posted
I am sorry my work won't let me get to a news page so I could post it here. Some one else can since about every news service is running the story.
Do we trust Libby?
Do we ask the President to keep his word and dismiss from his staff anyone associated with this leak--ie himself. Oh, wait, he changed that to anyone prosecuted for it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.
Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.
But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.
posted
That's the problem with not being able to get to a news site. All I have to go with are the headlines.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the text of the executive order allowing the president (and amended by Bush to include VPs) I believe states that it does not apply to such cases as providing the identity of an undercover agent to the public.
At the very least, they tacitly allowed him to provide this sort of information, even if he wasn't provided it directly, and even if they would not have allowed him to divulge this specific information. They may be following the letter of the law, but for a spiritual man, I'd prefer if he followed its spirit more closely too.
quote:Actually, the text of the executive order allowing the president (and amended by Bush to include VPs) I believe states that it does not apply to such cases as providing the identity of an undercover agent to the public.
Yeah, but the President's executive orders are not likely to bind him legally. A presidential order contrary to an existing executive order can be seen as simply making a single exception to the existing order. This is similar to how a new law by Congress, by definition, cannot violate an older law by Congress.
BTW, Libby's testimony about what Cheney said to him about what Bush said cannot be introduced as evidence that Bush authorized it. Obviously we have no such restrictions in what we consider.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, does that mean that the president can essentially do anything? And any deviation from an executive order is just an exception, no matter how often the EO is excepted?
quote:Dag, does that mean that the president can essentially do anything?
No - there are many things that constrain a president's actions other than an executive order.
quote: And any deviation from an executive order is just an exception, no matter how often the EO is excepted?
Any deviation expressly authorized by the President. This assumes that the order making the exception isn't blocked by some other restriction on the executive power such as an act of Congress or the Constitution (as interpreted by SCOTUS).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it sounds like although the President didn't specifically authorize leaking Plume's name, he did authorize putting Libby to leak information, leading to a situation in which Libby apparently thought he should leak the name.
It sounds a bit like how Rumsfeld didnt' specifically authorize torture in Iraq, but did authorize setting up a system in which torture seemed acceptable to some soldiers running that system.
I don't think these things break laws, but I do think we should expect our leaders to be a great deal more careful to avoid setting up situations in which subordinates think it is okay to break laws. Setting up a "culture of corruption" does indirectly lead to corruption.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So it sounds like although the President didn't specifically authorize leaking Plume's name, he did authorize putting Libby to leak information, leading to a situation in which Libby apparently thought he should leak the name.
Well, it sounds like a defendant in a criminal trial has hinted that this is might have happened.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
IF the NewYorkSun's story is correct, Libby testified that Cheney told Libby that the President had authorized the disclosure. Even if Libby's testimony were true, that does not mean that Cheney was telling the truth about Dubya's involvement.
The big IF because grand jury testimony is supposed to be kept secret. Which means that the DubyaAdministration will go after the NewYorkSun to find the leakers of that testimony: just as they have every time that a leak discloses criminal behaviour by the DubyaAdministration.
posted
It might not be illegal, but it certainly sounds irresponsible on the surface, and highly hypocritical coming from a President who claimed he was the guy to trust on security and safety and not the Democrats, and especially when he claimed he had nothing to do with it, and vowed to bring those responsible to justice.
I say again, it looks that way on the surface, but I await more information before officially going on record as tearing him a new one. Still, he's lost so much trust with a lot of the people of this country that I think more people than not will see this as entirely plausible and will be very ready to believe it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grand Jury testimony IS supposed to be secret, but it depends on who did the leaking. If, say one of the jurors in the grand jury told a reporter, and that reporter told the world, it wouldn't be the reporter who got in trouble, it'd be the juror. At that point the reporter isn't bound or criminally liable. As I understand it, and as explained by Emily Procter on an early episode of The West Wing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but the reporter would be required to point out the leaker or face indefinite detention for contempt of court. And no, that isn't the way I think it should be. But it is the way the courts have been ruling: eg JudithMiller's jailing.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which means that the DubyaAdministration will go after the NewYorkSun to find the leakers of that testimony: just as they have every time that a leak discloses criminal behaviour by the DubyaAdministration.
The witness in a grand jury can speak of his testimony. That is not illegal.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bush: (Chicago, Illinois, 9/30/03) Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. 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.
And so I welcome the investigation. I -- I'm absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job. There's a special division of career Justice Department officials who are tasked with doing this kind of work; they have done this kind of work before in Washington this year. I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative.
I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.
quote: From the released documents: "Defendant's participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 (discussed further below) occured only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE. Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller -- getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval -- were unique in his recollection.
...
As to the meeting on July 8, defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occcasion because it was thought that the NIE was "pretty definitive" against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the Vice President thought that it was "very important" for the key judgements of the NIE to come out.
...
Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium. [These untrue claims are what Wilson's cable refuted.]
...
In fact, on July 8, defendant spoke with Miller about Mr. Wilson after requesting that attribution of his remarks be changed to 'former Hill staffer." Defendant discussed with Miller the contents of a then classified CIA report which defendant characterized to Miller as having been written by Wilson. Defendant advised Miller that Wilson had reported that he had learned that in 1999 an Iraqi delegation visited Niger and sought to expand commercial relations, which was understood to be a reference to a desire to obtain uranium. Later during the discussion about Wilson and the NIE, defendant advised Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Indict., Count One, P. 17.
Keep in mind that both Bush and Cheney have testified about this matter. It is unknown what their testimony was, however. The purpose of Libby's disclosure was to discredit Ambassador Wilson's statements on Iraq's nuclear intentions. Wilson had criticised US pre-war intelligence in the matter in public statements. (The documents the Administration relied on in claiming that Iraq had sought "yellow cake" uranium from Nigeria were later found to be forgeries.)
quote:truthout.com: Fitzgerald said the evidence he has obtained proves there was a coordinated effort by White House officials to discredit Wilson.
"There exist documents, some of which have been provided to defendant and there were conversations in which defendant participated, that reveal a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate Mr. Wilson before and after July 14, 2003.
Although Fitzgerald makes it abundantly clear that Libby is not charged with conspiracy, he argues that Libby's suggestion that no there was no White House plot to discredit Wilson is ludicrous given the amount of evidence Fitzgerald has in his possession that suggests otherwise.
Also:
quote: A footnote in the court filing states that [NSA Security Adviser] Stephen Hadley was intimately involved in conversations and meetings that took place at Cheney's office where White House officials discussed how to respond to Wilson's statements about the administration's use of bogus intelligence that purportedly proved Iraq actively sought 500 tons of uranium from Niger.
and
quote:"The President had vowed to fire anyone involved in leaking classified information. In that context, defendant proceeded to tell the FBI that he had merely passed information from one reporter (Russert) to other reporters while disclaiming any knowledge of whether the information he passed was true, and certainly unaware that he knew this classified information from government channels," the filing says. "Once that die was cast, defendant repeated the story in a subsequent interview and during two grand jury appearances.
Libby could be lying (no authorization), Cheney could be lying (Bush didn't give auth.), or Bush could be lying (vowing to fire any leaker when he himself authorized it). There are no other possibilities, unless more than one of them is lying.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well according the WhiteHouse, if Dubya authorized the leak, there was no leak. Hence there could be no leaker, and therefore Dubya wasn't lying.
quote:The White House refused to comment directly on the court filing, except to point out that Bush's very decision to disclose classified information means he declassified it... A senior administration official, speaking on background because White House policy prohibits comment on an active investigation, said Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done...
Interesting that the WhiteHouse response went out of its way to avoid a direct Yes or No answer as to whether Dubya authorized the Plame leak, and went out of its way to point out that that such a leak is legal*. Given that response, is it safe to presume that the "senior administration official...comment"ing on this "active investigation" was given authorization by Dubya to ignore the "White House policy prohibit"ing "comment on an active investigation"?
* Which is rather interesting in and of itself. 1) Is there a paperwork trail declassifying Plame's status as a CIA operative, before the Plame revelation was actually made as there would be for other declassifications? Or is legality merely a convenient excuse thought up when the coverup began unraveling? 2) Was due consideration given that not only was Plame being burned, but all of the CIA's foreign sources who had been in contact with Plame? And that those who hadn't would likely reevaluate their openness with other possible USintelligence agents? 3) Given that the WhiteHouse has publicly announced that it is okay for the President, merely for the purpose of engaging in domestic political chicanery, to burn foreigners who aid the US, doesn't such a policy of deliberate breach of trust make it more difficult for foreigners friendly toward US interests to make the decision to actually aid the US? 4) By making it more difficult for foreign friends to trust the USgovernment, hasn't the WhiteHouse given aid to less-than-friendly governments and terrorists who wish to penetrate the security that the USintelligence services provide?
"The President did not break the law since the very act of J-walking across the street automatically makes an exception to the law governing J-walking on that street."
In other words, it doesn't seem fair that the president gets to have changed the rules by default of breaking them, especially if he doesn't do it intentionally. I dunno, I'm not up on this story, I just hate Dubya.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That part is probably legal*, necessarily so. Though in this case -- if Dubya did authorize the leak -- there is a vast gulf between legal and honest.
And what is it with WhiteHouse-appointed prosecutor Fitzgerald seeking to block Libby's lawyers from obtaining a subpoena for Administration documents which Libby claims would exhonerate him? Have Dubya and Cheney already admitted to Fitzgerald that they authorized the leak then lied to the public, thereby absolving themselves from legal prosecution? Is Libby being prosecuted solely for perjuring himself in an attempt to coverup the authorization by his superiors?
* However it is illegal to report a crime (in this case, Dubya appointing a prosecutor to investigate an illegal leak) when it is known that there was no crime (which would be the case if Dubya had authorized the Plame leak). Moreover, it would also mean that WhiteHouse officials perjured themselves (through Fitzgerald) before the Court by claiming that a crime had been committed in order to obtain search warrants and subpoenas. In the case of eg JudithMiller's refusal to testify, there would be the further crime of false imprisonment under the color of authority, again through perjury committed upon the Court.
posted
Dag, IS this is true, what is your view on it? Not the legality, but the bull he said about a leak, and his statement abuot firing anyone involved in the leaking of this information...
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
"The President did not break the law since the very act of J-walking across the street automatically makes an exception to the law governing J-walking on that street."
No it doesn't. Does Congress break the law when it passes a new law that contradicts an old one? No. Executive orders are created by the President. Jay walking laws are not created by the person breaking it. The two hypos are not parallel in any way.
quote:* However it is illegal to report a crime (in this case, Dubya appointing a prosecutor to investigate an illegal leak) when it is known that there was no crime (which would be the case if Dubya had authorized the Plame leak).
Appointing someone to investigate is not "report[ing] a crime."
quote:Moreover, it would also mean that WhiteHouse officials perjured themselves (through Fitzgerald) before the Court by claiming that a crime had been committed in order to obtain search warrants and subpoenas.
Again, we don't know that he authorized the leak of Plame's identity. Authorizing some classified information to be released does not authorize all.
quote:In the case of eg JudithMiller's refusal to testify, there would be the further crime of false imprisonment under the color of authority, again through perjury committed upon the Court.
Now you're basically making stuff up.
quote:Dag, IS this is true, what is your view on it? Not the legality, but the bull he said about a leak, and his statement abuot firing anyone involved in the leaking of this information...
It all depends on whether he authorized the release of Plame's name or not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It all depends on whether he authorized the release of Plame's name or not.
I agree with Dag on this one. And since there's been a year and a half of investigation with thousands of hours of grand-jury testimony, and so far there hasn't even turned up ONE PIECE of evidence that Bush authorized the leak, I think its time to think that maybe, just MAYBE, the President actually isn't guilty of serious crimes in every Washington scandal that breaks. Maybe we should concentrate on trying to debate the myriad real problems the country faces, instead of desperately trying to convict the President of something that the Federal Prosecuter has yet to classify as an actual illegal "leak." But that would spoil all of the partisan fun, wouldn't it?
quote: I dunno, I'm not up on this story, I just hate Dubya.
This is the root of the problem. There are too many people in this country so blinded by their hatred of the President that they refuse to consider such trifles as "facts" and "evidence." It was true of the Clinton-hating dittohead crowd in the 1990s (of which I was once a member, but have since grown up) and is even more so today.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brian: last I checked, this testimony by libby seems like it may be tied into a presidential leak authorization, we just don't know yet.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but "seems like it may be tied into" is a far cry from "the President definitely broke the law by seriously compromising the identity of a top-secret agent for purely political purposes," which is what I've been reading.
I agree that we don't know yet, and thus I've been loath to get into this issue for fear of prematurely speaking. But as a matter of opinion, I'm skeptical of the President's culbability in this particular issue, considerent that an investigation of this magnitude has turned up so little evidence.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it turns out he authorized the leak, after the statement he made on the subject, he should be censured, even if there's a technical legality. The current leak investigation is hardly a witchhunt of him, what's come out so far is a coincidental finding in the efforts to determine who was involved in Libby (and possibly others) leaking this.
I agree that those clamoring about the president definitely breaking the law need to rein in, but that's a far cry from saying this investigation needs to end. It has turned up considerable evidence on the topic it is set to investigate; after all, that's why Libby is testifying to grand juries.
Basically, I'm somewhat unclear as to what evidence you're complaining about not finding.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Basically, I'm somewhat unclear as to what evidence you're complaining about not finding." How about the evidence that President Bush is guilty of compromising the identity of a covert agent? So far, and as was posted earlier by Dagonee, all we have is: "There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity."
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But that's not the purpose of the investigation (unless it turns out they did so, in which case it sort of is). The purpose of the investigation is to find out who was involved in the leak. It is methodically going about doing that. What's the problem? Are they supposed to not investigate potential leads that point to the President or VP?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course not; and if they find Bush or Cheney culpable of criminal intent, then they should suffer the consequences. My biggest complaint is the huge number of people who have already decided that Bush is a criminal based solely on the evidence that they "hate" him.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure exactly what volume of people are involved, but yes, that's problematic, as I stated before.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
In my opinion--backed up by no facts, but by personal experience--the volume of people who have already indicted, tried, and convicted Bush in their minds is pretty great, and indeed is a reflection of the sorry state our current system is in.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not too surprised. My only qualms were with your statements that might be construed as impugning the investigation itself.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No particular problem with the investigation itself; just people's tendency to jump to conclusions and make irresponsible, libelous accusations for partisan purposes.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe we should concentrate on trying to debate the myriad real problems the country faces...
I have to confess, Brian, that I laughed when I read this, because I recall your having been -- as you yourself mentioned -- a Clinton-hating dittohead not too many years ago. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill: But as a matter of opinion, I'm skeptical of the President's culbability in this particular issue, considerent that an investigation of this magnitude has turned up so little evidence.
Speaking purely in the hypothetical, IF the President had authorized the leak via Cheney and then Libby, how much evidence would there be? Only the conversation between the President and the Vice President, and the conversation between the VP and Libby. Libby seems to be saying that he was authorized to disclose the info. If the VP testifies otherwise, and the President does as well, regardless of whether they are telling the truth or not, then what Libby is saying is merely hearsay (hmm, maybe I should not use the term "hearsay" because I do not know the legalese use of this word very well) and not corroborated.
Very likely there is little or no evidence to find in any case.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe we should concentrate on trying to debate the myriad real problems the country faces...
There's two reasons that this investigation is happening. 1) Someone high up in the Bush administration leaked the name of an undercover agent to the press. In the opinion of the CIA (they were in fact the people who pushed for the investigation) this significantly comprised America's information gathering ability and was quite possibly in violation of the law. Even if it weren't technically illegal, without some pretty good justification, it was a terribly irresponsible thing to do, especially, as the administration constantly reminds us, because we are at war.
2) Instead of coming forward as saying "I was the one who did it.", whoever is directly responsible has opted to remain silent (and, consequentially working in the Bush administration). This whole thing could have been over months ago and at a much cheaper pricetag had this been done. I'm all for moving on. Just get this person to come forward, because that's what is keeping this an active issue. I won't even demand that they compensate the American people for all the money spent because they hadn't done so yet.
But then again, I consider a upper echelon member of the Executive branch hurting America's ability to gather information (and for what was quite possibly an attempt to punish a dissenter by going after his wife) to be a very important. I don't understand why it seems that other people aren't angry about this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I still think Clinton was a horrible President, and I think lying about and trying to cover-up evidence in a sexual harassment lawsuit is a very serious offense--impeachable, that's debatible--but serious indeed. It's only my hatred of him that I've repented of
My beef is that right now there's a lot of people in this country getting their knickers in a knot over what the President may or may not have done, and being fueled by their hatred of him, they're accusing him of the worst sorts of crimes regardless of the evidence. I admit that it's easy to transfer your dislike of a person's potics to a dislike of the person himself--I myself was guilty of the same crime in the 90s.
But now that I've grown up (a little--I make no claims of maturity,) I realize that it's probably more effective debating the policies of a politician that you disagree with, not the person themself. This isn't to say that you shouldn't expect high standards of your elected leaders. If Bush is guilty of committing a crime for the sake of politics, then that is indeed reprehensible and should be punished accordingly. However, intense hatred of someone doesn't count as sufficient evidence to convict, and many people seem to have forgotten that.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that's, unfortunately, my last word on the subject till Monday, because I'm already way late for class and I have no internet at home.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But now that I've grown up (a little--I make no claims of maturity,) I realize that it's probably more effective debating the policies of a politician that you disagree with, not the person themself.
I hear this a lot. But, to be honest, most of the people I know who hate Bush hate him because of his policies.
I wind up having to have this conversation a lot, perhaps because some of the "ditto-heads" out there who hated Clinton did hate him personally and not as a consequence of any of his policies (which were, by and large, more conservative than Bush's). But in my experience, those liberals who "hate" Bush do so because they dislike his policy, not because they made the decision to loathe him for some personal reason.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:a lot of people in this country getting their knickers in a knot over what the President may or may not have done
Here's my problem with this idea. I believe that the President (and by extention those very high in the administration to whom he delegates his responsibility) needs to be held to a standard higher than "It's possible he didn't do it. You don't actually know that he did it."
I believe that it's incumbent on the President to earn the trust of the populace by acting in a consistently trustworthy manner. Obviously, I don't expect a President's term to be completely free of ambiguous situations, but I have major trouble with the thinking that "You have to trust me. I'm the President, so I should automatically have your trust." and "You can't definitively proove I did something wrong, so we should just move on."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dont'cha know? Since we're in a protracted time of WAR, the president can do whatever he wants. He can arrest people simply becuase they look funny (or looked funny at him), he can hold them indefinitely without due process, he can select the judge for the trials, and he can pass the judgement and sentence himself. He can also leak out any information he wants, wiretap anyone he wants, without telling anyone, ever. He can get the library to tell him what books you've been reading (while not telling you that he's been told).
Oh, and the "war" we're in? He started it, because he wanted to, and made up "pretend facts" (I wouldn't want to call them lies, of course) in an attempt to justify it.
But, while we're distracted by all of that, he's busy changing the rules of finance within the country, so that he and his supporters can vastly increase their wealth, while the "rest" of us (and our children, and their children, and so on, and so on) will be paying for it now, and for generations to come.
At least I'm not bitter about any of it.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suppose, Dagonee, that a coffee shop owner goes in one night after closing and grabs all the cash out of the till: perfectly legal. The morning manager notices that the cash is missing, and calls the police and the owner. The police speak to the owner, who makes no admission of knowing the whereabouts of the missing cash while endorsing his morning manager's burglary report. Is that not filing a false police report? Is that not the equivalent of what occurred IF Dubya had authorized the leak?
Actually, the shakier part was "WhiteHouse officials perjured themselves (through Fitzgerald)" because using lawyers to mislead the Court is legal under the US judicial system; ie is not perjury. It is perfectly legal for a lawyer to know that his client is guilty yet challenge the validity of the evidence-gathering processes and of the application of the legal process to prevent a conviction. It would take a rather deliberate&provable conspiracy between the client and lawyer to present known-to-be-false evidence to the Court before a misleading representation became perjury. So IF Dubya had authorized the leak: as long as Fitzgerald remained uninformed of that authorization, no such conspiracy existed and no perjury occurred.
And IF Dubya had authorized the leak: since the President used his power to hire the independent prosecutor and has the power to fire Fitzgerald, then Dubya knowingly used Fitzgerald as an agent to falsely imprison JudithMiller for a crime which never occurred.
But as I have kept emphasizing, 'if Dubya had authorized the leak' is a big IF.
posted
And, just a like a good little Democrat, Boothby shoots himself in the foot. I wouldn't mind so much, except I get hit with some of the shrapnel.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hear this a lot. But, to be honest, most of the people I know who hate Bush hate him because of his policies.
Which I don't understand. If you think the president has bad policies, oppose the policies. I don't see why that should require hating the person too.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pretty much by defintion. What you posted there makes your goals harder rather than easier to achieve. You make yourself and your issues dismissible by those who disagree with you, influence moderates to at least consider the idea that the "They're doing this because they hate Bush." idea may be correct, and embarrass and annoy less emotionally explosive confirmed opponents of the President such as myself.
To me, what's worse is that I see important, well-founded, and focused criticisms are for the most part being drowned out by the volume (both in terms of loudness and amount) of stuff like this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see why that should require hating the person too.
Neither do I, to be honest. But many people apparently believe that you can judge a man's character by his policy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll be honest, I dislike President Bush based on his displayed character as well as disagreeing with many of his policies. This may not be an accurate impression of the real man, but from what I know and have seen of him, he reminds me quite strongly of the rich History or Business majors I went to college with who were secure that whatever happened, daddy would get them a job.
I don't bear him ill-will because of this, but this is a contributing factor as to why I find him terrifically unsuited for the Presidency.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are people supposed to use to judge a man's character other than his actions? Or a politician's other than his policies? Finding persons to be unsuitable for certain kinds of trust isn't the same as hating them. I admit to having friends that I consider to be untrustworthy (at least under certain circumstances), yet I still find their company to be pleasant/exciting/amusing/etc.
posted
Also, on this issue, I think the picture that we're getting is that it's likely that the President told the Vice-President to authorize leaking Valerie Plame's CIA status. According to people who seem to know, this would not be illegal because of the President's powers to declassify things.
However, assuming that this is true, does this really matter? I mean, even leaving aside the two years of evasion and mendacity on the President and his administration's part, I don't get how this being technically legal makes it at all okay. According to this, the President could decide to tell say Osama bin Laden all of the sleeper agents we have in al-Queda and it wouldn't be illegal. But, so freaking what? If he did this and people found out about it, he'd be out of office so fast the chair would spin.
It being technically legal for the President to do something like this would make it (assuming that this is the case) even worse because not only would it be damaging the interests of the U.S., especially during war time, but because it's an abuse of the power and trust that makes it so the President can do things like this without them being against the law. Do people disagree with this?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It certainly makes it harder for us to back him when he says things like, "We are only listening in on the conversations of terrorists with Americans. Trust me on this." or "We are making progress in Iraq. Trust me." or "The drug plan is helping millions of American seniors. Trust me that it is working well."
More, it hurts his ambitions for new legislation. "There is no way our guest worker program will cost American Jobs. Trust me." or "There will be no ecological damage done by our drilling in Anwar" or "There is nothing we can do to slow or prevent Global Warming."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dislike Bush because I think he is directly hurting America's future. The policies he has instituted directly hurt me now (less access to college loans, etc.) and will directly hurt me in the long run (paying taxes to finance this war and the incredible national debt). His policies directly hurt others (rendition, detainees, Iraqis, Afghanis, innocent Pakistanis caught in the explosion from our al-Qaida-seeking missiles), and so I oppose them in order to protect those people.
The issue here for me isn't that President Bush authorized declassification of a document and didn't tell anybody. The issue is that Bush declassified information and directed its dissemination to the press in order to discredit ambassador Wilson's public statements, which ultimately were correct (Iraq was not trying to buy uranium from Niger). The Administration's attempt to bolster the believability of the forged documents "uncovered by the Italians" was a backbone of the corpus of lies justifying going to war.
This leak is just further evidence of how the Administration was dedicated to justifying an unjustifiable war in Iraq through lies.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
