What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How to Make Your PC as Fast as the Day You Bought It view!
howlifeworks.com - What's the fastest way to restore a computer to its original blazing glory
87 Comments
- millifoo, on 10/12/2007, -23/+70Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - how dare he go on and on about the leaking of classified information when he's done it himself. Shame on you, Mr. Bush.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -26/+58Why does Mr. Bush hate America?
- spaceman255, on 10/12/2007, -9/+36And guess what, Nothing will happen.
- szelij, on 10/12/2007, -9/+31Like spaceman says, nothing will happen. Its mid-terms now and the Republicans control both Houses. Mr Bush isn't the type to be swayed by public opinion-even if he's at 10% approval, he'd stick it out. The Republicans won't support any motion to remove him or even entertain talk of that, for fear of the charge of sleaze and corruption to stick to them during their campaigns.
The democrats meanwhile are too busy being complete dicks to each other and fracturing on the war.
So nothing will happen and Mr Bush will get out of office as perhaps one of the biggest factor in America's future 21st century history. - HoodCrowd, on 10/12/2007, -14/+35This whole evangelical christian patriotic thing is one big anti-constitutional crock.
1. Most of the founding fathers were christian, some were not, they did not want to be forced to study one religion, why they left the motherland. CHRISTIANITY IS A RELIGION, not the religion.
2. The constitution was not made to be studied for ways around it. It is a pretty easy read is you do not let lawyers handle the definitions.
3. I want freedom more then a babysitter. - timbellomo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16he can declassify information, but there *is* a process involved. He can't just do it on a whim.
- tobyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21She was an agent, and several people were operating under the cover of Brewster-Jennings. The information was classified. It was marked '(S)' for 'secret' and the nature of the information was known. The President declassified the information AFTER the leak. Both of those arguments have been debunked for a while now.
There are no valid arguments in support of this leak. It's a clear abuse of power, and flies in the face of the recent scapegoating of the press for releasing information leaked by those who have sworn not to do just that. - dWhisper, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21It missed the fan 6 months ago when this was first released, 4 months ago when it was released again, 2 months ago when they brought it up over the whole legal mess, lass month as well.
Apparently, stupidity and arrogance (the hallmarks of this Administration) are a shield against ***** coming down. - gamabunta, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18You're thinking of the weekly word news dumbass.
- tobyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Can you list Wilson's lies?
- elephantdog, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20Is it not called murder if the president does it too? Oh, right...
- samnmax, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10You know, I really don't like Bush, and I do believe that he was involved in outing the CIA officer. However, trying to claim this article is proof of that is incredibly misleading. Right at the beginning of the article, under the headline, is 'No instruction to out CIA agent, says president'. Also, nowhere in the article does it say that Bush authorized the leaking of the fact that she was a CIA agent. In fact, it says the opposite. It does say that the president authorized leaking classified information to discredit Wilson, but this was already known.
There are so many things you can pin on Bush, there is no need to make up facts that don't exist. The leaking of classified information itself is very damaging. However, there is no reason to try to twist the article to mean more than it says. It only goes to discredit those of us who want to see these thugs out of office. - Myko, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"Plame was not covert, was not an agent (she was an analyst) and her husband was a leftie with a chip on his shoulder trying to discredit the administration. Marked inaccurate."
Are you retarded or just blind, deaf, and dumb? The CIA is the one who complained about the leak because Valerie was in fact a NOC, the highest order of operative within the agency. In fact her project at the time of the leak was the Iran Nuclea Weapons investigation (she was heading it up)...
From Plame Affair on wikipedia:
After an MSNBC report that asserted Plame was working on tracking Iranian nuclear proliferation, U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) wrote Director of Central Intelligence Porter Goss requesting a "national security damage assessment briefing to U.S. Senators regarding the public disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA officer."[143]
Try and get your information straight before spouting useless talking points. - designer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Because he is a hatemonger.
- Netwatcher, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12So the president didn't authorize the use of Varlie Plame Wilson's name. Instead he authorized the smear of Joe Wilson, because Wilson told the truth and Bush was lying.
Oh, that's so much better. Thanks for clarifying that. - Myko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Ah, a bit of wisdom, finally. Assuming Bush DID declassify such information, it was well within his right to do so, and no crime was committed. Much to the distaste of our resident liberals, but that's the facts folks."
It's true he has the power and it wasn't in fact illegal, however considering the fact that Valeria was the NOC working on Iran's nuclear weapon attempts it would make him look extremely bad to have leaked her name. Not to mention the fact that the leak was to discredit Wilson (a staunch republican, mind you) who tried to warn the administration not to claim that Iraq was attempting to buy Yellowcake in Niger as his report showed that to be false. The 'scandal' is the fact that a covert operatives name was leaked to further the lie about Iraq trying to buy nuclear weapons during the lead up to the invasion in Iraq. Arguing that 'it wasn't illegal because he has the power to declassify such things' is ridiculous, even though 100% correct. The illegality of the issue is the fact that the name was leaked to discredit Wilson and to start a war with false pretenses built on lies. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+19I wonder if Fox News will put up the crawl, "Is President Bush Helping Terrorists?" like they did when the recent NYT story broke.
- Netwatcher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Varlie Plame was an under cover agent that's been well established.
But lets humor you for a second and say Rush Limbaugh is right:
If Varlie Plame, wasn't an undercover agent, working to track WMD's, Then the CIA wouldn't have filed charges with the Department of Justice. Even if they did, and the DOJ investigated, and found nothing they would have dropped the case like, "White Water". Which means that Scooter Libby wouldn't have indicted for perjuring himself to protect Dick Chenney.
Unfortunately that's not what hap pend. A crime was commit ed here, it was investigated, and it was stonewalled, and it is still ongoing.
What happened here is a travesty, and blindly signing it off as the presidents prerogative is just blindly stupid. Stop listening Fox News and think for yourself for a change. - Netwatcher, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Yeah, I have to agree. As long as Republicans control congress they'll just keep rolling over for this president.
I don't care if I have to vote for Mickey Mouse, I'm voting against the Republicans fall. - elephantdog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7In case you hadn't noticed diggs are unrelated to the validity of comments, that's why it's not called "moderation" and I like it like that.
- Netwatcher, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Believe it or not. Revealing the name of CIA agent, and the name of the front company she was operating under, to track the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the middle east, is treason.
Unfortunately, as the CIA does not release the names of covert operatives or assets killed in action, its likely we'll never know the full ramifications of what happened to the men and women who put their lives on the line, and turned on their countries to spy for us.
Carl Novak, deserves to be nailed to a tree by his thumbs.
If you want to compare that with fact that the NYT, Wallstreet Journal, LAT, etc... revealed that the White House was making a end run about Constitution to skip getting a warrant to track phone records or money transactions. Then go for it, but the two do not compare. - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -14/+18Heh, this story is more proof that people in Digg's politics section.
* This story a duplicate from a few days ago: http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0703nj1.htm
* The story is flat out, demonstratibly wrong. There were two leaks here, one involving WMD claims, and one involving Plame's ID. The leak in this story covers WMD claims. NOT Plame's ID
* This story is months old.
* When diggers previously tried to point out that the story is flat out inaccurate by anyone who reads the article, they were modded down to -18. Those who ranted against Bush were modded way up.
I'm having a hard time imaging an even dumber submission to the political section. I know stories here are pretty bad...but wow...it just blows my mind away how illiterate some people are. - tobyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@timla - Unless I'm mistaken, declassification has to happen PRIOR to the release of information, not ten days later.
- mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Yes, helix, digg is out of control when it comes to politics. I will have to outright block the Political category because it is being spammed with crap (left or right).
- duncanm, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9The reason why this President won't be impeached is simple: if he were removed from office, the person that would have to replace him from his administration would be even more frightening than the President himself. Political and diplomatic incompetence is so acute in this administration that it serves to protect him from being disposed of.
- sgbooth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@doodad: There is a fundamental difference in deciding to publish something because its possibly (very possibly) illegal and releasing classified information to discredit a source. The two don't compare. One is for the interest of the public because it possibly violates the constitution which our entire thread of society is built, but the leak only benefits the leaker.
The press doesn't decide to publish all information it obtains. For example, the times apparently uncovered which countries the CIA was flying planes into. The CIA asked the countries not be named because it would harm their program. Guess what, the NYT did not publish it because the fact was irrelevant to public's interest (in other words, we don't need to know WHICH countries only that it occurs). - Hungryhaney, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@geekee Where did you hear this? Any links, because that does not sound right. The president is not almighty (yet), even if he acts like he is.
- defensivewag, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13Mr. Bush kicked, and put an agent of the CIA in front of a bus.
- dignon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There isn't one single news source in the USA that isn't biased extremely to the right. The only news Americans are getting is propaganda - unfortunately. You've had one source with somewhat intact jornalistic integrity, the NYT, and they get beat down anytime they question the Bush Administration. The only hope for a somewhat balanced view is to use news sources outside the US. The Guardian, BBC, CBC are all infinitely more balanced than anything available in the US right now.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3How close are we to imprisonment for dissent? With all the secrecy, we're almost there. Disgusting.
- dknighton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2From the story...
"The revelation by the National Journal, a respected weekly political magazine.."
If you have to go out of your way to mention that your source is "respected" it most likely is not. - mikeyeah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's funny, certain people think that saying, "you liberals" is offensive and hurtful. It's not, it just shows how you want to further divide this nation. If by "liberal" you mean that I question authority, I do not take everything the government tells me as "truth", I have empathy for people who are less fortunate than me, I don't try to impose my religion on other people, I don't think it's right that laws and tax cuts are continually passed to benefit big corporations and the wealthy....then yes, I am a liberal.
I am a firm believer in karma (e.g. Ken Lay), and our government, ecspecially the bush administration, will soon experience it. What goes around, comes around. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What amazes me the most is that some comments which try to take a balanced view of the situation are buried, while those which make crude snipes at either side get dugg.
Commence burying. - Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1UCLA studies (hardly a conservative source) have PROVEN that the vast majority of the mainstream media leans LEFT. And just recently it was revealed that 9 of 10 donations by journalists to a political party were to the Democrats. (You might say, well, this article's from 2006, but similar polls have proven year after year after year that most "mainstream" journalists are registered Democrats. This has been known for a LONG time.) You people really do breathe and drink lies, don't you?
- mattsovesky, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I cant believe how all of you can go off about this when we're talking about an entire story without a real source. This story is misrepresented, if ou research it. Anyone can type this garbage, how about some facts, ma'am!
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -16/+17"However, the president told investigators that he never directed anyone to disclose Ms Plame's identity. He also said that he was unaware Mr Cheney had directed his chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to covertly leak the information, rather than formally declassify it."
Um....how did he authorize it again? - evilbob333, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10@tobyjoe
"Iraq never attempted to get Uranium from Nigeria"
"My wife had nothing to do with me going to Nigeria"
"I am non-partisan" - opnotic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, there it is printed that was his wife's idea. It's also printed elsewhere that it *wasn't* her idea, but it was her bosses idea. Now they both can't be true. Why did Ashcroft dismiss himself and hand it over to Fitzgerald to investigate anyway? Certainly it is known that an official (Libby) told Novak and other reporters that his wife worked for the CIA. Ashcroft dismissed himself because it was a poss ability that that info was released just to make it seem like it was his wife's idea... or in short... discredit Wilson.
You can take your pick with your sources and your sides. For this story you don't "start" with Wilson's lies. You start with the Presidents state of the Union address where he knowingly gave false info to make Iraq a threat in the American mind.
You don't start with discrediting Wilson unless you want to confuse the issue. That is why we have the whole special council in the first place. Suddenly a newspaper came out and stated that Joes wife works at the CIA and it was her idea. Not only inaccurate, but it's also treason. - mecc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Ultimately, it doesn't matter if GWB declassified anything, leaked anything, or told someone else to leak anything. The fact is that it happened under his watch, he claims unified executive authority, hasn't done what he said he would - fire whoever did it (scooter libby), and the leak itself had clear political motives.
All that adds up to a *really* bad time to be a CIA operative, and a *good* time to leave the CIA if you are one. Kudos to GWB for being so obviously unsupportive of national security. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Joe:
>HOWEVER if you look at section 3.5b (yes, the one right after A)... it lists the people EXEMPT from this clause... and ALWAYS have been exempt from this type of limitation on Declassification power.
That only says that the President is exempt from mandatory declassification reviews. Big difference.
In addition your argument requires that Bush blessed this disclosure. Something that 1) is not allowed by declassification procedures (only the archivist or the originating AGENCY can declassify), and 2) shows that Bush DID out a CIA agent for political gain. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6joe:
>I will give you ignorant one guess as to the branch of government that has the power to declassify something? Which person in particular has this power (with out limits)?
>Thats right folks... it is the President himself.
And you'd be wrong. Absolutely and entirely wrong. Maybe you should look up the Bush Executive Order 13292 on Classified National Security Information and then tell us if the President is authorized to declassify information.
(He's not. He can classify, but not declassify.)
Bush should know about this rule, after all he signed it. - Netwatcher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The National Journal is a conservative think tank, its not a legitimate media source. If your siting the NRO, you might as well site the Huffingtonpost.com or the www.thedrudgereport.com
- helix400, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Edit: "Heh, this story is more proof that people in Digg's politics section don't read". If only the original editing timer was 3 minutes and not 45 seconds or so.
- gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't really care how her name appears in her personnel file, this is inexcusable. Non official cover agents have no diplomatic immunity should they be discovered. Valarie Wilson, like so many others took a risk for her country when she agreed to help the CIA. Exposing her or any other past or present operative was unprincipled and the last thing any member of government should do.
I can’t think of a more unpatriotic act than betraying that trust to buttress a lie. What are we saying to the other brave individuals out there, we may just give you up at any time if and when it’s convenient. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2to the right? ha!
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I'm no legal expert, but the analysis I heard was that if he leaks it, by definition it's declassified.
- sriracha, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8MY NAME IS JOE.
I LIKE YELLING WHEN I ARGUE BECAUSE... BECAUSE... BECAUSE... WELL ...
anyway...
I AM RIGHT! - tobyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0""Iraq never attempted to get Uranium from Nigeria"
They didn't, though that isn't a direct quote. The embassy letters have been proven as forgeries for years now.
"My wife had nothing to do with me going to Nigeria"
She didn't, in any important or interesting way. How could this be a lie about national security?
"I am non-partisan""
You added this one - You'd had the inaccurate quote about him reporting directly to Cheney. His role was non-partisan. Whether a person can see a party drag his own and his wife's names through the mud without BECOMING partisan is another issue. This one isn't a statement related to national security. This is also not a direct quote.
You've pointed out no cited quotes that are in any way inaccurate, nor have you justified the president breaching security protocols as retribution. Sorry, man, but you lose this one. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+14This is a dupe of the BloodJunkie submission, but linking to a different story. As before, Bush didn't disclose Valerie Plame's name. That's not even getting into how her name was already published beforehand.
I love how the leaking of Plame's name is a big freakin' deal, but disclosing a top-secret intelligence program is a right the media has. I'm starting to grow extremely weary of Digg's politics. - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4"In case you hadn't noticed diggs are unrelated to the validity of comments, that's why it's not called "moderation" and I like it like that."
Validity doesn't matter when moderating? "That comment is correct, and we were all wrong. But I sure hate that guy for pointing out the truth. Mark him down!" And you like it this way? -
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is