« Firefighters Document Giuliani's 9/11 Failures (video) | Main | Myths of the War on Terrorists »

Bush Admits They Leaked CIA Names

MSNBC story:

President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative, although he also said he hopes the controversy over his decision to spare prison for a former White House aide has "run its course."

"And now we're going to move on," Bush said in a White House news conference.

Um, I don't believe that's your decision to make, Mr. Decider.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.9/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.9/5 (8 votes cast)


Comments (68)

mantis:

Why didn't he make the point that Plame wasn't covert and thus there was no underlying crime?

Funny, that. ;)

andrew:

Funny how the Leftwing media has to summarize it without using his actual quotes. I guess when the narrative has collapsed it must be maintained at all costs anyways. Hahahaha.

mantis:

Funny how the Leftwing media has to summarize it without using his actual quotes.

Hey, Moron Spotter, there's one right above you!

"And now we're going to move on," Bush said

"I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person," Bush said. "I've often thought about what would have happened if that person had come forth and said, 'I did it.' Would we have had this endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter? But, so, it's been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House. It's run its course and now we're going to move on."

"The Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision," Bush said.

"As to the future, I rule nothing in and nothing out," the president said

"I made a judgment, a considered judgment, that I believe was the right decision to make in this case," the president said. "And I stand by it."

Look at all those quotes, andrew. Are you blind or just stupid?

Lee Ward:

And why did Scooter Pie lie?

Who was he protecting, and what was he protecting them from?

Bush isn't saying, and he probably knows the answer to those questions.

CajunKate:

I believe he was referring to Dick Armitage, NOT
Scooter. Just like the MSM to purposely get it wrong

kim:

You silly asses. CajunKate is right, and this probably is not good news for Fitz, since Fitz is the one who shut everyone up.

MSNBC, despite it all, I'm shocked. How stupid can they be?
=============================

kim:

And Andrew is right; the narrative is collapsing. Joe made a fool of himself yesterday. The Republicans came ready for trouble. Unless the war is completely resolved by next year, destroying the 'Bush Lied' meme is key to a Republican victory. It looks like these House Republicans and Fred Thompson are the only ones working this angle.

Where's the post celebrating the Democrats' dissection of Taylor? Oh? Didn't happen?
===================================

kim:

mantis, life is long enough for you to find out what happened yesterday, unless you want to persist in looking like a terminal victim of BDS.
=====================================

mantis:

What would be the point? The whole thing looks pretty played out to me. If something big happens I'll see it. Life is too short to dwell on the minutia any longer.

kim:

You are deluded and grabbing hold of straws in the wind. Joe Wilson is a liar. Al-Qaeda isn't half the force it was 6 years ago. Why do you want us to lose?

BBBBBBBBB
DDDDDDD
SSSSSSSSS

God, can't you move on for your own sake if no one else's.
==================================

kim:

Played out, he says. It's just warming up. Joe's lying meme must be destroyed.

Yesterday he tried to cover himself for disclosing classified information by claiming that he'd talked about it with House and Senate Intelligence Committee members before talking to Pincus.

Issa told him soon Val Plame would be seeking a pardon.
===================================

Lee Ward:

"Al-Qaeda isn't half the force it was 6 years ago. Why do you want us to lose?"

Your source is....? ethereal?

If you gave our source above I missed it, sorry.

mantis:

kim,

You've once again become nonsensical. I know you're completely obsessed with Joe Wilson, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to be.

I don't understand what Al Qaeda's strength has to do with that at all. I also don't understand what exactly it is I want us to lose, and how that will happen if I don't care about Joe Wilson or Scooter Libby.

Your repeated BDS crap was annoying for a moment, now it's just stupid.

In any case, your dementia is showing. Cover up, girl!

kim:

Your source is ethereal, or at least anonymous, and Bush has refuted it.

Granted, my source is a politician, but your's is anonymous and a chicken shit politician, and probably a criminal.

Mantis, you have BDS, and Lee is ruminative.

I'm deranged not demented, but you're deluded.
===============================

Heralder:

kim,

Take a break and go outside for a bit. I think you may have contracted a little of teh news crazy.

Lee Ward:

"Al-Qaeda isn't half the force it was 6 years ago."

source?

"Bush has refuted it."

Link?

I'm not being an asshole, or maybe I am.. but not intentionally. I'm just trying to get at the facts, and if Bush said AQ is now at less than half the force it was 6 years ago, I'd love a link that shows him saying that. I read a lot of news stories, and I haven't come across that quote.

If you're sure he said it but you can't put your hands on a link that's cool, I'll keep looking.

andrew:

"Look at all those quotes, andrew. Are you blind or just stupid?"

He's taking a shot at Armitage, dumbass.

As for the "news" that al-Qaeda is getting stronger, this happens every few months or so. Some Democratic party operative/bureaucrat writes an "analysis" saying that AQ is stronger and the Leftstream media treats it like the Gospel. Same as the annual Taliban "resurgency" that happens every spring. Although nothing is as funny as the Brutal Afghan Winter of 2001. Even the MSM hasn't tried to revive that one. Hahaha.

mantis:

He's taking a shot at Armitage, dumbass.

I know that, and didn't refute it. You took a shot at "the Leftwing media" (boogadaboogada!) for not quoting the President, despite all those quotes in evidence.

Dumbass.

kim:

Bush refuted in his press conference that al-Qaeda is as strong as it was pre 9/11. I claim it hasn't half the strength it did before. You do a lot of that sort of conflating.

H, I've got to admit the way MSNBC misinterpreted it, and you all swung with it irritated me. You know about Armitage, even if MSNBC doesn't. So I'm deranged, but you're idiots.

mantis, nyah, nyah a boo boo.
====================

marc:

Gee Hamilton, is that really what Bush said, or are you drinking the Kool-aid the AP is handing out?

Lee Ward:

I don't see the kool-aid, marc. Use more words.

kim:

Even after six corrections, it's still biased and full of innuendo. But the manner in which they corrrected is K-O-O-L-A-I-D, marc.

Quaff deeply my friends. It passes all understanding why you all still believe Joe Wilson or Patrick Fitzgerald.
============================

kim:

mantis, you see the insinuations in the corrections, don't you? Now pretend you've been bullshat like that for years.
=========================================

Lee Ward:

"Bush refuted in his press conference that al-Qaeda is as strong as it was pre 9/11. I claim it hasn't half the strength it did before. You do a lot of that sort of conflating."

Bush would make that statement if AQ's strength was at 98% instead of 100% - and do it with a straight face.

Your suggestion here and elsewhere that AQ's strength is less than half is a big ol' stretch of the imagination there kim, but thanks for fessin' up. You get the "missed on the first shot and did a lot of whooping, but a straight shooter nonetheless" award of the day.


Somewhat off topic...

Lee

Here's the real Dem problem with yesterday's Wilson appearance. No competent political leader with both an agenda and mandate would ever let that guy near the Hill again, much less appear on television.

That they did shows the Dems are desperate and out of ideas. Wilson is ON RECORD as being a liar. Why? How? Fool he that wrote a disingenuous NYT editorial (apparently drunk from the promises of an over optimistically and drunk Kerry campaign) and then testified before a Commission that refused to offer even a fig leaf of cover when they, the Commission, realized just how indefensible he was...

The compelling story here is that Wilson will become the present Democrat majority's Hiss. Marginally defensible for a time, undeniably not to be trusted or believed with the passage of time. Unfortunately, Hiss had the dinosaur media to cover for him for decades until the charade simply dissolved. Wilson has no such advantage.

Lee Ward:

WIlson will get his day in court, HughS, just as Libby did.

And what Wilson did or didn't do, and said or didn't say, doesn't make a fig of difference in terms of what Bush said he'd do -- and is now refusing to do.

Bush said he wouldn't act until Libby's appeal process had run its course, and now he's admitting that the leak was from his administration - and now he's refusing to do anything about it.

Mr. Bush acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration perhaps leaked her name to the news media. "And, you know, I've often thought about what would have happened had that person come forth and said, 'I did it.' Would we have had this, you know, endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter?"

Mr. Bush would not directly answer a question about whether he is disappointed in the White House officials who leaked Plame's name.

The president had initially said he would fire anyone in his administration found to have publicly disclosed Plame's identity.

"It has been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House, and it has run its course, and now we're going to move on," Bush declared.

There's 'the beef' - Bush said he's do "x" and now he's reneging. Are you smearing WIlson as some sort of justification for Bush's unwillingness to follow through as promised? When we can't trust the President to do the right thing, what's left besides impeachment, Hugh?

As for Wilson and his honesty or dishonesty -- which is a separate issue from the administration's outing of a CIA operative -- why not let this play itself out in the court, and then we can argue about the result.

bryanD:

HughS: kim===

Step out of the echo chamber and read this classic column regarding the Plame-Wilson affair. Note the date.

Basically, "Cheney's" embarrassing fake intel misfire was made known outside of the Building (to the publick at large) by JW, and BOY was "Cheney" Pissed! Thus the stupid mistakes at trying to Get Back at him through JW's wife.

And by "Cheney", I mean Zionist traitors.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j100303.html

kim:

God you are confused, Lee. Armitage was technically in Bush's administration, but he wasn't Bush's man.

You all with the media's view of the Plame affair come up with doozies everyday.

You, too, bD. The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Joe Wilson Straight was the last to know that his wife had sent him.

Nice article by Victor Davis Hanson in the City Journal. He destroys the 7/8/07 NYTimes editorial which seems to be the source of all of your delusionary talking points.
=============================

kim:

mantis, he did make the point in your first comment, but it was so subtle you missed it. Had Plame been covert, Armitage couldn't very well tell anyone he'd 'outed' her. Since she wasn't, and Armitage certainly didn't think so, he should have revealed his role.

See what you could learn by getting up to speed on this? It ain't over, so you have time.
=================================

kim:

I'll make it easy on you, Lee. Avoid Plame threads in the future. We B in UR biznizz and all UR spies R belong to us.
==================================

kim:

er, Paul.
====

kim:

And even after the spin in the article has been explained, Lee, you still quote the misleading bits in your comment at 8:51. It was an administration official, Armitage, not a White House official who gave Plame's name to Novak.

Furthermore, Armitage told Woodward that the asshole Wilson was spreading his wife's name all over town because he was pissed at being characterized as 'low-level'. Those two know who the leaker is, Joe himself.

You get the 'blazing away in all directions without fear' award for the day.
=========================

kim:

So now Armitage, playing his stupid little game with Fitz to get Bush, has set precedents to throw journalists in jail.

I don't see why you aren't outraged. Maybe you don't value a free press, much.
==============================

kim:

bD, I want you to read the 3rd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs of your linked Raimondo article again. Then remember that Joe was told in Feb of '02 about 'crazy reports' out of Africa. Then remember that the CIA checked in copies of the forgeries in Oct of '02 and noted 'funky seals' on the documents. Then remember that they sat around Val's office until shortly before the war when they were sent to the IAEA, which provoked the three paragraphs I've asked you to read.

Now who lied us into war?
==================

kim:

You too, mantis ought to stick to what you know. With your level of knowledge about this case everything you say sounds 'demented', and that is untypical of you.
=============

kim:

OK, do you guys now understand why this was primarily a dig at Fitz, and secondarily at Armitage, and not the confession you thought it was. No wonder you don't think Bush is a good communicator; he's over your heads.
===============================

Lee Ward:

"God you are confused, Lee. Armitage was technically in Bush's administration, but he wasn't Bush's man."

Bumbling Bush has admitted that a member of his administration is guilty!

Back to the top, to Paul's post, go on now -- scroll that mousey! Scroll button broken? Let me help then...

President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative

You say he's not Bush's man, but Bush says he is. Are you going to tell me el presidente is lying? I'd find that (cough moo-poop cough) hard to believe.

If he wasn't referring to Armitage, then who could it be... Cheney? Did Cheney leak it? And you'll now tell me that it is Cheney who Libby is protecting with his lies?

I say yes, and that Cheney is who Bush is referring to -- because Bush knows it will come out in the Plame/Wilson civil trial, so he's leaking the truth now rather than lie for Cheney.

Bookmark it, and make me eat those words!

If you say no, then say who he's referring to.

President Bush isn't willing to tell the American people who he believes is the leaker, but he acknowledges that it's a member of his administration.

Who could he be referring to if, as you claim, it isn't Armitage - and you disagree with me that it's Cheney.

Heralder:

Kim,

H, I've got to admit the way MSNBC misinterpreted it, and you all swung with it irritated me. You know about Armitage, even if MSNBC doesn't. So I'm deranged, but you're idiots.

What the hell are you talking about...I haven't even commented on the subject.

Try to refrain from indiscriminately slinging names at people who usually back you you up. Though after nine posts in a row, maybe you don't need anyone to back you up or even argue with you...looks like you do just fine on your own.


kim:

You are making things worse, Lee. It is Armitage he was referring to. Sir Richard, a member of his administration, backstabbed him badly in this manner. Probably with the connivance of Powell.

I don't think you are going to get it. You are smart, and a reasonably fair rhetorician, but you have been so bamboozled by the press and the spin on this topic that you do not know what is going on.

I repeat: Bush's statement is a slam at Fitzgerald and Armitage. It is not a confession of wrongdoing by the White House. It is a condemnation of the actions of Armitage and Fitzgerald.

Fitz, by the way, is a member of his administration, and there are people who want to impeach Bush for inadequately supervising Fitz.

Star Chambers are a bitch. It is difficult for an executive to investigate itself, but Comey and Fitz have done something desperately unconstitutional, and you'll all understand soon enough.
=========================

kim:

H, I was responding to your 4:10 post, and mildly at that. If you understood that it was Armitage and Fitz that Bush was talking about, then you are not an idiot, but there wasn't any such evidence in the record.
=================================

Lee Ward:

This looks like a good place for me to remind all commenters that repeated, back-to-back comments tend to add noise to the discussion.

Often, in a comment thread like those here and elsewhere, there can be multiple conversations or tangents from the main discussion. Keeping your thoughts collected in one or two comments, then pausing to give someone a chance to respond, keeps the thread flowing.

Allow for a response before posting follow-up and follow-on questions, please.

kim:

Heralder, you took the group's side against me yesterday; that's why you got included in the group. And it was the group I addressed in most of the post you object to. If you've got that thin a skin, don't back me up anymore, if you think that gives you special protection.
========================

kim:

I've come to admire your fairness, Lee, but if you can't put up with my style, you don't need to.
========================

Lee Ward:

"It is Armitage he was referring to. Sir Richard, a member of his administration, backstabbed him badly in this manner."

Well, Kim, is this another instance where you're whipping out your six-gun and taking a shot before focusing on the target?

Earlier, it seemed, you wanted us to believe that Bush wasn't talking about Armitage. After Bush announced that a member of his administration had likely outted Plame, you wrote: "Armitage was technically in Bush's administration, but he wasn't Bush's man.

I responded with - if it wasn't Bush who was it -- maybe it was Cheney, and now you're pegging it back on Armitage instead.

My understanding is that Fitz found that Armitage did out Plame, but it was accidental.

Concurrently -- I believe it was within days of Armitage's Oops, we have Cheney penciling a plan of attack against Wilson/Plame in the margins of White House memos.

To eventually be followed by the ever-popular high-placed felon Libby lying to FBI investigators - and I still believe that those lies were to cover Boss Cheney's campaign to discredit Wilson/Plame.

kim:

Nope, you've got it quite wrong. I am not going to convince you. The march of events may amaze you.

The Appellate Court will send this back for retrial, or delegitimize Fitz's appointment.

I think you are being sophistical about Armitage, Lee. Can you not understand that he was in Bush's Administration, but was acting against him? There are four separate times that Bush pleaded that anyone who knew anything about the disclosure of Plame's name come forward. What did Armitage do? He conspired with Powell to attack Bush. That's why they aren't in the administration, anymore.
==========

kim:

Let me start with this, Lee. Do you think it was legitimate for Cheney to attack Wilson? Leave Val out for the time being.
==============================

Lee Ward:

"Do you think it was legitimate for Cheney to attack Wilson?"

I would expect members of the executive branch of the United States government to act in a manner that preserves the rights of Mr. Wilson to express his opinion in an open democracy without fear of retribution or attack from his government.

I trust that answers your question.

kim:

No, it doesn't. Was it legitimate for Cheney to attack Wilson, or rather, what Wilson had alleged?
===========================

Heralder:

Kim:

H, I was responding to your 4:10 post, and mildly at that. If you understood that it was Armitage and Fitz that Bush was talking about, then you are not an idiot, but there wasn't any such evidence in the record.

Precisely. There was no evidence whatsoever of anything because I made a joke about you getting obsessed over the news.

Heralder, you took the group's side against me yesterday; that's why you got included in the group. And it was the group I addressed in most of the post you object to. If you've got that thin a skin, don't back me up anymore, if you think that gives you special protection.

Not that I recall that Kim, but sure. As far as having a thin skin, I'm sure bryanD would agree with that.

Here's the thing, when you call someone an idiot do it for a reason.

And holy hell, thanks for the laugh at the end there. "Special protection"? From who?

Your 'death by a thousand cuts' style of argument is like watching two blind people having a boxing match. I'll bet on concision to your avalanche of nonsense any day.

I believe we've said all we need to say to each other about this.

kim:

God, another style critic.
==============

Lee Ward:

"No, it doesn't. Was it legitimate for Cheney to attack Wilson, or rather, what Wilson had alleged?

Yes, it does answer the question. Wilson expressed his right to free speech in a free society, and was (in my opinion) personally (and much worse -- surreptitiously) attacked by the Vice-President of the United States.

I know of no legitimate reason for a member of our government, one who is sworn to uphold the Constitution, to behave in such an absolutely despicable manner.

kim:

You don't need to calculate ahead to what the next question will be and try to forestall it; yes or no is the answer.
=============================

Lee Ward:

Checking YouTube for blind boxing matches.... none found, but I'm on it.

kim:

No, you haven't answered the question. Ask any rhetorician.

Yes, it was legitimate for Cheney to attack Wilson's speech. Through Kristoff and Pincus he had alleged that he'd been sent by Cheney, that he'd debunked the forgeries, and that that news had reached Cheney and been ignored. These were all lies.

Surely Cheney is allowed to respond to lies. Yes, or no.
===============

Lee Ward:

To disagree and discredit, and to do so openly, absolutely.

To scurry behind the velvet curtain of the White House, plotting and planning like the sneaky, slimy son-of-a-bitch that he is, absolutely not.

kim:

Wow, I missed HughS's 8:18 post last night. Hardly off topic. Read it and weep. He's got it. What evah Nona wants.

Heh, heh. Hugh will understand that last sentence, but you won't.
==============================

kim:

Alright, google Venona. Hiss didn't just dissolve, he 'never existed'.
========================================

Heralder:
Checking YouTube for blind boxing matches.... none found, but I'm on it.

Damn, if you find anything post the clip, that ought to be hilarious.

kim:

C'mon, Lee, that is sophistry and hyperbole. Cheney is allowed to respond to lies, right?

After Wilson's op-ed, the White House scrambled to declassify enough stuff to answer Joe openly. You see, Joe was discussing classified stuff, which is what he'll go to jail for eventually, and Tenet was foot-dragging on releasing the material. By the time the White House had declassified what they could, they'd been sandbagged by the reporters who all knew about Val Plame, and by David Corn's article claiming they were outing a CIA agent in revenge. This was Wilson's trick, basically an attempt to quell a guilty conscience about him outing his wife. It is Corn and Wilson who invented the false meme that Val was outed to counter Joe's assertions. No such thing happened.

I know this is counter to the narrative you believe, but facts support one story, and not your narrative.
============================

kim:

H, Lee is blind enough not to hit me, but not so blind that he can't evade my blows. Or tries to.

Watch him dodge all around the question. There are rhetoricians enough here to see that.
=========================

kim:

You know Joe admitted under oath on Wednesday that he leaked classified information to Pincus. He would have gotten away with it if he hadn't lied about the Vice-President and about the forgeries.
======================================

kim:

And where did he get the classified information he lied about? Why from his dear wife, Val Plame, who has perjured herself before Congress about how her husband was sent to Africa.

Someone else on the committee on Wednesday pointed out to Joe that he and his wife will be asking for pardons, eventually.
============

kim:

Hey, come back here.
============

kim:

Oh, I see you were otherwise occupied. Thank you, Lee. You are a Prince, not a cow.
================================

Lee Ward:

kIm, read this again. You apparently aren't paying attention.

kim:

Did you read my 8:55 comment? The one following 'this'?
==================================

kim:

Libby lied? He said that Plame's name came up in a conversation with Russert. Russert swore under oath at the trial that her name couldn't have come up. Also in evidence at the trial is a summary of his initial interview with the FBI and in it he says it is 'possible' her name came up. These are both in evidence at the trial. So who is lying?

There's more. The summary was prepared from lost notes by the FBI agent, Eckenrode, who didn't testify. He will at the next trial, and so will Andrea Mitchell and Gregory, who, along with Russert, knew a lot more about Val Plame than the White House did.
==========================

kim:

Rivkin's statement to the Pardon committee on Wednesday is useful. An excellent summary of the case. It's at NRO.
===================


Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.