CNN Now CORRECTING Bush Authorizing Plame Leak!!!!

[stopbush]

Tune in

"Not about a law being broken...not about leaking Plame's name."

Boy, the RNC/MSM doesn't waste a second, do they?

[MADem]

1. Correcting??? Or did someone call them up and correct THEM???

As in "If ya know what's good for ya, see, you'll retract that story, see....!!!"

[librechik]

10. he was sweating blood as he made the correction

I think a phone call was made

[MissB]

18. That was truly the most awkward apology I've ever seen.

And then he cut to commercial very awkwardly.

[SharonRB]

2. What are they saying?

[Big Kahuna]

3. ooh! ooh! It's fitzmas! It's fitzmas!

:sarcasm:

[kpete]

4. CNN

Makes it seem like a game between Libby & Fitz

Ensor: Gov says VP leaked NIE docs

Doc from gov says that the pres authorized Libby to leak info about what Iraq had

NOTHING TO DO WITH PLAME

Pres is legally entitled to do so

[0007]

16. What are the NIE docs and what does it have to do the leak?

I guess we'll get a full dose of the bird flu shortly.

[bettyellen]

5. said it'd not plame,but RE: WMDs and uranium, and the * is allowed...

to declassify...said previous cnn reports today re: leak were obviously erroneous.

[babylonsister]

8. My head is about to 'spin' off! That was quick! nt

[babylonsister]

11. MSNBC doesn't appear to be backing down. nt

[w8liftinglady]

15. i'm going over to msnbc...cnn has officially jumped the shark

[babylonsister]

31. I have them on; they suddenly got real quiet about this story,

re-airing Scarborough from last night. :wtf:
When will the media whores say enough is enough?

[librechik]

21. Ensor covers Bush ass

he used to be a journalist

[mzmolly]

50. So why did Fitz file papers if * was allowed to to XYZ.

I know your only the messenger.

[Pirate Smile]

6. They can say whatever they want but I want them to show the tape

of Bush acting like he wanted to get to the bottom of it and whoever did it would be in big trouble.

Play that along with his saying how a warrant is always needed for the government to eavesdrop on any citizens.

[oasis]

20. NBC's David Shuster: "Bush's going to have a big public relations problem

with this".

[salin]

24. why - because he caused the blow up of key national intelligence on WMD

to protect his lies about WMDs in Iraq? That? That to protect his political ass he put our nation's security at risk by limiting our ability to track the international flow of WMD materials in order to prevent WMDs from falling into terrorist hands or 'rogue states'? ??? I bet that the public won't get passed the... then why did he promise to get theleakers... and not get to the real serious nature of the whole story.

[Pirate Smile]

35. Exactly. People will focus on the bull about promising to get the leakers

when he was actually part of it. That is the part that will hurt him IMO. The more complicated facts, the more people just shut it out.

[salin]

46. Sad as the details in this one have such serious, serious implications.

[oasis]

56. That's exactly why Kerry has to lay it all out on MSNBC "Hardball" today.

[salin]

57. Kerry is scheduled on Hardball today?

How very, very interesting....

[oasis]

58. He's on to discuss his plan for Iraq.Tweety has to bring up the Plame leak

story because it was MSNBC reporter David shuster who broke the story. Joe Wilson is an associate of Kerry's so he's the best leading Democrat in position to address the issue.

Kerry should expose Bush for his gigantic lie about "wanting to get to the bottom of who leaked".

[salin]

61. I never watch the show... perhaps this will be an exception.

[rodeodance]

28. Shuster gave a long detailed report ealier -talked of court docs.

[CJCRANE]

7. Isn't the story

that Bush authorized a different leak of intelligence info?

(But everyone assumed it was the Plame leak).

[rodeodance]

30. Schuster was talking of court docs and Libby quotes.

[in_cog_ni_to]

52. C-SPAN'S Capitol News reported that Libby fingered Cheney and Bush in the

PLAME leak. I heard it myself. He specifically said, "Cheney authorized Libby to pass on Plame's name and it went directly to Bush who AUTHORIZED the leak of her name." He said the "PLAME CASE." How could they ALL get the story wrong?

WHY the story change all of a sudden? Did KKKRove call in his blackmail teams?

[Garbo 2004]

67. Because the court docs don't support that headline. Media is sloppy.

Read the court filings, the reference is about authorizing leak of National Intelligence Estimate info, not Valerie Plame.

Libby couldn't really testify that he was authorized to leak Plame's name while he was testifying that he didn't leak Plame's identity, he didn't even know it he claimed. He did testify that he was authorized to leak NIE info.

[electropop]

72. Plame's name is ON the NIE,

so leaking the NIE is tantamount to leaking her identity.

[Garbo 2004]

76. Fine, but if one cites Libby's testimony you will find he denied leaking

Plame's identity to Miller on July 8, even claimed he didn't know (or forgot he knew) her identity at the time. Said he was authorized in that July 8 meeting to disclose selected portions of the NIE, not Plame's identity, which he said he didn't know at the time.

And no, leaking "selected portions" of the NIE on Iraq's WMD are not ipso facto tantamount to leaking Plame. Of course Libby did leak Plame's identity and he certainly knew her identity long before the July 8 meeting with Miller. He talked about Wilson's wife to Miller on June 23, a meeting Libby did not disclose to the Grand Jury. (And neither did Judy at first until Fitz encouraged her to go back and refresh her memory.) But Libby could hardly testify that his superiors authorized him to leak the Plame info while at the same time asserting that he had he didn't and couldn't leak Plame's identity because he didn't know it.

My point was that the initial media headlines were wrong in how they characterized Libby's testimony cited in Fitz's filing.

[lala_rawraw]

75. exactly... you want to be

really accurate here because you don't want to Rathergate on a technicality the facts of a story. So I think it is best to be clear rather than go out on this kind of limb.

[peacetalksforall]

9. Man those phones must be HOT! What a farce. MSNBC hasn't

laundered it yet.

[w8liftinglady]

12. man-more "chin-wiping"...

[onehandle]

13. Yeah. I just saw that too. The leak was "business as usual".

And that the President "did not break the law".

CNN just apologized for giving the impression that Bush did anything wrong earlier today.

[BootinUp]

23. wrong? of course not.

:sarcasm:

:puke:

[MissB]

14. MSNBC is still talking about it.

Not retracting it.

[peacetalksforall]

17. MSNBC out of sync with CNN. Still on the original story. Not the revised

story.

Who're you gonna believe. Waas or CNN?

[dogday]

19. It's on their website as well

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12187153/

[rodeodance]

22. msnbc just repeated a short version of their ealier segment on this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=859819&mesg_id=860077

[rodeodance]

36. thanks

[ShaalMayan]

55. Yeah but its basically buried.........

under the great Immigration compromise and the McKinney apology. This basically sucks, it should be the "Breaking news"!! :mad: The Dems need to seriously jump all over this!!!

[renate]

62. welcome to DU!

:hi:

[ShaalMayan]

69. Thank you for the welcome!! n/t

:hug:

[Supersedeas]

64. basically....definitely buried

[newyawker99]

78. Hi ShaalMayan!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[wookie294]

27. Today's news does NOT say Bush or Cheney outed Plame

People are too excited! Today's news merely says Cheney and Bush authorized Libby to discuss classified information about Saddam's military with the media. The news is important because the next logical step is to ask, "Well, did Bush and Cheney also authorize the outing of Plame's name?"

[jberryhill]

77. Even the original AP story noted that distinction

...but you can't beat the bandwagon toward another Dan Rather moment here.

The good news is that the distinction required to be drawn here - between leaking information IN the NIE, and leaking Plame's name - is more likely than not to seem Clintonesque to Bush's base, which has a demonstrated lack of ability to be able to draw significant distinctions (or to understand such legal phrases as "lack of controlling authority" as it relates to statutory interpretation).

[Thorandmjolnir]

25. If congress makes a law saying something is classified and criminal

sanctions will follow if disclosed, can the President authorize that information disclosed, with out any sanctions?


Or in other word, Is the president authorized to break the law as he sees fit, even when there possibly cannot be any national security motive behind the act. (What National Security reason can there possibly be for the President to disclose Classified material)?

Will that make a charge of treason impossible, because, if the President does it, it's ok?

[madokie]

40. Thats what they seem to be saying welcome to the DU

[jberryhill]

79. The president can declassify - within limits

Here's the issue. Data, information, what-have-you, within the NIE can be de facto declassified by the president. Remember when, for example, Jimmy Carter revealed the stealth aircraft programs.

However, not even the president can disclose the identity of a covert operative, which WAS in the NIE under discussion here, but also which Libby himself denies leaking.

The operative theory to save Bush would appear to be: (a) yes, Bush authorized disclosure of information in the NIE, but (b) no, Bush did not authorize disclosure of Plame's identity.

Regardless, it makes Bush look hypocritical as hell, given his blanket statements about leaks. The problem with those blanket statements is that disclosure of MISinformation disguised as a "leak" lends credibility to the misinformation that it might not otherwise have. So, it is a legitimate counterintelligence strategy. But that's not what was going on here.

If that makes no sense to you, meditate on the following: "The purpose of a 'secret' is to conceal a truth. Secrets are not used to conceal information which is false."

[oasis]

26. Bush wanted to know "who leaked?" when it was him all the time. That's

legal, but not to good for public relations.

[greyl]

29. Did CNN ever mention Plame?

The Yahoo story made it clear that "There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060406/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak

[babylonsister]

32. Yes, briefly at the start of the int'l hour. I'm sure they'll have

the 'official' story down pat when regular news comes on. :eyes:

[greyl]

42. Who said it? nt

[babylonsister]

48. Do you mean which talking head? If so, I'm not sure.

My back is turned away from TV when I'm on the computer.

[librechik]

39. The earlier report said it was about Plame; Ensor corrected

and said that even though it's the Libby case, the leak Bush authorized was not about Plame, but about the NIE.

[janx]

33. I'm not surprised. They're trying to be extra cautious

because they know the potential of this story.

[huskerlaw]

34. CNN may be right...

don't flame me yet. Here's the thing. If you read the court documents, it says that Bush authorized Libby to talk to Miller about the contents of a document. During that conversation, Libby mentioned that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent.

Unless the document that Bush "declassified" contained information about Valerie Plame's job at the CIA, then CNN is correct. The court documents don't connect the document that Bush declassified to Valerie Plame. There's still a missing link...unless I'm missing something. In which case, feel free to correct me.

[wookie294]

37. That's right - today's news does not say Bush outed Plame

The court documents say Bush authorized Libby to discuss secret intelligence about Saddam's military with the media. People need to read Waas' article.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

51. MSNBC just said that Bush authorized the leaking of the name....

n/t

[wookie294]

53. MSNBC is wrong n/t

[jberryhill]

80. More accurately...

MSNBC is wrong with respect to the information content of THIS story, based on today's court filing.

It could ultimately be true, but the specific allegation that Bush authorized the leaking of Plame's identity is not shown on the facts established thus far.

[in_cog_ni_to]

54. C-SPAN'S Capitol news reported the same thing.....PLAME Case. n/t

[greyl]

38. Yahoo agrees:

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose
Valerie Plame's CIA identity.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060406/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak

[mzmolly]

41. So basically they don't know that it was about Plame but they are

speculating based upon the direction of the investigation?

Sounds likely to me. :shrug:

[huskerlaw]

44. It sounds like

everyone knee-jerked and assumed a connection...and then actually read the report and realized there wasn't one. Therefore, CNN was correct to retract their original, apparently unsupported, statement.

Not that it isn't true, mind you...but I don't think this court document proves it.

[wookie294]

47. It's likely Bush authorized outing Plame

Today's news is another piece of evidence showing that Bush had been authorizing his subordinates to leak classified information during the summer of 2003. The next question is: "Did Bush also authorize outing Plame's name?" I hope Fitz is going down that road!

[jberryhill]

81. And anyone worth their position...

...would take the bullet and hold out for a pardon, rather than point that finger.

But, maybe not.

[oasis]

59. MSNBC's David Shuster says that in 2003 Bush wanted to know who outed CIA

agent, Valarie Plame. Bush has a huge public relations problem on this because he knew all along that it was he and Cheney.

[huskerlaw]

60. Probably true, and yet

that's NOT what the newly released legal document says. It doesn't connect Bush or Cheney with Valerie Plame whatsoever. Sorry.

[lonestarnot]

66. But it without a doubt demonstrates manipulation of prewar intelligence.

[Sydnie]

68. I agree, and that needs to be our focus on this -

selectively making available classified documents to Woodward and skewing his information to get a "positve, supportive" book written, while keeping the doubting information away from him.

Does Woodward know that he was played like a violin?

[lonestarnot]

70. Throw them out! NOW!

[huskerlaw]

74. Agreed, but then

we already have ample proof of that.

I'm not saying he wasn't the leak, just that this document isn't the golden bullet.

[oasis]

82. Bush has to explain why he didn't have a clue who leaked Plame's identity.

He can't wriggle out of his Sept.30, 2003 declaration "when we find out who leaked, we'll take appropriate action". Kinda hard for him to say now that he's the one who leaked, but whoop, there it is.

With his credibility is already in shambles. We are bearing witness to:

The incredible shrinking president.:hurts:

[paparush]

43. From MSNBC's Current Article -

Last line of the article...

"There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Plame’s CIA identity."

As of 12:41 pm Eastern

[huskerlaw]

49. That's completely correct

In my opinion, that's the correct reading of the filing. There was nothing in it that leads to the statement "Bush authorized Libby to disclose Plame's identity."

Though that statement is probably true, and I wish to god it did say that, it doesn't. More to the point, I hardly think that Fitz would hide something that explosive in a sentence on page 23 of an otherwise irrelevant court document.

[Pirate Smile]

63. Tom Oliphant on Al Franken's show was talking about how Libby

had been authorized to leak all this selective intelligence by Bush and Cheney (i.e. tubes were for nukes, ignoring (not leaking) State and Energy Dept's saying the tubes can't be for nukes) shows that Libby was not a rogue agent on intelligence leaks. It makes it look much less likely that he was acting as a rogue agent in leaking Plame's name.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

45. freaking david ensor.... i think we need to do an e-mauil campaign.

n/t

[radio4progressives]

65. MSNBC's Michael Issikoff same thing...

giving Bush a pass on law breaking and said Bob Woodward is the biggest recipient of declassified information from the president.. blah blah blah..

[file83]

71. When did CNN join "The Ministry of Truth"?

Orwell, eat your heart out.

[FrenchieCat]

83. It's always been a member.....

[lovuian]

73. LEAKER IN CHIEF!!! LOL!!! CNN new title

LOL!!!