April 6, 2006


Bush Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury (JOSH GERSTEIN, April 6, 2006, NY Sun)

A former White House aide under indictment for obstructing a leak probe, I. Lewis Libby, testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush, according to a new court filing from the special prosecutor in the case.

The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule.

Did anyone think Mr. Libby was off the reservation on this one, in a White House that controls leaks so well?

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 6, 2006 3:12 PM

I seem to remember Bush saying, at the time, that whoever leaked the information would be fired. Which seems to be a strange thing to say if he authorized the "leak".

Posted by: Robert Duquette at April 6, 2006 4:33 PM

The "leak" was Plame's name.

Posted by: oj at April 6, 2006 4:36 PM

Bush was talking about the Plame leak. This is entirely different, to the point that I don't understand why it's even a piece of this case.

Posted by: Timothy at April 6, 2006 4:36 PM

What leak? Fitz hasn't said there was any leak, has he?

Posted by: sam at April 6, 2006 4:53 PM


Posted by: oj at April 6, 2006 4:56 PM

Bush said he'd fire someone for breaking the law. Why would he fire someone for doing their country a service?

Posted by: RC at April 6, 2006 6:08 PM

In a sane world Mr. and Mrs. Palme would get the full Mussolini/Petacci treatment.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at April 6, 2006 7:09 PM

I almost drove off the road this afternoon when my local radio station reported that "Bush authorized the leak of secret information according to a White House aide accused of leaking the name of a CIA agent."

Posted by: David Cohen at April 6, 2006 8:00 PM

If the Executive declassifies it, it's not classified. Thus not a "leak" nor a "crime".

Posted by: Noel at April 6, 2006 8:22 PM

Remember folks, that it's the seriousness of the charge which is important when the moonbats raise & editorialize, I mean report the news. To them this is proof positive of Bush's treasonous guilt.

Posted by: Dave W at April 7, 2006 2:14 AM