I trust the guy who had the original source. Why do you think no one was indicted for leaking the name or info? Like Novak said, everyone knows who leaked it. It is because no crime was committed and the prosecuter knows it.
Where have I said I hate anybody? Nowhere. Don't make things up and try to discredit me with it. In fact, don't try to tell me what I think. Just tell me what you think. I don't have to insult you to discredit you, I can just pick your flimsy analysis apart. I'm not the one who is blinded here. And is isn't speaking under oath either. Obviously he has reason to be evasive, which he has been all through the scandal. Let's see what he says under oath at the Libby trial. Losers always resort to lame insults when they run out of logical arguments.
Ah, you can't really compare Red to Rex. Red doesn't like the current administration, and at times appears to wish it nothing but ill, but he's at least rational and tries to make his case intelligently. Rex, on the other hand...well let's just say that ol' Rex is so far gone, he's vanished from sight. Especially when you read some of his manifestos on the other board, where he's in the company of a few liberals who are about as twisted and insane and hateful as he is. I actually expect Rex to show up as a conservative one day, simply because he's swung so far to the left, he's actually made a 360, and ended up back on the right side of the spectrum.
I just don't understand how posting factual information diminshes one's credibility...unless, of course, you measure credibility by how much another person is aligned with your own personal preference.
I hear ya quacking, and if it walks like a duck, it probably is... and all Red says could be true, who knows... still I cant help but think How Proud Rex must be of him. shrugs. it's like that jig saw puzzle peice that doesn't fit anywhere but on Rex's side. It isn't the same color but dang it fits doesn't it? It's fine though, that's what this forum is all about. Say what you want. No probs here.
because that article is slanted and is painting bush as having a double standard, as if he doesnt actually have the authority to decide what is classified. of course bush hates leaks. but he is authorized to determine what is a classified and what isnt, so when he authorizes a leak, it is necessarily authorized by a person who qualified to make that determination. if you tell me a secret, i should keep it quiet, and you are justified to be angry if i tell it. but if you decide it isnt secret anymore, you can tell it. simple.
No. If this tactic was indeed a political stunt (a distinct possibility, considering the press knew before Condi), then it is not being 'leaked' in the 'national interest' (probably too vague of a term for something like this). That would be an abuse of the authority, therefore nullifying such power.
that doesnt make any sense. wake up man, bush can declassify information. his rights havent been "nullified". how are you abusing authority if you allow leaks of information that you are fully aware is safe for release and will be officially released later (by you)? no important information got out. nothing happened. non-story.
Not by a long shot. You aren't watching the plummeting polls if you think that this is no story. :lol: So why, if it was perfectly legal for Bush to leak this information, did he mislead us last year by stating that he would get to the bottom of this Plame leak and punish the leaker? Explain that. Why didn't he just say right then that he authorized the leak and he had every right to? Because he was hiding something, that's why. Dishonesty comes way too easily for him. He just didn't think it would get back to him. Nobody is fooled by his attempt to rewrite the scenario at this late date. This is a high-level, snowballing political disaster of the first order.
I think I made it pretty clear. Re-read if necessary. I'm sure there's a bit more to this privelege than the oversimplified antics of 'national interest.' And I'm skeptical that the provision allows for quelling political opposition, but I could be wrong. Great point. If he had done nothing wrong, he should have had no problem owning up to it at the time it first surfaced.
