Bush claims executive privilege in Valerie Plame Wilson case

The concept of executive privilege rings a special bell with readers of a certain age. It was relied on by the Richard M. Nixon White House seeking to shield documents and personnel from inquiring congressional committees and prosecutors during the Watergate investigations.

President Bush quietly claimed executive privilege on Tuesday, after Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey requested the shield. Mukasey is seeking to avoid delivering to congressional investigators documents dealing with interviews of Vice President Dick Cheney and members of his staff regarding the unmasking of CIA covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has subpoenaed the accounts of the FBI interviews, as well as notes about President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address in which he said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium for a nuclear weapon -- an assertion that proved wrong.

"The claim of executive privilege is ludicrous," said the committee's chairman, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills).

On Wednesday, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined the fray. He noted that the claim of executive privilege exempts the attorney general "from complying with a subpoena," and wrote to Mukasey:

This executive privilege claim, and your justification for it, appears to turn the privilege on its head. The purpose of executive privilege is to encourage candid advice to the president, not to cover up what the vice president and White House staff say to investigating authorities when that information is requested in the course of congressional oversight.

-- James Gerstenzang

Photo: Mark Wilson / Getty Images

Comments

[Chris]

dqueenofeverything - the deal is that democrats and republicans are two sides of the same coin. Their only interest is in attaining and maintaining power for themselves. Ergo, they're not going to do anything to upset the status quo. I mean, if the congress acted against the president, we, as voters, might get the idea that we could act against them and they can't have that. We're just the sheep getting fleeced by the political class that could not care less about you.

I think that I did not have sex with that woman will live for ever as the biggest lie told by a setted president. The only reason that this store is comming up again is that reed and polasa don't want to help american with the oil problem.

[Tom Mariner]

Old, stale news. Our country is in a credit crisis and is being hurt by high fuel prices. And our Democratic Congress and Senate are so busy with the election garbage that they don't have time to do the jobs we elected them to do. No wonder they have an approval rating that is not only lower than the President, but the lowest in history.

Valerie and Joe Wilson played partisan politics and got their hands slapped. Even the damage they did to a country during a time of war is nothing compared to the fact that no President will ever again hold over or bring into their administration someone of the opposite political party, no matter the qualifications. Mr. Wilson's orgy of self indulgence will forever cost us the best and brightest. The Wilson's have certainly stretched their meaningless lives from their alloted 15 minutes of fame.

[Greg Johnston]

I hope everyone who reads this blog will link this to your congress-people.....
There are some well written arguments here and I believe that your congress people aren't going to do anything at all until the public sentiment gets to a certain level and possibly threatens their personal career's.
I keep telling mine and they don't listen or they use the excuse that impeachment would be counter-productive. Nothing would be accomplished, so why provoke a fight.
Personally, I would like to be able to hold my head up and be proud to be American. Unfortunately, a large percentage of the world's population consider us to be ethical and moral scum and it's all thanks to the Bush administration.
PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO YOUR CONGRESS-PEOPLE

[Chris]

John Davis - it's at times like this that I have a grudging admiration for the British parliamentary system. If you were to have a prime minister who flaunted the laws of the land, you could force a confidence vote and throw the bums out. Over here we have a federal republic where we empower elected representatives to act on our behalf. Of course, that requires that the the representatives we elect actually have the guts to stand up and do something. The truth is that once they are elected they act for their own good only. They only need us every election cycle at which time they tell us what we want to hear so that they can get elected. What's truly sad is that we fall for it every time. Just be thankful that we've limited the the time a person can serve as president to two successive terms max. I don't know what's coming next but it won't be Bush.

[Jack]

Remember when Mr. Bush said anyone responsible for leaking Plame's ID would be sacked?

And now he's claiming executive privilege to sweep the whole business under the rug.

I am a life-long Republican, and I am outraged. Everyone should be outraged, Republican and Democrat alike.

We were lied to, plain and simple.

[MJG]

I think it's high time to remove the Executive from his Privilege.

[Kevin Lyter]

We cannot impeach Bush on the assumption that the thing he is protecting with the executive privilege is impeachable. To do that would be acting on a crooked, corrupt president who left office by his own will and died ten years ago. Bush has committed moral wrongdoing, but nonetheless, he is our elected official, and therefore, the American public ruled him capable of his position, and it is for the American public, in the form of the House and Senate, to decide if he is no longer worthy. That is a laborious process, and to assume that it can be done in six months is laughable.

[Roy Hodges]

This administration is blinded by something, something large that they and the democrats seem to believe will save this country. It's evident that the, "they'll remember me as a hero" ideology is playing out at this very moment. In the early days of this country, we said flat out what we wanted and what we were going to do, now we hide our motives behind "executive privilege", behind "it's not in our interest" etc. All this in hopes that the US Corp. will succeed over all others.

If they pull it off, it will not be in the fashion in which they hoped because those men in WWI and WWII had a much different set of rules to play by. We're going through globalization and this administration is trying to make sure 'we' (not the US) comes out on top, at no matter what cost.

[Nate]

The Yellow Cake we just got rid of from Iraq was old, and known, from the abandoned weapons programs from the 90's. It is not at all related to any weapons program that was supposedly operational during this Iraqi Freedom mess. Basically the assertions that took us to war were based off of cherry picked aged intellegence, which ignored the fact that current conditions in Iraq had changed.

[MsSwin]

I prefer to turn over all documentation not a national security issue over to the Hague. Let them deal with these criminals. We'll be far too busy trying to dig out from under this mess.

[Roy Hodges]

Using the "we elected him" argument is the equivalent of saying that a car bought on loan must be endured during the entire length of the loan. That's absolute garbage. Only a man in love with loans would do that, just like a man in love with voting to the exclusion of impeachment.

[Stop Mountain Top Removal]

Executive privilege? How can King George get away with this? The last King George (1776) was a paragon of democracy compared to this criminal.

I'm sure that enough evidence exists (without the damning evidence that is hidden or destroyed) that war crimes and treason have been committed. Off with his head.

[Paul Stewart]

I do not believe it is sensible to say "This is the crux of freedom of speech: The idiots get to talk, too.That is the method of dictatorships not democracies." While any idiot has a right to speak, they do not have a right to make up something that will impact on you or me in a material negative way without basis.

I believe that freedom of speech is not only a right - it is a responsibility too. One that everyone especially the news networks and broadcasters must take seriously. Please! No one is entitled to lie outright and willfully. That is not free speech - opinion is not a fact. You can explain what you think and believe, but if you do not have the facts in hand or demonstrable, you better say so. You better also make it clear that it is your view and not a fact.

When we speak out, it is our responsibility to think first before we speak and to speak what is true. Freedom of speech is not a license to say whatever we want just because we feel like it and it will help our cause. This is where the Bushwackers have it all wrong and are taking advantage. And, now they are claiming privelege too - they believe they can lie, and they can hide it too. Certainly does not sound democratic on either count.

If there is truth, what ever it is can and indeed must be spoken, and that is true freedom of speech. It is okay to say the emperor has no clothes for example - it is in plain sight for all to see. It is also acceptable to speak the truth even if that will cause you hardship - but it must be true and based on facts of which one is aware and can prove. This is where the courage of Wilson and Plame comes in. They did what they must - likely knowing and despite what the impact would be on them.

And, I think those that complain no one is impeaching the Bushwackers, I agree with the one poster that suggests that the time will come - have patience. The Democrats know what is at stake and the inquisition will come later. They need to focus on the other issues for America. All the evidence that can be deleted is gone already anyway. And, the fight and retribution from the Bushwackers while they are still in power is frightening indeed. Again, look at the Plames - that was mild because they just needed to be "bumped" out of the road. Now, with impeachment, the game is for keeps and the stakes might cost you something much more valuable.

I completely disagree with the comment by Tom Mariner that "Valerie and Joe Wilson played partisan politics and got their hands slapped." What? Hands slapped? Not so - a career ruined, a life in crisis. A treason committed by no less than the emporer with no clothes. Incredible if not insane. So there is not freedom of speech when it is against the party line?

I think the yapping nonsense of those like "dave" on the "yellow cake" and like this comment by Tom Mariner make it an easier task for the liars like Bush et al to get away with what they do. They confuse the issue by saying whatever they want to believe without checking for truth or saying in their presentation that they have no basis for saying what they do except they would like to believe it to be true.

And even if others have said and mistakenly accept and believe a falsehood, we are not absolved from our responsibility to make sure we are not propogating that falsehood. We must first determine if it is true or not. Or, whether it is of mal intent and /or slanderous.

Really, we seem to have gone down a rabbit hole like Alice in Wonderland on free speech - we can say and believe anything we want? It does not matter? No matter what is the truth, the likely truth or an obvious lie? We get a pass regardless? We don't need to worry if it destroys a life or a career, or someone's financial condition. Just say "freedom of speech" and you are absovled.

I don't agree with this thinking - what happens when you and me become the target? The Valerie and Joe? Think hard about that one okay? Real hard. There has to be some sensible line between one person's right to say whatever they want and the rights of those impacted by what you say. And I believe that a politician is not to be held to a different standard than you and me. That is - they are not "fair game". Nor is their family.

Freedom of speech is a right to speak out, based on truth and facts and even your opinion, which, if it is based on wishful thinking, needs to have that caveate attached. It is not a license to create and propagate falsehood. That in fact, is called propaganda - we don't do that here - remember? This is America....

[Chrissie G]

It is nice to know that more and more people are finally realizing that the government and BUSH are nothing but criminals who use other people to cover up their crimes. I have been saying this for years. We need this anger and dedication as US citizens rise up and do it to save ourselves, our kids and grandkids. NOW! what is that! That's what I am looking for. My social security will never be their for me and mine because it will be paying for the worst president in history to be living the laps of luxury. That pisses me off.

[pdq]

The latest right wing meme is that we "found" all this yellowcake in Iraq, and so Wilson was wrong. The fact is that uranium in Iraq had been there since the 80's, we knew about it, everyone else knew about it as did the IAEC who monitored it.

The IAEC actually had tamper proof seals on the barrels...until the Marines arrived and opened up the site, and the barrels, and then left them unguarded.

Bush said the British learned that Hussein had "recently" sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa...a tale that was made up of whole cloth and that Wilson had been sent to investigate. He correctly found it was bogus (and as we later found, based on a obvious crudely forged letter).

Geez, it's like all these wingnuts have given up trying to defend this horrible administration on the facts, and now just make stuff up to protect their precious little fantasy worldview.

[studying the canidates & hopeful]

Right on Kevin Lyter!

President Bush is an elected official and his term is almost up - let's hope we take the time to make a wise, INFORMED decision when we vote in November on the next President.

[Sagebrush]

Dave wrote:

> > How was the yellow cake assertion proved wrong when we just found
> > like 500 tons of yellow cake in iraq?

Not Dave responded:

> Dave, the yellow cake is in your head instead of a functioning neuralogical
> organ. The assertion was that Nigeria sold Iraq uranium for
> making "weapons of mass destruction" -- which turned out to be patently
> false.

> Yes, we did just remove a bunch of radioactive materials from Iraq --
> materials that WE were storing there, and it's not yellow-cake uranium.

Sorry Not Dave. There was yellow cake uranium in Iraq. Read on...

Sorry, Dave. The yellow cake uranium that Iraq recently sold (openly and publicly, to Canada for its domestic energy production needs) was not "just found." It was first discovered after the 1991 Gulf War, and has been under the supervision of the IAEA ever since, with the exception of the period during which Sadaam had kicked out the U.N. inspectors.

The point is this: Iraq had yellow cake. SO WHAT??? We knew Sadaam had yellow cake 17 years ago. We knew how much. We knew where it was. We could watch the area night and day with satellites during the whole time that no inspectors allowed to inspect the cache in person. Then, in 1992, when Sadaam allowed the inspectors back in, they went where the yellow cake was kept -- where they had been monitoring it before he kicked them out -- and sure enough, there it all was.

As to Bush's "yellow cake from Africa..." gambit: You seem to think that the uranium mines of Niger are set somewhere in the Wild West. Yellow cake is not something that can be smuggled. It takes freight-car loads of it to produce pounds of refined uranium. The idea that 500 TONS of it could suddenly go astray is lucicrous on its face.

It is clear that you never read Joseph Wilson's NY Times response to the Bush 1993 State of the Union speech. Niger's yellow cake mines are run by an international array of closely-monitored contractors. So basically, one of the major reasons that Europe responded so negatively to the Bush State of the Union assertion is that they knew better, and they knew it very publicly. In essence, what he was really saying that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from European companies in Africa.” This stuff was reported in the U.S. You had to dig to find it. But not that deep.

If you had read the Wilson piece or any informed analysis of it, you would realize that the Bush Administration never once tried to refute it. Instead, they went right after the guy's wife, and ruined her career in retaliation for Ambassador Wilson's public refutation of the claim that was at the very center of the Bush Administration's web of deceit.

Yellow cake acquisition was not a mere peripheral argument in the rationale for war, Paul Wolforwitz's later minimizing of it notwithstanding. It was central, pivotal element of the administration's justification for an invasion. It was flogged publicly in one forum or another by every senior administration official. Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz. All of them hammered away at it for months. Wilson undermined it thoroughly, and they never even bothered to contradict him.

Why bother to make a futile argument against a rock-solid, experienced former State Department professional who knew all the players and who could make an authoritative judgement on the Niger yellow cake matter? Why bother to refute the fact that the British intelligence was an echo of a previously discredited obvious forgery turned up -- or possibly manufactured -- by the Italian secret service? Why try to make futile arguments against Wilson's air-tight intelligence -- especially since it totally undermines your war policy? Why try to do any of it when you can just trash his wife's job by implying his mission was a kind of nepotism instead? Much simpler.

[topgun]

It's all VERY simple. If Bush has NOTHING to hide, then why does he always hide EVERYTHING.

[TW]

Dave,
If what you write were true

"How was the yellow cake assertion proved wrong when we just found like 500 tons of yellow cake in iraq? this story makes absolutely no sense. Joe wilson's actual report contradicted what he said to the press and joe wilson was certified as a liar by the senate intelligence committe. Nice try lefties. Posted by: dave | July 16, 2008 at 05:34 PM"

then people would believe it and McCain would win in November. You got a spare nickel for a sporting wager on this?

[Dan]

Some individuals are above the law, US as well as international law.

[don]

w was elected president of us by more votes then any other president ever im sorry you have to here this (he won)get over it, he would win again.

[Brandon John]

I hope that Laura is prepared for a decade-long descent into babying a whiskey fueled paranoid alcoholic locked inside a leather-bound personal library of decaying beliefs that what little W decided to do will be vindicated by some glorious future General while cruising through the democratic waters of the Suez Canal. A deservedly pitiful ending to an aggressive yet ill-informed everyday boob.

[Karen]

The problem isn't with the criminals but with those who are responsible for the enforcement of the law and the prosecution of the criminals. There are enough evidences for prosecution. So, the problem really lies with the spineless Democrats in congress. They have proved too incompetent to safeguard the integrity of the government and to uphold justice. It's time to vote out those spineless Democrats who have been giving Bush everything he wishes.

[gamehog]

" Bush runs around doing what ever he wants and claims executive privilege, while congress either supports him or does nothing. "

Hopefully the dem congress is starting to take action...hence the Mukasy hearing