Aaron, you've just made a very important point for me. The president can, at will classify or declassify anything he wants. With this president the basis for classification is not national security but what is politically expedient for this president. In other woeds, he's in buisness for himself, not the American people.
He's not "giving the public information on our intellegence" unless he's giving us all of it. Otherwise he's just selectively presenting only the information that supports his position. Hmmm. Where have we seen this before? The advertising campaign for the Iraq invasion, maybe?

Ahh, I see. So the leftists and Bush haters can make all the charges they want, and if Bush's defense of those charges lies in documents that the public can't see, then he should just take it.

Dems made that slanderous charge that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and was purposely manipulating intelligence to fool people.

And what about all the other national security leaks that the leftists are hanging on to:

1. Secret CIA Prisons
2. NSA Wiretapping Program
3. Spy Satellites (which Dick Durbin revealed without permission becaused he didn't like the cost of the program).

So when the leak hurts Bush--run with it. If Bush defends himself, it's a threat to national security.

What about Abu Graib? That was used in fundraising ads for Democrats and blamed on Bush. Flashing those photos all the time could harm our troops. Ted Kennedy said our soldiers were running Saddams torture prisons like Saddam did.

And what are the Dems always carping about: the war. If that's not politicizing national security--I don't know what is. When things go well, Bush isn't supposed to say anything because he is using the war to boost his ratings and hurt democrats. When things go badly, the Dems are simply being patriots to use it politically against him.

Your 2 dimensional Bill Maher talking points are beginning to bore me. Do you have anything else to say than to hate Bush because of Iraq? Or how Bush lies?

What about the economy? What happened to the "worst economy since Herbert Hoover?" What about "Culture of Corruption?" You get all blustered with how you feel, then never can back it up with FACTS, LINKS.

The dems are running around saying Bush leaked classified information regarding Valerie Plame. I just demonstrated how that could never be true and you want to complain about Bush defending himself against previous slanderous charges.

YOu state it is impossible for the president to authorize a leak of classified information.

This is false.

All he has to do is authorize it's release without FIRST declassifying the information.

See, that's the LAW.

You don't believe the president must follow the law.

You believe he makes the law.

He doesn't.

If you want to buy what Bush is selling, how about addressing the following:

if it's all legal and just a matter of Bush declassifying, why didn't he say so way back when?

If he declassified it, how and when did he do it? By what mechanism? Where is the documentation? Or do you accept that any president, even Hillary, can simply announce any secret at any time and by the act of having done it, make it ok? Is there no limit on a president? Or is it that there's no limit on a republican president? Are there any rules that you'd like to see Bush follow, just in case there's ever a president you don't like? Are you aware of Bush's "the constitution's just a goddam piece of paper" and if so, does it bother you?

Surely there's a line Bush could cross that even you might find alarming. Do you think unconditional Bush love is any less dangerous for our country that what you see as Bush hatred (which is in fact not hatred of Bush but love of what the country used to stand for: rule of law, respect for debate, supporting an inquisitive and cynical press, recognition that only in a monarchy is lack of opposition seen as a good thing (and then, only by the monarch.) It's not necessary to hate Bush; only to be DEEPLY disturbed by what he's done. And if you (Aaron), as a presumably young and possibly thoughful person, don't accept that there is a basis and a need for disagreement in our system, then god help us if you represent our future.

Why didn't he say so then?

I made the point in the post: he was discussing the Valerie Plame issue--which has nothing to do with releasing parts of the NIE.

Now if that changes and Valerie Plame was part of that, then I will have serious problems with Bush (like I do currently with the immigration issue).

Paul,

Libby went to the white house lawyers and obtained a legal decision that by Bush authorizing him to discuss the information, the information was de facto declassified.

White house lawyers

DON"T MAKE THE LAW YOU FUCKING IDIOT

read the constitution, Aaron

HAVE YOU EVER READ IT?