted to just ask a follow-up about the LA plot. Is there something missing from this story, a practical application, a few facts? Because if you want to commandeer a plane and fly it into a tower, if you used shoe bombs, wouldn't you blow off the cockpit? Or is there something missing from this story?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know what you're referring to about missing. I mean, I think we provided you a detailed briefing earlier today about the plot. And Fran Townsend, our Homeland Security Advisor, talked about it. So I'm not sure what you're suggesting it.

Q Think about it, if you're wearing shoe bombs, you either blow off your feet or you blow off the front of the airplane.

MR. McCLELLAN: There was a briefing for you earlier today. I think that's one way to look at it. There are a lot of ways to look at it, and she explained it earlier today, Alexis, so I would refer you very much back to what she said, what she said earlier today.


*
Q So he would have -- in talking about how the speech was in preparation for some time, he would have brought this up regardless of the fact that the hearings were today and --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this is a speech we've been working on for the last three weeks, Peter, and I would -- as I think indicated to Jim, in response to his question, I would discourage you from thinking it was some other purpose than the way I described it, because the President has been giving speeches over the course of the last several months, and even before that, on the war on terrorism.

And this builds upon those speeches that he's been giving. It's part of our discussion with the American people about what is the number one priority, which is protecting them from attacks and prevailing in the war on terrorism.

*
Q Scott, I apologize if I'm still confused, but I wonder if you could tell us a bit more specifically what has changed since October, when we were told that discussing details of this plot was inappropriate, and today? What has actually changed since October in that regard?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I described it to you; I don't know how I can be more clear to you. This is something that we had been talking about with the intelligence community in looking for a good example to highlight for the American people about the type of international cooperation that goes on that helps us disrupt plots. I think that's important for the American people to have a clear understanding of, so they have a clear and better understanding of the threats we face and they have a better understanding of the efforts that are going on around the world to disrupt plots. So that's what this was.

And as time goes by and you continue to look at this and take into account the sensitivity of sources and methods and ongoing counterterrorism efforts, you are able to provide more information.

Q So sources and methods would have been compromised in October, but not today?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Peter, we're always looking for ways to provide the American people with more information and that's what I said to you earlier -- maybe you didn't quite hear all that -- but we're always looking to keep the American people informed about the threats we face and provide them better context and better understanding of what we are doing to confront those threats. So that's what this was about, and so that's something we're always looking at.

Q But that wasn't actually the question. The question was, would sources and methods have been compromised in October, but wouldn't be today?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the intelligence community said that it was okay to talk about the information that we provided you today and the President spoke about. So like I said, there is ongoing efforts that we look at to provide the information to the American people, and this was --

Q It was not okay in October to talk about that level of detail?

MR. McCLELLAN: I didn't say that. What I said was that they said that it was okay now to talk further about this specific plot.

Q Would it have been okay in October, but you chose not to?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know how many times you're going to keep asking the same question.

Q As soon as I get an answer.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I've answered the question.

Q Can you say when you started trying to get it declassified so you could talk about it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, when we were talking about doing this speech, we were looking for a specific plot that we could talk about in more detail?

Q So two weeks ago?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the speech has been in the works, as I say, for at least three weeks.

Q So three weeks ago you decided you wanted to try and declassify this particular --

MR. McCLELLAN: Martha, I can't tell you the specific time. But, again, two things -- one, we're always looking to keep the American people informed and provide them additional information like this. Two, we were looking to give this speech and talk about the international cooperation that's going on and how successful that is and how important that is to confronting the threats we face. So in that context, we were also talking in the intelligence community, is there additional information we can provide. And I think a good starting point was some of the plots that we had talked about last year, in a general sense.

[Thead]

Originally Posted by chshkt

The sad thing is that if just several big webmasters here unite and use their sites/resources for the best they can open the eyes of millions americans for their absurdly corrupt government in the matter of days
That's the most important thing now, the electorate to bring them down.
And that's what this Bush CLONE is doing now, he's making a joke out of himself with everything he do, until finally the people understand and say "enough is enough"!
He's the wake-up call!

Let's all unite with chshkt and his friends the smart ones.

[bopha]

Heavy newsday and Brownie testifies today....

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

No, just with liars, thieves and traitors ...

Oh, I forgot: he brought back " dignity " to the WH ...

Was way better with the cum stained rugs ...

Apparently bloodstained Iraq is better than cum stained rugs to the religious right.

[mockomo]

chshkt, well done again! Keep on going

[Lev]

If Cheney goes Bush is over