Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (49431)	4/9/2006 12:46:52 AM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Please vote msnbc.msn.com

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (49431)	4/9/2006 12:59:16 AM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 116555

On Friday, the White House argued there is an important different between disclosing sensitive information to further a public debate and leaking classified information that compromises national security. But the attorney said Saturday the president's instructions were not as specific as it might seem from both Fitzgerald's description of Libby's testimony and news accounts of it. Because Bush declassified the intelligence document, the White House does not view Libby's conversations about it as a leak. But that determination is difficult to make without knowing precisely when Bush decided to declassify the information. ============================================================= "Any sources and methods of intelligence will remain guarded in secret. My administration will not talk about how we gather intelligence, if we gather intelligence, and what the intelligence says. That's for the protection of the American people." — 9/13/01 "We can't have leaks of classified information. It's not in our nation's interest." — 10/9/01 "[W]e've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them, and I want to know who the leakers are." —George W. Bush, Chicago, Sept. 30, 2003 "Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing." — 10/7/03 "I don't know whether we are going to find out the senior administration official." — 10/8/03 "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." — 7/18/05 ==================================================================+ Why all the outrage over the outing of Plume if you did it yourself Mr. Bush? Were you lying then or now or both? Mish

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (49431)	4/9/2006 1:07:44 AM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Testimony Adds New Element to Probe of CIA Leak Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done. The official said Bush authorized the release of the classified information to assure the public of his rationale for war as it was coming under increasing scrutiny. washingtonpost.com Translation: Bush declassified the information to save his ass.

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (49431)	4/9/2006 1:17:56 AM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 116555

Leaks policy switch adds to Bush's week of embarrassment By Alec Russell in Washington (Filed: 08/04/2006) Embattled White House officials last night backed away from President George W Bush's longstanding total public opposition to leaks yesterday, saying instead that he would never authorise a leak that would endanger national security. It came at the end of another bad week for Mr Bush, in which two of his most senior aides, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, and Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, clashed publicly. Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice Different views: Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice clashed To the delight of Democrats, the White House did not dispute the testimony by Vice- President Dick Cheney's former chief-of-staff, Lewis Libby, that Mr Bush authorised him to disclose parts of a pre-war intelligence report on Iraq in 2003. This threatens serious damage to Mr Bush's integrity because he came into office vowing to run a leak-free administration. Appearing to redefine Mr Bush's previous blanket opposition to leaks, Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, suggested that there was a difference between "helpful" disclosures and leaks of "sensitive" information. "The president would never authorise disclosure of information that could compromise our nation's security," he said. "The president believes the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter." While refusing to comment on the specific leak, the White House appeared set on trying to justify Mr Bush's actions by arguing that any information he released had already been declassified and was in the public interest. The row is a reminder that Mr Bush faces the prospect of repeat embarrassments from the Libby case. Mr Cheney's former aide is awaiting trial on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice relating to the investigation into the leaking of the identity of a CIA agent, Valerie Plame. Mr Bush faced a different sort of embarrassment this week when his Defence Secretary criticised his Secretary of State on air. Mr Rumsfeld said that he did not understand what Miss Rice was talking about when she said that America had made thousands of "tactical errors" handling the war in Iraq. In a typically brusque and self-confident interview with a North Dakota radio station, he suggested that her comments came from "a lack of understanding of what warfare is all about". He later sought an end to hostilities by telling a Pentagon briefing that he had spoken to Miss Rice, who had made clear that she had been speaking "figuratively not literally" when she made the remarks on her trip to Britain last week. But his outburst was an insight into the tension that the Iraq War is once again fuelling between the Pentagon and the State Department. After a virtual breakdown of trust between the two giant bureaucracies in Mr Bush's first term when Colin Powell was secretary of state, the relationship had seemed easier in the last year. Democrats are feasting on Mr Bush's woes. A poll yesterday gave him an approval rating of only 36 per cent, his lowest ever by that pollster. More worryingly for the Republicans, the poll suggested that they had surrendered their traditional advantage over the Democrats on national security, a fillip to the opposition ahead of November's mid-term elections. In a further disappointment for Mr Bush, hopes that the Senate could vote on a new compromise immigration bill before Congress went into recess fizzled out yesterday. The bill would grant millions of illegal immigrants the right to stay and is one of the key elements of Mr Bush's stalled legislative programme. telegraph.co.uk