Bush admits to directing cheney to discredit Joe Wilson.

At the time, officials told said that Plame's outing resulted in *severe* damage to her team and *significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation.* I guess personal kindergarten style paybacks are more important to Bush. Just remember Bush's role in all this when he declares yet another war on Iran.

I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.

And again I repeat, you know, Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations. You've heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information -- outside the administration. And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would.

And then we'll get to the bottom of this and move on. But I want to tell you something -- leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we've had them -- there's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.

Newspaper columnist Robert Novak is still not naming his source in the Valerie Plame affair, but he says he is pretty sure the name is no mystery to President Bush.

I'm confident the president knows who the source is, Novak told a luncheon audience at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh on Tuesday. I'd be amazed if he doesn't.

So I say, 'Don't bug me. Don't bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is.'

Reports: Plame Was Monitoring Iran Nukes When Outed
By E&P Staff
Published: May 02, 2006 10:55 AM ET

NEW YORK What was Valerie Plame working on at the CIA when she was outed by administration officials and columnist Robert Novak? MSNBC's David Schuster on Monday said he had confirmed an earlier report that she was helping to keep track of Iran's nuclear activity--not a front and center issue for the White House.

Earlier this year, Larisa Alexandrovna of the Web site RawStory.com, reported that Plame, whose covert status was compromised in the leak, was monitoring weapons proliferation in Iran. At the time, officials told her that Plame's outing resulted in severe damage to her team and significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation.

On last night's Hardball, MSNBC correspondent Shuster reported that intelligence sources told him thatr Wilson was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran. And the sources asserted, he said, that when here Wilson's cover was blown, the administration's ability to track Iran's nuclear ambitions was damaged as well.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002426164

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

May their sorry a$$e$ rot in helll! What did Bush do in the first three weeks of office - clear brush in crawford? He holds the record for the most vacations.

Jindal Admits Katrina Story Was False

After C Span aired the 911 Scholars Symposium in LA for 3 days, the questions and information has started to flow. Looks like some are starting to do some CYA. There are articles in the NYT, Vanity Fair, and even the Washington Post. For a change, they are not calling skeptics names. It is only a baby step, but this has made my day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new

Critic of Bush earns support

Packed house at CSUB hears ex-envoy who disputed Iraqi war data

By CHRISTINA SOSA, Californian staff writer
e-mail: csosa@bakersfield.com

Posted: Thursday October 20th, 2005, 11:45 PM
Last Updated: Friday October 21st, 2005, 7:52 AM

The audience overflowed the overflow room at Cal State Bakersfield's Dor� Theatre on Thursday night and people had to settle for standing in the hall to hear former U.S. ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson speak.

Starlene Parson was one of more than 600 people who attended the free event, which was part of the Kegley Institute of Ethics' lecture series.

Even Wilson thought his visit to such a conservative town might be more problematic than the welcome reception he received.

I figured that if I was going to get a pie in the face, this would be the town, Wilson joked.

After a career of working with Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Wilson wrote an op-ed piece in The New York Times in July 2003 disputing information current President Bush used to justify a war in Iraq.

I had a civic duty, and that civic duty was to call my government to account for what my government had said and done, Wilson said Thursday.

Days after Wilson's article, columnist Robert Novak revealed that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent. The revelation prompted a nearly two-year federal grand jury investigation because Plame's role with the CIA was classified, and it may have been illegal to disclose it.

Wilson's speech delved into the details of his work during the first Iraq war in the early 1990s, his investigation in Niger and his personal fight with the Bush administration after he came forward.

Wilson also stressed that while he may find himself more a friend to the left than the right these days, he has never seen national security as a partisan issue.

The real implications in all this are to our country and our status and stature in the world, Wilson said. It is our national status that is at play here, not our partisan status.

Attendee Harriet Morris was struck by how calmly Wilson presented his information and point of view.

What I liked about him is he was kind of low-key. There wasn't any anger, Morris said. There wasn't any angry rhetoric. He just kind of told the story, and the story is scary.

Before opening the floor to questions, Wilson ended his prepared speech with a call for vigilance from all Americans.

If you lay back ... and you allow others to make your decisions for you, then the chances are pretty good that you will find you have lost your republic, Wilson said.

they keep the pressure on, because IF our govt has behaved irresponsibly we need to know.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/sen-dodd-admits-adding-bonus-provision-stimulus-package/100days/

Libby told the FBI in 2003 that it was possible that Cheney ordered him to reveal Plame's identity to reporters. The prosecutor in that case, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, said in his closing remarks at Libby's trial that there was a "cloud" over Cheney's role in the case.

Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.

I hope Cehney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.

Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.

I hope Cehney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.

Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.

I hope Cheney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.

Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.

I hope Cheney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.

House Judiciary Trio Calls for Impeach Cheney Hearings

Three senior members of the House Judiciary Committee have called for the immediate opening of impeachment hearings for Vice President Richard Cheney.

Democrats Robert Wexler of Florida, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin on Friday distributed a statement, �A Case for Hearings,� that declares, �The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.�

In particular, the Judiciary Committee members cite the recent revelation by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan that the Vice President and his staff purposefully gave him false information about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent as part of a White House campaign to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson. On the basis of McClellan�s statements, Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin say, �it is even more important for Congress to investigate what may have been an intentional obstruction of justice.� The three House members argue that, �Congress should call Mr. McClellan to testify about what he described as being asked to �unknowingly [pass] along false information.��

Adding to the sense of urgency, the members note that �recent revelations have shown that the Administration including Vice President Cheney may have again manipulated and exaggerated evidence about weapons of mass destruction � this time about Iran�s nuclear capabilities.�

Although Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin are close to Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, getting the Michigan Democrat to open hearings on impeachment will not necessarily be easy. Though Conyers was a leader in suggesting during the last Congress that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney had committed impeachable offenses, he has been under immense pressure from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, to keep Constitutional remedies for executive excesses �off the table� in this Congress.

It is notable, however, that Baldwin maintains warm relations with Pelosi and that Wexler, a veteran member of the Judiciary Committee has historically had an amiable and effective working relationship with Conyers. There is no question that Conyers, who voted to keep open the impeachment debate on November 7, has been looking for a way to explore the charges against Cheney. The move by three of his key allies on the committee may provide the chairman with the opening he seeks, although it is likely he will need to hear from more committee members before making any kind of break with Pelosi � or perhaps convincing her that holding hearings on Cheney�s high crimes and misdemeanors is different from putting a Bush impeachment move on the table.

The most important immediate development, however, is the assertion of an �ask� for supporters of impeachment. Pulled in many directions in recent months, campaigners for presidential and vice presidential accountability have focused their attention on supporting a House proposal by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nod, to impeach Cheney. When Kucinich forced consideration of his resolution on November 7, Pelosi and her allies used procedural moves to get it sent to the Judiciary Committee for consideration. Pelosi�s hope was that the proposal would disappear into the committee�s files.

The call for hearings by Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin puts impeachment on the table, at least as far as activists are concerned, creating a pressure point that can serve as a reply when House Democrats who are critical of Bush but cautious about impeachment ask: �What do you want me to do?� The answer can now be: �Back the call for Judiciary Committee hearings on whether to impeach Cheney?�

�Some of us were in Congress during the impeachment hearings of President Clinton. We spent a year and a half listening to testimony about President Clinton�s personal relations. This must not be the model for impeachment inquires. A Democratic Congress can show that it takes its constitutional authority seriously and hold a sober investigation, which will stand in stark contrast to the kangaroo court convened by Republicans for President Clinton. In fact, the worst legacy of the Clinton impeachment - where the GOP pursued trumped up and insignificant allegations - would be that it discourages future Congresses from examining credible and significant allegations of a constitutional nature when they arise,� write Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin.

�The charges against Vice President Cheney are not personal,� the House members add. �They go to the core of the actions of this Administration, and deserve consideration in a way the Clinton scandal never did. The American people understand this, and a majority support hearings according to a November 13 poll by the American Research Group. In fact, 70 percent of voters say that Vice President Cheney has abused his powers and 43 percent say that he should be removed from office right now. The American people understand the magnitude of what has been done and what is at stake if we fail to act. It is time for Congress to catch up.�

Arguing that hearings need not distract Congress, Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin note that the focus is on Cheney for a reason: �These hearings involve the possible impeachment of the Vice President � not our commander in chief � and the resulting impact on the nation�s business and attention would be significantly less than the Clinton Presidential impeachment hearings.�

They also argue, correctly, that the hearings are necessary if Congress is to restore its position in the Constitutionally-defined system of checks and balances.

�Holding hearings would put the evidence on the table, and the evidence � not politics � should determine the outcome,� the Judiciary Committee members explain. �Even if the hearings do not lead to removal from office, putting these grievous abuses on the record is important for the sake of history. For an Administration that has consistently skirted the constitution and asserted that it is above the law, it is imperative for Congress to make clear that we do not accept this dangerous precedent. Our Founding Fathers provided Congress the power of impeachment for just this reason, and we must now at least consider using it.