PDA

View Full Version : Bush admits leak role


Mr. Laz
04-11-2006, 10:37 AM
Bush dismisses Iran attack reports but admits leak role


By Mark Coultan Herald Correspondent in New York
April 12, 2006

President George Bush has dismissed as "wild speculation" suggestions that the US has plans to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities with a military strike.

He also confirmed that he had authorized the release of previously classified intelligence used to justify his decision to go to war with Iraq.

Writing in The New Yorker, the investigative reporter Seymour Hersh says that the US has drawn up plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities including an option of using tactical bunker-busting nuclear weapons to destroy underground installations.

Speaking to a group of international relations students at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, Mr Bush sought to quell the outrage the article provoked. He said that some people interpreted his doctrine of pre-emption, which he referred to as the "doctrine of prevention", as meaning the use of force.

"It doesn't mean force, necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy," he said. "And by the way, I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend. It was just wild speculation."

Earlier Mr Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, refused to confirm or deny the nuclear weapons report, saying: "Those … seeking to draw broad conclusions based on normal military contingency planning are misinformed or not knowledgeable about the Administration's thinking."

Mr Bush also gave new emphasis to denying Iran the technology to produce highly enriched uranium, saying that while he supported a Russian plan to provide enriched uranium to Iran, he did not support any proposal that included a research component.

"We do not want the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon, the capacity to make a nuclear weapon, or the knowledge as to how to make a nuclear weapon," he said.

He also rejected holding bilateral negotiations with Iran, saying multilateral negotiations were more effective. "It's amazing that when we're in a bilateral position … somehow the world ends up turning the tables on us."

Mr Bush also linked himself directly to the imbroglio over the naming of a CIA officer by confirming his role in attempting to silence criticism of the war in Iraq.

The media has pummelled Mr Bush as the "leaker in chief" - replaying his statement that if there was someone leaking intelligence in his administration he wanted to know who it was - since court documents last week linked him to such a leak to justify his decision to go to war.

Lewis Libby , the former chief of staff to the Vice-President, Dick Cheney - indicted in an investigation into who leaked the identity of a CIA agent - told a grand jury last week that he had been authorised by Mr Cheney, acting on the authority Mr Bush, to leak information on the intelligence used to go to war. He briefed a New York Times reporter about sections of the National Intelligence Estimate report.

Attempting to make a distinction between leaking and declassifying intelligence, Mr Bush said that after no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, there were "questions in people's minds about the basis on which I made statements … so I decided to declassify the [National Intelligence Estimate].

White House officials later emphasised that Mr Bush did not know that the intelligence was to be leaked to the media.

http://smh.com.au/news/world/bush-dismisses-iran-attack-reports-but-admits-leak-role/2006/04/11/1144521339278.html

patteeu
04-11-2006, 11:07 AM
Well there you have it. Now we know that this particular "leak" isn't controversial. Time to move on to the next Bush "scandal."

Mr. Kotter
04-11-2006, 11:23 AM
Once declassified, it's not illegal....according to those I've heard discussing it in the news.

Next, please? :shrug:

oldandslow
04-11-2006, 11:24 AM
Spin it all you want Patteeu...

there will not be an impeachment...there never was going to be.

However, this is just more bad press leading up to the 06 midterms.

Do you still believe you are going to hold the House????

patteeu
04-11-2006, 11:30 AM
Do you still believe you are going to hold the House????

I'm concerned, but still optimistic.

patteeu
04-11-2006, 11:34 AM
Spin it all you want Patteeu...

...

However, this is just more bad press leading up to the 06 midterms.

...

It's only bad press to the extent that the anti-Bush forces are able to spin it. The unspun version of this story is that Bush has the authority to disclose this information and he did it. Many of his critics have been complaining for a long time now that he didn't release enough classified information about Iraq and now when it turns out that he did declassify something, they complain about that. That's hypocrisy.

Mr. Laz
04-11-2006, 11:36 AM
Once declassified, it's not illegal....according to those I've heard discussing it in the news.

Next, please? :shrug:

so you think what he did is ok?

banyon
04-11-2006, 11:40 AM
Well there you have it. Now we know that this particular "leak" isn't controversial. Time to move on to the next Bush "scandal."

Indeed.

Anything's possible with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge. -Homer J. Simpson

What will it be? More torture? Bombing of Iran, even though right now that's just "wild speculation"? Perhaps manipulation and propaganda with taxpayer $ in the 06' midterms? Maybe he'll just eat the head off of a live human baby?

Nah, I'm sure it'll just be more of the same. Complete and utter deference to open, democratic process. :shake:

Mr. Kotter
04-11-2006, 12:08 PM
so you think what he did is ok?

No.

The question, though, the real question at this point is.....was it illegal?

Mr. Kotter
04-11-2006, 12:10 PM
Spin it all you want Patteeu...

there will not be an impeachment...there never was going to be.

However, this is just more bad press leading up to the 06 midterms.

Do you still believe you are going to hold the House????

I'd agree it's bad press. But the Republicans have two things to console themselves:

1. Americans have a short memory.
2. Many don't see it as nearly as big a deal as some of us; a good number see it as more, business as usual--from both sides.

patteeu
04-11-2006, 12:14 PM
so you think what he did is ok?

You didn't ask me, but of course it is. What's wrong with it? Leaving aside issues of whether or not the underlying intelligence was flawed, were you complaining when Colin Powell went to the UN to present previously classified information to the Security Council? What about when Congress was provided with previously classified informaition in the form of the unclassified version of the NIE?

patteeu
04-11-2006, 12:16 PM
No.

The question, though, the real question at this point is.....was it illegal?

What was wrong with it? If there is something wrong with it, you should be criticizing him for it, not defending him on a technicality.

Stop trying to ride the fence. Pick a side. :p

Baby Lee
04-11-2006, 12:36 PM
Nah, I'm sure it'll just be more of the same. Complete and utter deference to open, democratic process. :shake:
Day one, I hate Bush because he isn't open and honest with the American people.

Day two, I hate Bush because he declassified vital and relevant information to rebut disinformation that was being disseminated.

banyon's certified definition of 'open and democratic:' Bush on Oprah crying and apologizing for being the b!tch banyon always knew he was, and and end to defending his policies.

Taco John
04-11-2006, 12:50 PM
Oh wow! A political circus! Look at the ethics contortionists, Mommy! They're my favorite!

Taco John
04-11-2006, 12:52 PM
Anyone care to explain why Bush didn't come out and admit this in the first place if this is such a trivial, non-matter? Why hide it for so long, wasting American tax dollars in the process?

Hilarious.

Taco John
04-11-2006, 12:54 PM
The most amusing thing about this whole ordeal is that the Bush Admin was trying to smear Wilson on the grounds of nepotism... Irony, thy name is George Bush.

Radar Chief
04-11-2006, 12:56 PM
Anyone care to explain why Bush didn't come out and admit this in the first place if this is such a trivial, non-matter? Why hide it for so long, wasting American tax dollars in the process?

Hilarious.

:shrug: I thought the “leak investigation” was ‘spose to be ‘bout who leaked Valerie Plame’s supposed “secret identity”, but somehow this is where we’ve arrived. :shrug:

Taco John
04-11-2006, 12:58 PM
:shrug: I thought the “leak investigation” was ‘spose to be ‘bout who leaked Valerie Plame’s supposed “secret identity”, but somehow this is where we’ve arrived. :shrug:



What? You mean perjury preceedings, and the president backtracking on what he said before?

Why are you so suprised?

Radar Chief
04-11-2006, 01:01 PM
What? You mean perjury preceedings, and the president backtracking on what he said before?

Why are you so suprised?

What makes you think I’m surprised?
I think I predicted before Bush was inaugurated that the opposition would fabricate some excuse to “revenge” impeach’im. None of what’s ensued since has necessarily “surprised” me. :thumb:

patteeu
04-11-2006, 01:04 PM
Anyone care to explain why Bush didn't come out and admit this in the first place if this is such a trivial, non-matter? Why hide it for so long, wasting American tax dollars in the process?

Hilarious.

How did it waste American tax dollars?

patteeu
04-11-2006, 01:05 PM
What? You mean perjury preceedings, and the president backtracking on what he said before?

Why are you so suprised?

There has been no backtracking related to this issue that I'm aware of. Care to enlighten me?

Adept Havelock
04-11-2006, 05:01 PM
Indeed.



What will it be? More torture? Bombing of Iran, even though right now that's just "wild speculation"? Perhaps manipulation and propaganda with taxpayer $ in the 06' midterms? Maybe he'll just eat the head off of a live human baby?

Nah, I'm sure it'll just be more of the same. Complete and utter deference to open, democratic process. :shake:


I fully expect a replay of the 2002 spin up to the Iraq conflict (you've don't introduce a new product at the wrong time-Ari Fleischer), combined with a steady drumbeat from the hard right with a "red scare" style attempt to build hysteria about the dangers posed by illegal aliens, in order to woo that part of the base.

Personally, I think the majority of the American people will say: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." ;)

penchief
04-11-2006, 05:42 PM
So.....the one time this president declassifies something instead of classifying everything under the sun (see Cheneyburton Energy Task Force), we are supposed to believe it was coincidental?

Lying about a personal affair while being put on the spot (ala, Clinton) is not admirable. However, it looks like a mere foible compared to the scheming, manipulation, deception, and double-speak practiced by this administration.

Making it worse is that Cheneyburton is able to practice it's virtue via policy, thereby, affecting humankind in the most devastating ways possible.

Even worse, is that all of this damage is done to promote a narrow agenda. One that is bought and paid for by the power-elite. All one has to do is ask who is benefitting most. When that question is answered it always says the same thing. Any objective observer would agree that, without fail, this administration always falls on the side of power and money, regardless whether it is good for all of us or not. It doesn't matter how it hurts our country as long as they get to do what they want. And they want to control everything for their own benefit.

Hell, they don't even care what we think about them. They look at their eight years as an "eight-year power grab." They're getting all they can get while the getting is good. They also believe that they can screw us over and probably still win our vote. All they have to do is manipulate the corporately-owned media to assist in destroying reputations. Mockery is one of their specialties but honesty is not.

This president deliberately declassified classified information soley for political purposes. Selfish reasons. These guys don't care about our country, it's integrity, or it's future nearly as much as they care about their own aims.

We're getting exactly what we asked for.

JMO.

patteeu
04-11-2006, 06:11 PM
This president deliberately declassified classified information soley for political purposes. Selfish reasons.

I don't know how you can say this with a straight face. IMO, something would be "soley for political purposes" if it had no other purpose. For example, killing an immigration compromise that you agree with so that the lack of resolution will damage the other party. Do you not recognize a policy dispute when you see one?

Let me try to create a hypothetical that you might understand. Let's say a democrat president proposes a tax increase to deal with a runaway deficit he's inherited from the Republican who just left office. Now let's say a Republican operative writes an op-ed piece in the Washington Times that suggests that there isn't really a deficit and that therefore the president's rationale for a tax increase isn't based in fact. If the president has his economic team spread the word that there is, in fact, a deficit, is that for "solely political purposes?" Would the reasons for setting the record straight in that circumstance be what you consider "selfish?"

penchief
04-11-2006, 06:35 PM
I don't know how you can say this with a straight face. IMO, something would be "soley for political purposes" if it had no other purpose. For example, killing an immigration compromise that you agree with so that the lack of resolution will damage the other party. Do you not recognize a policy dispute when you see one?

Let me try to create a hypothetical that you might understand. Let's say a democrat president proposes a tax increase to deal with a runaway deficit he's inherited from the Republican who just left office. Now let's say a Republican operative writes an op-ed piece in the Washington Times that suggests that there isn't really a deficit and that therefore the president's rationale for a tax increase isn't based in fact. If the president has his economic team spread the word that there is, in fact, a deficit, is that for "solely political purposes?" Would the reasons for setting the record straight in that circumstance be what you consider "selfish?"

Hmmm......are we both talking about national security? While it may be clever to hang one's hat on technicalities, it would serve us better to be more honest and objective in the face of reality, the laws of nature, and the consequences of stupidity.

patteeu
04-11-2006, 07:04 PM
Hmmm......are we both talking about national security? While it may be clever to hang one's hat on technicalities, it would serve us better to be more honest and objective in the face of reality, the laws of nature, and the consequences of stupidity.

I think this declassification was all about what Bush thought was best for the country in terms of national security. I don't see that as "soley political" or "selfish" at all (aside from the personal satisfaction someone might get from doing what they believe is the right thing).

Ugly Duck
04-12-2006, 12:33 AM
But.... what they leaked was more deception. They leaked the part of the intel that supported the yellowcake deal, but not the part that said our guyz considered the intel "highly dubious." They pawned off the leaked intel as fact refuting Wilson's claim that the yellowcake deal was fake, but neglected tell us that it was considered to be bullpucky at the time. If they leak phoney baloney designed to mislead America, is it still a "leak?" It may only be a leak if they leak the truth.

patteeu
04-12-2006, 05:55 AM
But.... what they leaked was more deception. They leaked the part of the intel that supported the yellowcake deal, but not the part that said our guyz considered the intel "highly dubious." They pawned off the leaked intel as fact refuting Wilson's claim that the yellowcake deal was fake, but neglected tell us that it was considered to be bullpucky at the time. If they leak phoney baloney designed to mislead America, is it still a "leak?" It may only be a leak if they leak the truth.

It wasn't considered "bullpucky" at the time. There were dissenting voices and some of the evidence was either discredited or questioned, but they still had reason to believe in the broader claim. I'm not even sure if it's considered "bullpucky" now.

Ugly Duck
04-12-2006, 07:36 AM
It wasn't considered "bullpucky" at the time. There were dissenting voices and some of the evidence was either discredited or questioned, but they still had reason to believe in the broader claim. I'm not even sure if it's considered "bullpucky" now.The NIE that the intel was leaked from considered it to be "HIGHLY DUBIOUS" information. Bushron conveniently left the "HIGHLY DUBIOUS" part out of the leak. When info is lableled "HIGHLY DUBIOUS", that indicates that there is very low confidence in it. I guess "HIGHLY DUBIOUS" could be construed to mean "reason to believe in the broader claim" in a twisty turny pretzel kinda way. Leaving out the "HIGHLY DUBIOUS" part was clearly meant to deceive us into believing that we had confidence in the yellowcake deal when we did not. Thats why it was suggested to be struck from the SOTU address.

patteeu
04-12-2006, 10:13 AM
The NIE that the intel was leaked from considered it to be "HIGHLY DUBIOUS" information. Bushron conveniently left the "HIGHLY DUBIOUS" part out of the leak. When info is lableled "HIGHLY DUBIOUS", that indicates that there is very low confidence in it. I guess "HIGHLY DUBIOUS" could be construed to mean "reason to believe in the broader claim" in a twisty turny pretzel kinda way. Leaving out the "HIGHLY DUBIOUS" part was clearly meant to deceive us into believing that we had confidence in the yellowcake deal when we did not. Thats why it was suggested to be struck from the SOTU address.

A series of quotes from the Roe v. Wade decision:


A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not "private" in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the "privacy" that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court's opinion apparently substitutes for the established test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one.

The decision here to break pregnancy into three distinct terms and to outline the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one, for example, partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.

With quotes like this in the SCOTUS opinion on Roe v. Wade, how on earth can it be that Roe v. Wade resulted in the invalidation of state laws against abortion? The answer, of course, is that these quotes all come from the DISSENTING OPINION. The dissenting opinion is called a dissenting opinion because it dissents from the MAJORITY OPINION.

Getting back to the thread topic, your "highly dubious" quote comes from the DISSENTING OPINION from the state department, not from the MAJORITY OPINION of the intelligence community. Here is what it looked like in the declassified version of the NIE (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h072103.html). Note that INR refers to the State Department's intelligence organization.

...

[MAJORITY OPINION]Uranium Acquisition. Iraq retains approximately two-and-a-half tons of 2.5 percent enriched uranium oxide, which the IAEA permits. This low-enriched material could be used as feed material to produce enough HEU for about two nuclear weapons. The use of enriched feed material also would reduce the initial number of centrifuges that Baghdad would need by about half, Iraq could divert this material--the IAEA inspects it only once a year--and enrich it to weapons grade before a subsequent inspection discovered it was missing. The IAEA last inspected this material in late January 2002.

Iraq has about 550 metric tons of yellowcake and low-enriched uranium at Tuwaitha, which is inspected annually by the IAEA, Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake; acquiring either would shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons.

A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of ``pure uranium'' (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement.

Reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources. Reports suggest Iraq is shifting from domestic mining and milling of uranium to foreign acquisition. Iraq possesses significant phosphate deposits, from which uranium had been chemically extracted before Operation Desert Storm. Intelligence information on whether nuclear-related phosphate mining and/or processing has been reestablished is inconclusive, however.[/MAJORITY OPINION]

[MINORITY OPINION]Annex A--Iraq's Attempts To Acquire Aluminum Tubes

Some of the specialized but dual-use items being sought are, by all indications, bound for Iraq's missile program. Other cases are ambiguous, such as that of a planned magnet-production line whose suitability for centrifuge operations remains unknown. Some efforts involve noncontrolled industrial material and equipment--including a variety of machine tools--and are troubling because they would help establish the infrastructure for a renewed nuclear program. But such efforts (which began well before the inspectors departed) are not clearly linked to a nuclear end-use. Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.-[/MINORITY OPINION]

...

***I've added some formating to help you distinguish between the MAJORITY OPINION and the MINORITY OPINION.***

I'm willing to assume that you just didn't know what was really in the NIE and you were parroting something you read on a progressive blog or something you heard the Talking Can say, but now you have no more excuses. You can read it for yourself here and now you know that the "highly dubious" comment came from a published dissent (which means it wasn't trivial enough to leave out altogether, but it didn't generate enough support in the intelligence community to make it in as the majority opinion).

Ugly Duck
04-14-2006, 12:24 AM
As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement.

Reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources.I commend you on your research and your diligence. Your efforts are both respected and appreciated. You are a better man than I, for mine was, in fact, mere parroting.

That said..... the leak of the "majority" opinion conveniently failed to mention phrases like "we do not know the status" and "we cannot confirm".... nor did it mention the "highly dubious" in the "dissenting" opinion. It was presented as much more solid than it actually was, clearly in effort to convince us that there was higher confidence than there actually was. Just another failed attempt at deceit (although Bulger & the like probably believe it still).

patteeu
04-14-2006, 08:13 AM
I commend you on your research and your diligence. Your efforts are both respected and appreciated. You are a better man than I, for mine was, in fact, mere parroting.

I commend you on your admission.

That said..... the leak of the "majority" opinion conveniently failed to mention phrases like "we do not know the status" and "we cannot confirm".... nor did it mention the "highly dubious" in the "dissenting" opinion. It was presented as much more solid than it actually was, clearly in effort to convince us that there was higher confidence than there actually was. Just another failed attempt at deceit (although Bulger & the like probably believe it still).

Do we even know exactly what was disclosed to Ms. Miller? Regardless of whether or not these qualifications were disclosed to her, they were all made available to the public shortly thereafter when the declassified version of the NIE was distributed (what was it, one week later?). That's a pretty narrow time window to be getting overly concerned about any possible cherry picking in the Libby disclosure isn't it?

banyon
04-14-2006, 10:50 AM
Day one, I hate Bush because he isn't open and honest with the American people.

Day two, I hate Bush because he declassified vital and relevant information to rebut disinformation that was being disseminated.

banyon's certified definition of 'open and democratic:' Bush on Oprah crying and apologizing for being the b!tch banyon always knew he was, and and end to defending his policies.

No. I'm still on day one.

Bush's conveniently selective declassification is dirty politics, but it was legal.

But I would like to hear him say that he is a b!tch. :)