Dearest Readers outside the USA, this is why Prissy reads your overseas news. If you want to know what is going on in America, look for a blog or look overseas.
Because the corporate news only spins, hence Katie Coric being seen as someone who could/should deliver serious news broadcasts. Prissy doesn't believe Americans are as dumb as the corporate media thinks. The everyday folks know we are being spun until dizzy and hung out to dry.
UPDATE: (See Ann Coulter dressed in drag below) Lawyer: Bush Left Leak Details to Cheney Sure. That will buy a little more time. But the day of reckoning is fast approaching.
WASHINGTON -President Bush declassified sensitive intelligence in 2003 and authorized its public disclosure to rebut Iraq war critics, but he did not specifically direct that Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, be the one to disseminate the information, an attorney knowledgeable about the case said Saturday.
Bush merely instructed Cheney to "get it out" and left the details to him, said the lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case for the White House. The vice president chose Libby and communicated the president's wishes to his then-top aide, the lawyer said.
It is not known when the conversation between Bush and Cheney took place. The White House has declined to provide the date when the president used his authority to declassify the portions of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a classified document that detailed the intelligence community's conclusions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Now here is a take on the subject that will sooner or later hit "this side of the pond."
US President George W Bush authorised the leak of secret intelligence to a newspaper to help defend the Iraq war, a former White House aide has said.
Pre-trial court papers cite Lewis "Libby" Scooter as saying he was told to tell a reporter Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium.
Mr Scooter, former chief-of-staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, is facing trial in connection with another leak.
He is accused of lying to prosecutors probing the naming of a CIA agent.
White House: Leak in `public interest' WOW, now that's quite a whopper. Maybe Fitz should get a damage assessment from the CIA-or perhaps he is saving that for "others involved".
WASHINGTON -- The White House on Friday did not dispute assertions that President Bush authorized the leak of classified information about pre-Iraq war intelligence but described the release as necessary for the "public interest."
The statement appeared to confirm new disclosures in court documents that the White House, despite Bush's frequent criticisms of leaks, secretly provided material to a reporter in early July 2003--even though the government did not announce the declassification and publicly release the document for 10 more days.
"There were irresponsible and unfounded accusations being made against the administration, suggesting that we had manipulated or misused that intelligence," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan. "Because of the public debate that was going on and some of the wild accusations that were flying around at the time, we felt it was very much in the public interest that what information could be declassified be declassified. And that's exactly what we did."
But while McClellan repeatedly described the release as designed to inform public debate about the war, the controversy has reignited long-standing complaints that the Bush White House used intelligence data for political advantage--particularly in making the case for invading Iraq and then defending the war in the midst of the heated re-election campaign of 2004.
Scotty may think that is a defense; but it would probably go over better with his mother, than in a court of law...with a sane Judge presiding. Prissy would place money on a judge saying his defense "has no legal basis in law."
A Prissy Patriot Flash back from Citizen Spook: For a change, I'm not going to give you my own analysis. Instead, I'm going to quote arch conservative lawyer, the legal sidekick of Rush Limbaugh, the infamous Mark Levin of the Landmark Legal Foundation, aka "The Great One". Let's have a look at what he has to say, and what Rush totally agreed with, regarding the indictment of a sitting President. This comes from an an official Landmark Legal brief:
LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION Can A President Be Indicted While in Office, Or Must He First Be Impeached?
BY MARK R. LEVIN AND ARTHUR F. FERGENSON (Readers, this was written with Bill Clinton in mind)
An excerpt from the Landmark Legal Brief:
Second, the language in Article I, Section 3 makes clear that impeachment is not an exclusive remedy. A president is still subject to criminal prosecution, if warranted. He can be impeached and removed from office, but this is a limited remedy. Given this limitation, the Founding Fathers wanted to make clear that impeachment would not immunize a president and bar subsequent criminal prosecution. Obviously, this concern only arises in cases where impeachment precedes criminal prosecution. Therefore, if criminal prosecution precedes impeachment, it is not an issue.
Criminal prosecution and conviction does not remove a president from office. Impeachment is the only mechanism for his removal, absent issues of disability. Therefore, there was no question when the Constitution was written that impeachment would be available after a criminal prosecution. Consequently, there was no need for the Founding Fathers to provide language that preserves the impeachment power after a criminal prosecution.
Moreover, if a president truly believes that it is unconstitutional to indict a sitting president, the president has the power to stop the indictment against himself, or direct its withdrawal. He also has the power to grant himself an unconditional and complete pardon and thereby bar the prosecution. Since he has these powers, if an indictment is brought against him by the United States - meaning, by the Executive Branch that he heads - and he asks a court to dismiss it, he is asking for an advisory opinion. Under the Constitution, federal courts are forbidden from issuing advisory opinions. They do not exist to relieve the president from difficult political decisions. This is so even if the decision could lead to his impeachment and removal from office.
The possibility of impeachment does not immunize the president from criminal prosecution. He remains, at all times, a citizen of the United States who is answerable to the law.
At least that's what conservatives said because Bill Clinton got a you-know-what. Apparently, that fact alone was enough to enrage some convervatives. Prissy told you they have issues.
Newsday Charm, empathy may not be enough Ya think??
Bush relied on post-9/11 emotion to carry the day for Republicans in 2002 and 2004, along with voters' sense that he was a strong and trustworthy leader.
But Bush is no longer viewed that way by most voters, so he finds himself trying to win the case on Iraq almost purely on the merits - at a time when good news there is hard to see.
In addition, the polls suggest that voters have formed a gut sense that Iraq is slipping away - 80 percent, for instance, believe there will be a civil war - and Bush may not have the credibility with voters to convince them otherwise, analysts said.
Poll on same page: Vote: U.S. in Iraq
Do you think the U.S. military should stay in Iraq?
28.9% Yes, the Iraqi army still needs U.S. support. (6680 responses)
65.1% No, the casualties are too high and it is not safe. (15022 responses)
6.0% I'm not sure. (1387 responses)
23089 total responses
Neorepublicans, whom do you think shall catch the blame- once your Dubya's loses the rest of his rapidly dwindling power? Remember Tommy Boy? They will feel like Chris Farley, when he says "Stupid, stupid, stupid!"
Yahoo White House Declines to Counter Leak Claim Some may see this as, once again, silently invoking the Fifth Amendment...
WASHINGTON - The White House on Friday declined to challenge assertions that President Bush authorized the leaks of intelligence information to counter administration critics on Iraq.
But Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, appeared to draw a distinction about Bush's oft-stated opposition to leaks. "The president would never authorize disclosure of information that could compromise our nation's security," Bush's spokesman said.
Scotty, that's not what the copious evidence indicates...
The Sydney Morning Herald US blueprint for 125 nuclear bombs a year
The plan was outlined to Congress on Wednesday by Thomas D'Agostino, head of nuclear weapons programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, a part of the Energy Department.
He acknowledged in an interview that the Administration is walking a fine line by modernising the nuclear weapons program while assuring other nations that it is not seeking a new arms race.
The credibility of the argument rests on America's intention to drastically reduce its overall inventory of weapons. he said.
The Administration is also moving quickly ahead with a new nuclear bomb program which began last year. Originally described updating existing weapons to make them more reliable, it now includes the potential for new bomb designs.
Someone needs to tell Dubya we already have enough weaponry to kill each person on earth 12 times. Alas, for Duyba, they can only die once.
Forbes-Updated 16 Times? Associated Press Update 16: Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney authorized Cheney's top aide to launch a counterattack of leaks against administration critics on Iraq by feeding intelligence information to reporters, according to court papers citing the aide's testimony in the CIA leak case.
In a court filing, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stopped short of accusing Cheney of authorizing his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, to leak the CIA identity of Valerie Plame.
Larry Johnson said he thinks Cheney is already under secret indictment. He felt he was indicted at the same time Scooter was. Tick, tock.
NY Sun Judge in Israel Lobbyists' Trial Told Evidence 'Overwhelming' By JOSH GERSTEIN
Judge in Israel Lobbyists' Trial Told Evidence 'Overwhelming'- Staff Reporter of the Sun April 6, 2006
Prosecutors told a federal judge in a recent brief that they have "overwhelming evidence" that two pro-Israel lobbyists deliberately broke the law when they obtained classified information from government officials.
The two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, were indicted in August on charges they conspired to violate a provision of the Espionage Act which makes it a crime to receive information "relating to the national defense."
Allies or not boys; that would be our national defense. Not yours...so stay out of it.
It's episodes such as this, which leave a bad taste in our mouth for "sharing". If the intel is something we should have given freely, why didn't you just ask for it?
Lew Rockwell Iran: The Next Neocon Target by Representative Ron Paul (TX-R) (Rep. Paul is not a Senator-not yet-hat tip to Randy, a Canadian, for calling that slip-up to Prissy's attention-Prissy must say about Canadians-they often know our history better than us too ;-)
The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we learned from three years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created.
But I wonder: If the past three years were nothing more than a bad dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how many would, for national security reasons, urge the same invasion? Would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the three-year nightmare of death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars? Conceivably we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and most importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. casualties would not have occurred. My guess is that 99% of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream, and would never support the invasion knowing what we know today.
It will also look into the Central Intelligence Agency's alleged abduction of a German national and secret transfer of at least one terrorist suspect via Germany.
The government of conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel had previously argued in vain that the investigation would be a time-wasting distraction that would stir up anti-American feeling at a time when Berlin is trying to repair U.S. ties.
But the three opposition parties teamed up to force the inquiry after a spate of media reports alleging that two German agents in Baghdad helped the United States launch its invasion, including by picking out bombing targets.
And...Merkel herself is not under fire because her party was in opposition at the time. But by keeping the Iraq war in the headlines, the inquiry could hinder her efforts to turn over a new leaf in relations with Washington, which were badly strained by Schroeder's opposition to the invasion.
They care about how well relations are going with a jerk? Germany shouldn't have "helped", when her people commanded her not to. They should tell Bush "end the war" every time they see him. Maybe Merkel is afraid of this happening (again)
Mercury News (AP) Papers: Cheney aide says Bush OK'd leak
Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.
But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.
The authorization came as the Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the president and his aides had given for going to war.
If we are to believe the grand jury testimony of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- as reported by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in court papers (PDF) -- then the president of the United States has been deceiving the country ever since the CIA leaks investigation began in 2003.
Compared with other deceptions that George W. Bush has perpetrated in the years since he promised to restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office, this one cannot be spun away as a misunderstanding, a "misunderestimate" or a mistake. From the moment that the Justice Department opened its probe of the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson's covert CIA identity to the press, Bush insisted that he wanted to find and punish the culprits, especially if any of them were among his White House staff. He claimed to consider the leaking of classified information to be a matter of the utmost seriousness.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald stated in a court filing late Wednesday in the CIA leak case that his investigators have obtained evidence during the course of the two-year-old probe that proves several White House officials conspired to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence.
This is the first time the special counsel has acknowledged that White House officials are alleged to have engaged in a coordinated effort to undercut the former ambassador's credibility by disseminating classified intelligence information that would have contradicted Wilson's public statements.
Fitzgerald's court filing was made in response to attorneys representing I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, who was indicted on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators related to his role in the leak, who are desperately trying to obtain evidence from the government to prove Libby did not intentionally lie to the grand jury when he was asked how he found out about Plame Wilson and whether he shared that information with the media.
Dearest Readers, will we be able to say liberty and justice for all? We will if Fitzgerald really cleans house. Prissy believes it's time for Spring cleaning in the White House and Fitz will do it.
Clorox will be most needed when this lot leaves. Jeff Gannon, Scotty McClellan, Andy Card, Karl Rove, Ken Melhman, Lindsey Graham, Josh Bolten? Notice a pattern here...Odd for a president who claims to want an amendment to ban gay marriage. Prissy doesn't mind, but they think it matters...they are the last people needed to make changes to our Constitution.
Speaking of patterns:
Look what happens with rich people. If a good prosecutor like Patrick Fitzgerald had cleaned house during the last few crisis in government, such as Iran-Contra and Watergate-this would never have happened.
But this is what you have when rich brats, raise rich brats.
Each generation gets dumber. Don't expect the same trouble from their own broods; they're just too dumb.
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.--C. P. Snow (1905 - 1980)
Obviously crime pays, or there'd be no crime.-- G. Gordon Liddy
Going to trial with a lawyer who considers your whole life-style a Crime in Progress is not a happy prospect.--Hunter S. Thompson (1939 - 2005)
A crime which is the crime of many none avenge.--Lucan (39 AD - 65 AD)
People might not get all they work for in this world, but they must certainly work for all they get.-- Frederick Douglas
The key is to commit crimes so confusing that police feel too stupid to even write a crime report about them.-- Randy K. Milholland, Something Positive Comic, 10-30-03
"This is why Republicans can't have sex scandals. They're just too creepy. The Democrats, they've got hookers, mistresses, interns -- not girl scouts!" --Jay Leno
"Yesterday at opening day in Cincinnati, President Bush threw out the first pitch. Then the president started crying because the manager took him out of the game" --Conan O'Brien
"President Bush threw out the ceremonial first pitch at the Cincinnati Reds-Chicago Cubs game. Like Bush, it was high and to the far right. ... After Bush threw his first pitch, Dick Cheney shot an old guy in the upper deck." --Jay Leno
Weekend special: Was/Is Ann a Man?? Prissy artist friend says "yes". We wouldn't care at all, if she weren't such a nasty lady. Hateful toward all. What do you think? More about Ann and her man days Strap-On Veterans for Truth Here's to Strap On Vets-carry on...
Rumor is she was helped along, as a way for the neocons to spew their message and put women down at the same time. They thought if men questioned her rancor-a good way to get back at men is to laugh at them for "being fooled"- if they ever figured out her gig. That way, true to neorepublican form, they can "blame the victim" -her audience. What a witch. Notice unusual position of "bulge" in front of skirt.
Not to worry if you were fooled by her; it was a mind more experienced in those things than a Prissy Patriot which brought Ann's physical and other attributes to attention.
Prissy was fooled at first too-but her misogynist talk about other women was a give away-and the pictures the convincer.
It's a promise you'll never catch Prissy watching football on a Saturday afternoon-or trashing her women friends like that. (she does make a more attractive woman, than say, J. Edgar Hoover) Don't feel bad guys, she was laughing at us all. She'll be the one boo-hooing now...
Quote of the Millennium
Quote of the Millennium
"Theodore Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149 May 7, 1918
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
Please leave your favorite articles links or things readers may need to know here:
Question of the Day- "What is the number one manufacturing industry in the world? And number two?"
Number One: Oil
Number Two: Munitions
Certainly clarifies things, doesn't it?