President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Tico still can't understand why outing a Secret CIA agent is not a breach of national security. Makes one wonder how these guys ever get through the bar exam.

What crime?

No, Bush was specific about taking action if a crime was committed. Only libs such as yourself who are desperate to find fault with Bush are claiming he's changed his mind. When he's given a specific response on the matter, he has consistently said he would take action with a member of his administration if it was determined that a crime had been committed. McClellan was relatively clear about it on 9/29, and when Bush spoke on 9/30, he was crystal clear about it. No back-tracking at all.

Checking in again here and I see the subject is now onto the outing of Valerie Plame, but to follow up on the Niger yellow cake and the 16 words, as the factcheck.org indicates, the administration retracted the claim, but bottom line Bush was not intentionally lying. This event needs to be evaluated from what was known at that point in time, and what Bush knew at the time, and perhaps more importantly what the speech writers knew at the time, not according to the spin years later.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

And to dredge up this speech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

In this speech is the following paragraph:
"Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it? "

Bush took office after years of the previous administration that made similar claims about Iraq. We know Bush did not tell Clinton what to say then, or coerce the CIA into its intelligence activities then. The truth is both Clinton and the U.N. did plenty of jawing about the Saddam Hussein problem, but Bush decided to do something about it. Now, there are many political operatives attempting to spin the history as if Bush made all of this up so that he could go to war.

Carry on.

I took the liberty to edit out portions of this article, because it had little relevance to the theme of this article, and it was a mistake on Mr Hart's part in identifying somebody in error.

By Gary Hart:

The federal statute making it a criminal penalty to knowingly divulge the identity of anyone working undercover for the Central Intelligence Agency was not enacted in a vacuum.

Richard Welch, a brilliant Harvard-educated classicist, had been stationed in Greece as CIA station chief only a few months before he was murdered, by a radical Greek terrorist organization called the 17th of November, in the doorway of his house in Athens on Dec. 23, 1975.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) of 1982 was enacted, making it a felony to knowingly divulge the identity of a covert CIA operative. It carries penalties of 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine for each offense. There are those who dismiss the crime by saying, "Oh, Wilson only had a desk job." That is not a defense under this felony statute. It is for the CIA, not Karl Rove or Robert Novak, to determine who requires identity protection and who does not.

The political irony of all this is that conservative elements in America have always proclaimed themselves more concerned than anyone else with national security, the sanctity of classified information, protection of sources, support for our intelligence and military services, and so on. At radical times in our past, irresponsible leftist groups thought it was their duty to try to reveal the names of CIA agents. Now, under a conservative administration, it is these conservative national security champions who are saying, with regard to the "outing" of a CIA undercover officer, "Where's the crime?"

There is further irony in the fact that now the premier intelligence agency of the United States, the CIA, is in utter disarray. Morale is desperately low. Many of the best career officers are leaving. As the source of unbiased professional intelligence, the CIA has been diminished and pushed aside by the Department of Defense. This at a time when it is critical to national security to have the best possible intelligence to protect us from terrorism.

I served on the first Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee in the late 1970s and have continued to be a strong believer in and supporter of the CIA. I deplore those who want to diminish it, politicize it, or require it to produce bogus intelligence it would not otherwise produce simply to fit some preconceived political or ideological agenda. In almost every case where the CIA has malfunctioned, it did so under pressure from one political administration or another.

So, there's the crime. To casually and willfully endanger the life of an undercover CIA agent is a felony. You either believe in taking the laws of the United States seriously or you do not. Citizens - even highly placed ones - do not get to pick and choose which laws they will obey and which they will not. Miller and her publisher may think she's a hero, but I don't. It is well established that there is no First Amendment protection for a journalist or anyone else to withhold evidence of a crime.

There is one final irony to this story. On Christmas Eve in 1975, I got a call at my home from the director of the CIA, William Colby. He asked if I would intervene with the White House to obtain presidential approval to have Welch buried at Arlington National Cemetery, a hero fallen in service to his country. I quickly called President Ford's chief of staff on Colby's behalf and made the request. Within two hours, the president had agreed to sign the order permitting Welch to be buried at Arlington.

The chief of staff's name was Richard Cheney.

Tico, The following is extracted from the above article:

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) of 1982 was enacted, making it a felony to knowingly divulge the identity of a covert CIA operative.

Show us where it mentions "national security" as a condition for it to be a felony?

Art. III, Sec. 3 of the constitution states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

It is clear that Bush and his close aides gave our country's enemies aid and comfort. Thus, their acts are treasonous, and those persons should, at a minimum, be removed from office.

ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution provides:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason_2.htm

Plame worked on WMD's in Iraq and Iran. When the Bush administartion "burned" plame's identity. They/he gave aid to the enemy (see above).

If I violate the law and It cannot be proven have I still violated the law?

You see, I can violate the law of treason and gaurd myself (or others) against proof. I have "commited treason without violating the law"

Here is an example of the same thing done by the same people;


http://groups.google.com/group/Coalitionforfreethoughtinmedia/browse_thread/thread/f10717240b6077b0/4966c848ad073584?lnk=st&q=Rove+fired+from+Bush+Sr's+'92+campaign+over+leak+to+Novak&rnum=2&hl=en#4966c848ad073584

"Rove fired from Bush Sr's '92 campaign over leak to Novak. Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak. Novak's piece described a meeting organized by then-Senator Phil Gramm at which Mosbacher was relieved of his duties as state campaign manager because "the president's re-election effort in Texas has been a bust." Rove was fired after Mosbacher fingered him as Novak's source. "

The constitution is the law. Bush and his aids clearly violated the treason provision.

No, it's not clear that Bush did anything of the kind. Explain how Bush et al. gave our enemies aid and comfort?

It has never been established that Ms. Plame is a "covert agent" as defined in the IIPA. You disagree?

Plame was not "covert," and I've been lead to believe she was not covert since 1997 when it was discovered that she had been "outed" by Aldrich Ames. Plame may very well have been working on issues pertaining to WMD regarding Iraq and Iran, but so are a good many other people who work for the CIA. Revealing that someone works for the CIA does not automatically mean you've committed treason.

Now, are you ready to explain how doing so provides "aid and comfort" to the enemy?

Yes, if you violate the law and it cannot be proven, you have still violated the law. But by that same token, if you don't violate the law and it cannot be proven that you didn't violate the law, you have still not violated the law. What have we established by this little exercise? Nothing.

So what is this super secret law you claim Bush has violated?

From Wiki:


So, at the very least, the administration is responsible for blowing the cover of an agent who was formally classified by the CIA, undercover and/or classified, and that she was classified as a Non-Officiel Cover agent.

Well then, no big deal!

The best you (and other Bush apologists) can do is hide behind semantics. Revealing her identity for strictly political purposes was shameful, disgusting, and completely inappropriate. Go ahead and try to split hairs, since that's the best (and only) possible defense for such actions.

They blew Plame's cover, and destroyed the effectiveness of Brewster-Jennings, her CIA-owned cover company. As you know, she, through the cover company, was monitoring Iran's work on WMD. Her intell. drop, a law firm, was compromised. We can assume that Iranians associated with Plame and the company have been scooped up. Further, agents using the drop have been compromised.

Do you deny that this gave aid and comfort to Iran?

Actually, the best I can do is point out all the ridiculous BS that comes flying towards Bush in the desperate hope that it will stick.

"Shameful, disgusting, and completely inappropriate"? Whatever you say, and you're entitled to your opinion, but such does not constitute any crime I'm aware of.

Yes, I deny it. I've read reports that there is absolutely NO harm to have come from the revelation that Valerie Plame works for the CIA. And at this juncture I'm lead to believe those reports, and not your assumptions.

One more time; the Naitonal Security Act of 1947 makes it a felony to out a CIA agent:

National Security Act of 1947
TITLE VI?-PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
PROTECTION OF IDENTITIES OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES UNDERCOVER INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS, AGENTS, INFORMANTS, AND SOURCES
SEC. 601. [50 U.S.C. 421] (a) Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(d) A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

DEFENSES AND EXCEPTIONS

SEC. 602. [50 U.S.C. 422] (a) It is a defense to a prosecution under section 601 that before the commission of the offense with which the defendant is charged, the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the United States is the basis for the prosecution.

(b)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), no person other than a person committing an offense under section 601 shall be subject to prosecution under such section by virtue of section 2 or 4 of title 18, United States Code, or shall be subject to prosecution for conspiracy to commit an offense under such section.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply (A) in the case of a person who acted in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, or (B) in the case of a person who has authorized access to classified information.

(c) It shall not be an offense under section 601 to transmit information described in such section directly to either congressional intelligence committee.

(d) It shall not be an offense under section 601 for an individual to disclose information that solely identifies himself as a covert agent.

REPORT

SEC. 603. [50 U.S.C. 423] (a) The President, after receiving information from the Director of Central Intelligence, shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees an annual report on measures to protect the identities of covert agents, and on any other matter relevant to the protection of the identities of covert agents. The date for the submittal of the report shall be the date provided in section 507.

(b) The report described in subsection (a) shall be exempt from any requirement for publication or disclosure.

EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

SEC. 604. [50 U.S.C. 424] There is jurisdiction over an offense under section 601 committed outside the United States if the individual committing the offense is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence (as defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act).

PROVIDING INFORMATION TO CONGRESS

SEC. 605. [50 U.S.C. 425] Nothing in this title may be construed as authority to withhold information from the Congress or from a committee of either House of Congress.

DEFINITIONS

SEC. 606. [50 U.S.C. 426] For the purposes of this title:

(1) The term "classified information" means information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order (or a regulation or order issued pursuant to a statute or Executive order), as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.

(2) The term "authorized", when used with respect to access to classified information, means having authority, right, or permission pursuant to the provisions of a statute, Executive order, directive of the head of any department or agency engaged in foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities, order of any United States court, or provisions of any Rule of the House of Representatives or resolution of the Senate which assigns responsibility within the respective House of Congress for the oversight of intelligence activities.

(3) The term "disclose" means to communicate, provide, impart, transmit, transfer, convey, publish, or otherwise make available.

(4) The term "covert agent" means?-

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency?-

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and?-

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or

(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

(5) The term "intelligence agency" means the Central Intelligence Agency, a foreign intelligence component of the Department of Defense, or the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(6) The term "informant" means any individual who furnishes information to an intelligence agency in the course of a confidential relationship protecting the identity of such individual from public disclosure.

(7) The terms "officer" and "employee" have the meanings given such terms by section 2104 and 2105, respectively, of title 5, United States Code.

(8) The term "Armed Forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

(9) The term "United States", when used in a geographic sense, means all areas under the territorial sovereignty of the United States and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

(10) The term "pattern of activities" requires a series of acts with a common purpose or objective.

Articles in The Washington Post,[41] The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications have pointed to Plame's association with Brewster Jennings & Associates, a fictitous one-person law services office that was nothing more than "a telephone and a post office box."[42] Disclosure of the identity of a covert agent is illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, though the language of the statute raises the issue of whether Karl Rove is within the class of persons to whom the statute applies.[43] However, Title 18, United States Code, Section 641[44] prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes and was found to apply in the conviction of Jonathan Randel[45].

While the complete list of witnesses who have testified before the grand jury is not known (Fitzgerald has conducted his investigation with much more discretion than previous presidential investigations[46]), a number of individuals have acknowledged giving testimony, including White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Deputy Press Secretary Claire Buchan, former press secretary Ari Fleischer, former special advisor to the president Karen Hughes, former White House communications aide Adam Levine, former advisor to the Vice President Mary Matalin, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.[47] On 13 May 2005, citing "close followers of the case," The Washington Post reported that the length of the investigation, and the particular importance paid to the testimony of reporters, suggested that the counsel's role had expanded to include investigation of perjury charges against witnesses.[48] Other observers have suggested that the testimony of journalists was needed to show a pattern of intent by the leaker or leakers.[49]

Another dodge. Let me rephrase and see if I get a straight answer this time:



Do you feel it is appropriate to do such a thing for strictly political purposes? This is a totally serious question.

MSNBC.com

The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert
Newsweek

Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information," the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame.

The new papers show Libby testified he was told about Plame by Cheney "in an off sort of curiosity sort of fashion" in mid-June?-before he talked about her with Miller and Time magazine's Matt Cooper. Libby's trial has been put off until January 2007, keeping Cheney off the witness stand until after the elections. A spokeswoman for Libby's lawyers declined to comment on Plame's status.

?-Michael Isikoff

© 2006 MSNBC.com

Even your above Newsweek article admits to break the law, the person leaking must know the person is covert when revealing the identity. So what are we still doing investigating a crime that has never been demonstrated as a crime? Most of us have known this from day 1. I've said this many times, but I want to know why Fitzgerald continues to waste time on this?