Badmovies.org Forum

Bush claims executive privilege on CIA leak
WASHINGTON - President Bush has asserted executive privilege to prevent Attorney General Michael Mukasey from having to comply with a House panel subpoena for material on the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.
 
A House committee chairman, meanwhile, held off on a contempt citation of Mukasey — who had requested the privilege claim — but only as a courtesy to lawmakers not present.

Among the documents sought by House Oversight Chairman Henry Waxman are FBI interviews of Vice President Dick Cheney.

They also include notes about the 2003 State of the Union address, during which President Bush made the case for invading Iraq in part by saying Saddam Hussein was pursuing uranium ore to make a nuclear weapon. That information turned out to be wrong...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak)

Chickensh!t shmuck...he should be impeached.   :hatred:

I can think of a few other things that should be done to him...

It'a already been established who leaked her identity, and it was NOT Cheney or Bush, or even Scooter Libby - this is just one more long witch hunt by a Congress whose hatred of Bush long ago trumped what little common sense they ever had.  Over 500 investigations of the White House, but they can't even approve a general budget for the country they are supposed to be running.  No wonder their approval rating is 9%.

Lost sight of in all of this is the fact that Joe Wilson's report to the Bush Administration was deliberately skewed when he turned it in . . . and that his hottie CIA wife, Valerie, had flaunted her "secret agent" status at Washington cocktail parties for years.

This whole thing is like the U.S. Attorney firings - routine political moves inflated to scandal status by politicians who would rather see Americal lose a war than see this President get credit for winning one.

If it's such a non-issue though, then why pull something like executive privilege to dodge it? If there's nothing to be ashamed of, then why hide it? If there's nothing to answer for then why not just come out with it and put an end to the matter? Using something like Executive Privilege to avoid the issue just makes everybody look guilty, so if nobody's done anything wrong, why not be honest and put all doubt and speculation to rest? Not making accusations myself, just saying that anytime anybody opts to hide from inquiries it smacks to me of someone trying to sweep wrong doings under the rug, Republican, Democrat, or human being. :lookingup:

Executive Privelege is designed to protect the Executive Branch from unreasonable demands and endless interference from the legislature.   While the Supreme Court has ruled that it cannot be used to conceal actual crimes, given the nature of this Congress and the irrational hatred it has for this President, if Bush caved to them this time, their would be a flurry of subpoenas for virtually every one of his aides on every conceivable subject of investigation.  That is what infuriates me about this Congress - they have literally launched over 200 separate official investigations and another couple hundred "unofficial inquiries" into every aspect of this administration while ignoring many of their basic legislative responsibilities.  At some point the game of "gotcha!" politics has got to end.

Their approval is 9% because the only people listening to Bush are moron Democrats in Congress.  Just look at the many subpoenas ignored by officials like Myers and Rove, while the committee in charge twiddles their thumbs instead of issuing arrest warrants.  If they hated Bush, they'd be jailing people left and right.  Instead, they continue to bow to the will of a lame duck.  68% of the country is currently opposed to the Iraq war, a number that has been closely consistent for a year.  Democrats in congress keep giving it money.  That ain't winning them any favors.  Plus the right will never give the congress any props, so that's 90% of the country right there.


Skewered by the facts that there was no uranium in Niger being sold to Iraq, which there wasn't. 

This is a talking point lie spread by the Right.  Valerie explains it here (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=176110) and it is disproved about a billion other places on the net.


Betrayal of American agents for political revenge is treason, no matter how you spin it.  If the president authorized treason he should be impeached and sentenced to death.  Which can be commuted to life in prison by President Obama.  Claiming executive privilege is sort of like OJ running from the cops.  It doesn't make you look innocent.  I don't think Bush had anything to do with leaking, but one of his guys did and he is aiding in covering it up.

Sentenced to DEATH????


For (allegedly) outing an agent who hadn't been in the field for five years?

When in fact she was outed by someone who was NOT in the employ of the Bush White House?

Think we've found where the hatred resides.

Actually Tars, I think the penalty for treason was reduced to life imprisonment sometime in the '90s, so I don't think the next head honcho would need to make any special changes. I would like to see someone in the government actually have to stand trial in a court of law and let a jury of citizens decide whether they're guilty of a crime. Whether Bush or any president I still think that Executive Privilege is a farce and stinks of a political technicality that allows someone supposedly elected by the people of the nation to put himself and his cronies above the persecution, whether correct or incorrect, by another branch of the government also elected by the people. "Witch hunt" or not, I thought our government was established with a system of checks and balances that prevented such things as dodging "the law", but I guess I was wrong. Once again though, whether party motivated or not, this looks to me to be another example of how anyone from either of the big two parties can use affiliation as an excuse to blame others for "ruining the country" and "unfairly attacking so-and-so".

Although I do have to flat out disagree with you Indy on the Supreme Court firings. Condemning a Democrat controlled senate for attacking Bush and friends because they're Republicans while defending in the same breath that the Gonzalez firings were completely unmotivated standard procedure just sounds like, yes I have to say it, something only a "Loyal Bushie" could say with a straight face.

But, as is the way of the world, it's just one opinion clashing with another. It's like trying to convince some people that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old or that Wes Craven's New Nightmare is a piece of sh!t: we can just agree to disagree and let the elected officials play out the soap operas we hired them to do so we don't have to. 

(http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Laughing/lol-045.gif)
I love comedy.



Indy well said ... correct on all points.

I looked it up and it looks like death is still on the books:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2381.html

but it would probably get overthrown in a Supreme Court challenge since child rape is off the table.

I am actually against the death penalty, for the record.


And Valerie Plame testified she had done overseas work while undercover within the last five years of her CIA employ http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Plame_hearing_transcript_0316.html

And I'll be sure to quote CheezeFlixz's post in November!

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

I find it funny that the law equates death with 5+ years imprisonment, a $10,000 fine, and ineligibility to hold public office. Guess human life isn't worth so much after all. :bouncegiggle:

Actually, the phrase is "not less" than 5 years.  Treason can occur at different levels, however, the Founders set the bar pretty high for treason convictions because the monarchies of Europe used treason as a catch-all charge to imprison anyone they did not like.

Here is a good question - if you think President Bush, or WHOEVER leaked Valerie Plame's agent status (cough-cough RICHARD ARMITAGE!) is guilty of treason, what about the New York Times editors?  They uncovered information about ongoing intelligence operations involving data mining overseas cell phone calls that were actively being used at the time by U.S. Intelligence to foil terrorist plots.  When they consulted the White House, they were informed that the release of that data would be extremely harmful to our national security and would compromise U.S. intelligence gathering capability against the enemy.  They published the report anyway, and immediately the enemy shifted tactics.  Are they traitors too?

Oh, and Anubis, one quick note - above you referred to the  "supreme court firings" by President Bush.  No President can "fire" a Supreme Court justice.  They can only be removed by death, voluntary retirement, or a full impeachment trial.  However, U.S. attorneys are employees of the Executive Branch.  They are appointed by the President, they work for the President, and the President can legally dismiss them at will.  Bill Clinton fired 98 of them, and the Republican Congress, which was not exactly fond of Pres. Clinton, did not investigate the firings, accuse him of favoritism, or play it to the hilt in the media.  Bush fired seven of them and you would have thought he was clubbing endangered baby seals or something from the press coverage it got . . . .

I find it disturbing that the scumbag that can send people to die for him should go scott free. That would be like letting Charles Manson off the hook...he sent others out to do his killing as well...and he's where he belongs...Bush is no better-just better connected and with more money.  Dirtball.

So do you deny the President's Constitutional mandate as Commander in Chief of the military?

Instead of thinking that this is something he (any President) 'gets to do,' maybe we should think of it as something he "has to do," as in a big, awesome, horrible responsibility.

You think any sane man WANTS to send others "to die?"  That's a decision that is not entered into lightly, no matter how cavalier they are about it in movies - real life ain't movies.

Like Bush or hate him, or any President for that matter, but under the law of our land, he DOES have the legal authority to conduct the military as he sees fit.  The check on that is that Congress controls the purse strings, and for all the talk about what "Bush's War" is costing, I don't see Congress stopping the funding.

If they were REALLY opposed to the war like they claim for the headlines, that's exactly what they would do...that's what the US Constitution says they have the power to do.

A nice quote I ran across the other day:

"...indeed, it was having Rise and Fall of the Third Reich  in my memory that made it impossible for me to regard the 'antiwar' movement of the sixties as anything other than the childish, shortsighted, self-indulgent don't-draft-me-but-don't-call-me-a-coward-either movement that it mainly was (as proved by its complete disappearance with the abolition of the draft and the gung-ho way most of its one-time practitioners embraced or at least ignored the criminal military ventures of Bill "Don't Think About The Dress While I'm Bombing Foreigners' Clinton)."

--Orson Scott Card
"The Origin of 'Ender's Game'" in Wondrous Beginnings, Edited by Silver and Greenberg

I know Indy, I said "5+ years", i.e. "more than 5 years" = "no less than 5 years". I just find it funny that it lists treason as punishable by death or 5+ years in prison instead of something maybe equally as punishing like 30+ years or life imprisonment.

The funny thing about the Clinton "firings" and the Bush "firings" though is I don't remember waves of controversy and people resigning when Bubba was pulling the trigger. Sure, I was still a teen with better things to worry about at the time, but I think I'd remember hearing about something like that in my Participation In Government class or something.

I am surprised though that during this entire topic no one mentioned that Clinton was the first guy since Nixon to actually pull the "Executive Privilege" crap... though that might be because Starr, a Republican, denied him that privilege, citing that no one is above the law and that information relevant to an investigation has to be turned over to prosecutors. And Bubba was just trying to keep everybody from finding out about how he was getting his knob slobbed by some porker at his desk!

Oh the tax payer money that was wasted on publicly exposing Clinton as a pervert, and how nobody cared afterwards. Hell, maybe unemployment, the national deficit, the mortgage crisis, and failing banks would all go away if Ann Coulter would get on her knees and do her patriotic duty for Bush once a week. :teddyr:

Bush fired seven U.S. attorneys, not seven Supreme Court Justices . . .  thought I made that clear.

Actually, Executive Privilege has been used on occasion between Clinton, Nixon, and Bush - Reagan had to apply it a time or two in the Iran/Contra mess, I think.  The whole point is that checks and balances cannot overturn the separation of powers.  Those are the twin pillars our founders built the system on, designed to make sure that America could never become a dictatorship or monarchy.

  You have to realize that there had never been a successful Republic the size of the U.S. in all of history, and the Founders had no guarantee it would work.  By and large, their experiment has been successful.  I mean, love him or hate him, Bush is gone on January 20.  Congress had defied him and the Supreme Court has contradicted him, yet all the members of those two chambes can go home at night without fearing a midnight knock on the door as the Secret Police come to haul them away.  The system still works today, and I think that Washington, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton and their cronies who gathered at Philadelphia in 1787 to create it would be happy to know that.

My mistake, thoughts melting together. Fixed.

That's really to bad isn't it, there are a lot in Congress that need to be hauled away and never heard from again. I'd start with Pelosi, Reed, Schumer, Boxer, Waxman and oh so many more.

That choice can only be made by the voters in their districts . . . who unfortunately seem to be as looney as they are!

Yes I know, but wouldn't be great to see Nancy Palooney and Harry Greed rounded up and hauled off, never to be seen or heard from again.

Reminds me of a quote from a 10 year old about our government:

"Democracy is the greatest form of government in the world - except that part about letting any old yokel vote!"

I don't need a reason to not like Bush. I live in a suppposdley free country...if I want to think he is a jerk off with his head lodged in his a$$...I can. Golf playing while he sends others out to die. He's a puke....a total puppet. The worst example of how corporations control the goverment. It just seems to get more blatant . Nobody even hides it very well any more. Makes the Nixon adminastrtion look like pikers. Do I even care if I make sense/ NO. My guts tell me he is an a$$hole. Meh.

You are absolutely, 100% entitled to that opinion.  I have met the man, and he came across as a very friendly, down-to-earth, nice guy.  I know a lot of people who have met him in person, and nearly every report I have heard about his personality and attitude is similar to my impression.  The Secret Service loves him because he actually treats them with respect and knows their names, sends cards on their birthdays, etc.

I personally can't believe Bush got elected to run the largest democracy in the world when he couldn't even run the Texas Rangers.  First thing I thought when he got elected was, "Great.  Now the USA will never have any pitching."

Dude, nobody can run the Texas Rangers.  The BallPark in Arlington is the place where good pitching goes to die.  Not even Nolan Ryan could rescue that franchise!

Good discussion, guys.  Okay, I'm wading in. 
Indiana, you know you have my respect and trust.  You are perhaps the only contributor on this board who understood my position regarding the karma attacks (my frustration was NOT over stupid karma points, but simply the categorical assassination of my points for the purpose of revenge.)  However, I am appalled by your continued support for this President.  How would you expect him to act when you meet him?  Pull his hand away just as you put yours out and run it through his hair?  Check this out:  http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushresume.htm (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushresume.htm) 

More than any other reason, BUSH is why I turn to the left. 

I've seen that so-called "resume" before . . . it is full of lies, half-truths, distortions, and incomplete information.

I don't support everything Bush has done.  His continued insistence on granting the Palestinians a state of their own when they have done nothing to deserve one and have shown no evidence of being capable of governing it drives me up a wall.

But I do believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were just, noble, and right.  The economy actually did remarkably well overall during the Bush years . . . it only began to tank after 2006 when the Democrats won control of Congress.  Despite the strongest possible attempts by the Press and Congress to turn public opinion against the war in Iraq, Bush has stuck to his guns and now the war is almost won.  The tax cuts he put in place stimulated the economy and helped America recover from the enormous financial consequences of 9/11.

I will say this - I am fully willing to admit that my support of Bush could be misplaced.  The thing is, it takes about 25 years to even begin to get perspective on the administration of ANY  U.S. President.  Harry Truman left office with a 27% approval rating, universally derided as a man too small for the office, a simpleton who was too weak domestically and too soft on communism.  Today, history ranks him as the second greatest President of the 20th century, second only to FDR.  And nearly everyone admits, in terms of personal character, he was a MUCH nicer guy than FDR.

On the other hand, Warren Harding was popular with the public, looked Presidential, and enjoyed high approval ratings.  Most historians now rate him as one of the worst Presidents of all time, possibly THE worst.

I am willing to let history judge this President, but I am pretty confident that, 50 years down the road, he will be remembered more kindly than he is being treated now.

How ironic that my biggest supporter should be a "Bushie" or "Rightie!"   :teddyr:  Uhm, that website is "political humor" afterall...  :thumbup:

I find that statement appalling, I guess those of use that have served have a greater respect for the office.
So while you're busy hating Bush, your Democratic led Congress has a 7% approval rating, their continue to block our energy independents, they waste time and money investigating baseball, they're letting tax cuts the save you $2500 dollars a year expire, they're pushing to reinstate the death tax, raise the capital gains tax and heres the kicker they want to increase the gas tax by 10 cents per gallon (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386643,00.html) while we're paying record prices ... and that my friend I find appalling!

Bush hasn't been perfect, but he hasn't been nearly as bad as you'd like us to believe, put down the Daily Kos, New York Times, NBC Kool-aid. I don't expect to change your mind, and there is no point in trying to. What I will do is to continue to support the Commander and Chief as long as I think they are acting in the bast interest of the country. Call me a Bushie, call me a Rightie ... it's better than being a wrongie.



Ditto.

:lookingup:  Too bad they don't have a =burp= icon on this forum...
You assume I have no respect for "the office?"  I'm not "busy hating" anybody.  It's not "[my] Democratic Congress."  "[I'd] like you to believe?"  Do you have an all-seeing eye that lies to you?  You don't know anything about my politics other than my disappointment in BUSH.  I'm older than you and may have voted for more Republicans than you have.  I have stated repeatedly I am no Democrat.  But because I challenge your belief systems, you swipe at me.  Stop making it personal.  I challenge the status quo, but tonight I'm sober, so I won't pick up your gauntlet.   

Are you a American citizen that pays taxes? Then it's YOUR Democratic Congress.

No, it's OUR Democratic Congress. 

Yes I'm aware of that, but at least the ones I can vote for are doing what I consider the RIGHT thing.

Quick, hurry strike any typo I made ....  :lookingup:   

You are good at back pedaling. 

Well, you did write "your," not "our."  Quit taking personal swipes and I'll lay off your confusing typing. 

Boys, boys . . . . don't make me come over there!!!

It'd be great if you came over, we'd hang in the yard, have a beer (?) or two, BBQ, and listen to the nightly chorus!   :teddyr:  Don't worry, CHEEZE and I are not due to have another spat for at least a year!   :wink: 

I'd have to pass on the beer, but BBQ sounds good, and maybe we could watch something like ZOMBIE HOLOCAUST or NOSTRIL MUNCHERS FROM MARS.

Damn Baptist.


(ok now I feel dizzy, someone just smacked my forehead and yelled "Out Demon!")

The question is, did it leave??

Why hell no I carry a spare.

Like that's news?

I thought you bought them in bulk, Cheeze!   :wink: :hot:

I couldn't resist beating That One Tars Tarkas to posting this.  America surprises the world.  Who'd have thought it possible?  And who's laughing now?   
:bouncegiggle:  :wink:  :twirl:

Reminds me of a forum I posted on, where a large group of people were saying Americans wouldn't elect a black president for many decades to come.  Lots of necroposting going on, heh.