Scooter Libby found guilty.

[jimpeel]

SecDef

In answer to your query at POST #162:

Which other countries were approached?

The Butler report states:

494. There was further and separate intelligence that in 1999 the Iraqi regime had also made inquiries about the purchase of uranium ore in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In this case, there was some evidence that by 2002 an agreement for a sale had been reached.

499. We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, ...

501.
...
For its part,Iraq has provided the IAEA with a comprehensive explanation of
its relations with Niger,and has described a visit by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries,including Niger, in February 1999,which Iraq thought might have given rise to the reports.

. . . the Director General explained in his report dated 7 March 2004 [sic] to the UN Security Council that Iraq ”described the visit by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries,including Niger, in February 1999,which Iraq thought might have given rise to the reports”.

 

[SecDef]

Since the constitution allows it, I don't. Especially when this whole US attorney thing is political revenge at its purest.

However, Rove and Miers aren't cabinet members... Didn't the whole Nixon thing show executive privilege doesn't apply to deputies/assistants/etc? Also, executive privilege doesn't apply in a criminal case. And, quite frankly, this topic has nothing to do with national security.

Political revenge? Yes. Absolutely. The pendulum doth swingeth. Duck your head.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Jimpeel,

All I asked from you is to show me anywhere in the report where is definitevly stated that Saddam "has sought" unranium. Not a ton of copy and paste examples of people saying that evidence supports he "could have" sought it.

Can you understand the difference between the adverbs "had" (ie: did) and "possibly" (ie: might have).

Bush used the former and the report uses the later (as far as I can find).

I have offered to see your side of it if you could just show me this.

But by all means cut and paste the same info again and again that doesn't really add anything new to tthe discussion.

 

[STAGE 2]

Didn't the whole Nixon thing show executive privilege doesn't apply to deputies/assistants/etc? Also, executive privilege doesn't apply in a criminal case. And, quite frankly, this topic has nothing to do with national security.

The underlying crime for watergate was B&E/theft. The underlying crime here is ...wait there was no crime. Yup, guess EP is good to go.

 

[jimpeel]

All I asked from you is to show me anywhere in the report where is definitevly stated that Saddam "has sought" unranium. Not a ton of copy and paste examples of people saying that evidence supports he "could have" sought it.

Actually what you said in your POST #171 was:

... you said the Butler report ... said '"Saddam has sought" ... I then said if you can show it to me I would be willing to adjust my position.

I showed it to you but here it is AGAIN:

the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded.
-- Butler Report Page 122 #499

"Attempts to buy" = "has sought".

The investigation was centred on documents provided by a number of States that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the sale of uranium to Iraq between 1999 and 2001.
-- Butler Report Page 123 #501

"An agreement between Niger and Iraq" = "has sought".

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this.

d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.
-- Butler Report Page 125 #503

"For the purpose of acquiring" = "has sought"

"Having sought" = "having sought"

But where did they come up with all of this? Try this:

. . . unconfirmed intelligence indicates Iraqi interest in acquiring uranium.[JIC, 1 December 2000]
-- Butler Report Page 122 #493

There was further and separate intelligence that in 1999 the Iraqi regime had also made inquiries about the purchase of uranium ore in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In this case, there was some evidence that by 2002 an agreement for a sale had been reached.-- Butler Report Page 122 #494

This evidence underlay the statement in the Executive Summary of the Government’s dossier of September 2002 that:

As a result of the intelligence we judge that Iraq has:
. . .
- tried covertly to acquire technology and materials which could be used in the production of nuclear weapons;

- sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,despite having no active civil nuclear power programme that could require it . . .

and in Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Government’s dossier that:

The main conclusions are that:

. . .

- Saddam continues to attach great importance to the possession of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles which he regards as being the basis for Iraq’s regional power. He is determined to retain these capabilities;

. . .

- Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons,in breach of its
obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and in breach of UNSCR 687.
Uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in
Iraq.

and:

Iraq’s known holdings of processed uranium are under IAEA supervision. But there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civil nuclear power programme or nuclear power plants and therefore has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium.
-- Butler Report Pages 122 and 123 #496

I have now shown you, in several instances within the Butler Report, exactly what you requested. I have done so, publicly, before all who gather on this board.

So, I repeat:

Actually what you said in your POST #171 was:

... you said the Butler report ... said '"Saddam has sought" ... I then said if you can show it to me I would be willing to adjust my position.

ARE YOU NOW WILLING TO ADJUST YOUR POSITION?

Of course, this tells me you won't:

But by all means cut and paste the same info again and again that doesn't really add anything new to tthe discussion.

 

[Playboypenguin]

I have now shown you, in several instances within the Butler Report, exactly what you requested. I have done so, publicly, before all who gather on this board.

I am not sure the quotes you have posted existed prior to the Butler report or are conclussions of the Butler report. For them to have been valid for Bush's remarks they would have had to be references to intelligence that existed before the president's address. I would also like to know which of those reports had already been declared to be unsubstantiated by the time the address was given but....

At this time I would agree that I should re-evaluate my position on this matter until I can find the answers to the questions I just put forth.put it in bold for you

If what you say is true I would agree that the president only choose to use speculative data to his own benefit in a misleading manner. Which is just another way of saying "He acted like a politician."

 

[SecDef]

The underlying crime here is ...wait there was no crime. Yup, guess EP is good to go.

No, gonzo gave the investigation a toehold with a claim of potential perjury (whether or not what he said "never ever" was a lie or not).. the court said in U.S. v Nixon (1974)

The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the court. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.

It is, in my opinion, that after appointment, USA's should be apolitical. Maybe you disagree with me on that point and the attorneys are political hacks.. I'll quote Bob Dole (1993) when he spoke about Clinton's pro forma change of all 93 USAs: "The American people deserve a Justice Department that takes a back seat to politics and one that functions efficiently." Of course, he also during that time compared Reno's "March massacre" to the actions of Nixon in Watergate in the "Saturday Night massacre".

So, apparently, congress getting involved is not unprecedented.

But, as I said before, it will take 5 minutes under oath to make this go away..

oh, technically AG is a cabinet position, so if he can go in front of congress w/o executive privilege, then why not anyone else?

 

[jimpeel]

I am not sure the quotes you have posted existed prior to the Butler report or are conclussions of the Butler report. For them to have been valid for Bush's remarks they would have had to be references to intelligence that existed before the president's address. I would also like to know which of those reports had already been declared to be unsubstantiated by the time the address was given but....

. . . unconfirmed intelligence indicates Iraqi interest in acquiring uranium.
[JIC, 1 December 2000]
-- Butler Report Page 122 #493

The Bush speech was January 28, 2003.

We have been told that it was not until early 2003 that the British Government became aware that the US (and other states) had received from a journalistic source a number of documents alleged to cover the Iraqi procurement of uranium from Niger. Those documents were passed to the IAEA, which in its update report to the United Nations Security Council in March 2003 determined that the papers were forgeries:

The investigation was centred on documents provided by a number of States that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the sale of uranium to Iraq between 1999 and 2001.

...

We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.
[IAEA GOV/INF/2003/10 Annex of 7 March 2003]
Butler Report Pages 122 and 123 # 501

At this time I would agree that I should re-evaluate my position on this matter until I can find the answers to the questions I just put forth.put it in bolfd for you

If what you say is true I would agree that the president only choose to use speculative data to his own benefit in a misleading manner. Which is just another way of saying "He acted like a politician."

Kudos to you, Sir.

Did Bush use the info to his own devices? Undoubtedly.

Did he use them to inflame the American people? Undoubtedly.

Did he, as you so aptly put it, "act like a politician"? Undoubtedly.

But what politician doesn't?

 

[jimpeel]

By the by. There was some mention of warrantless wiretaps and how it had not been defensible since the enactment of the FISA Act.

The fact that domestic phones were tapped without warrant (which the President has 3days after the tapp to obtain) is why the congress became involved. Bush claimed past presidents had done it so it was within his authority. He failed to state that after the "past presidents" did it FISA was created in 1978 to prevent it from every happening again.

Just to clear the air on that one, Bill Clinton did it and defended his actions. I will simply post the article for the perusal of all without highlighting.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

December 20, 2005, 9:46 a.m.
Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
Does anyone remember that?

In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

Reporting the day after Gorelick's testimony, the Washington Post's headline — on page A-19 — read, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches." The story began, "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers."

In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."

The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.

— Byron York, NR's White House correspondent, is the author of The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.

 

[applesanity]

Hey you guys, guess what?

No seriously, guess!

Give up?

Scooter Libby was found guilty.

I wonder if he was really guilty, or was merely a fall guy. One things for certain though... he's no match for Chuck Norris.

 

[Playboypenguin]

One things for certain though... he's no match for Chuck Norris.

You do not know that for sure. I have heard that British Intelligence has recently learned that Scooter Libby has the strength of ten men and the speed of three Bruce Lees.

 

[SecDef]

Bill Clinton did it and defended his actions.

I disagreed then. I disagree now. Rule of law and all that. The POINT that I want to make is that when there is a secret court, and it is willing to give wide-ranging warrant powers, there is absolutely no good reason to not even record every instance. Fine. Filter the internet and phone conversations for keywords, but when you start paying actual attention, write it down! Computers that are used for doing the monitoring can log things automatically, too... for goodness sake.

See my sig for why.

I will simply post the article for the perusal of all without highlighting.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!

 

[jimpeel]

SecDef

Thought you'd like that.

 

[SecDef]

You do not know that for sure. I have heard that British Intelligence has recently learned that Scooter Libby has the strength of ten men and the speed of three Bruce Lees.

And I will corroborate that you think that you heard that.

"Chuck Norris has been connected with ten strong men" -- Dan Rumsfield (Dec 1997)

"Bruce Lee was faster then 5 strong men." -- Rick Chaney (Jan 1998)

"Scooter was doing a heckuva job" -- VW. Busch (June 1998)





I am determined to add some humor to this thread, dang it.

 

[SecDef]

JP - quick question.. in post #167 you used the name "William Jefferson Blythe Clinton" which, of course isn't anyone's name as far as I can tell.

Was that supposed to be some kind of slur? I've never seen anyone use Blythe in referring to Bubba except in reference to his upbringing. It comes across as smarmy.

 

[Playboypenguin]

JimPeel,

Go back and fix that quote from me in your post. You left off the first quote bracket.

I would not have expected such sloppy cut and paste from you of all people.

 

[jimpeel]

John Ashcroft would enter the Department of Justice on a secret elevator which connected to the Bat Cave. The two control knobs for the elevator are hidden in a statue in the Capitol rotunda.

 

[jimpeel]

Playboypenguin

 

[applesanity]

I am determined to add some humor to this thread, dang it.

Amen, brother.

On a side note, I admit it - it was me. I broke the New Orleans Levee. I went #2 in the parking lot behind the SuperDome, and needed a way to clean up the mess real fast. So "flushed" the parking lot with Lake Pontchartrain.

And Scooter Libby was found guilty.

 

[jimpeel]

Not "smarmy"; just the truth. His actual full name is William Jefferson Blythe Clinton just as George Herbert Walker Bush is George Herbert Walker Bush.

http://usmilitaryhistory.com/Historical Documents/Presidents-States.htm

42.) William Jefferson Blythe Clinton (Arkansas) January 20th 1993. Second term ends January 20th, 2000. Bill Clinton is the first person to become a war protestor (Vietnam War) and subsequently be elected as the President of the United States.

http://genealogy.about.com/od/presidents/a/genealogies_2.htm

William Jefferson Blythe Clinton (1946- ), Hillary Rodham (1947- )