So President Bush refuses to say if he authorized a leak?
411330
GO FIGURE HUH? \n\nLets get this straight America - he lies about the reason to go to war, he lies about the leak, he lies about the wiretapping program, he lies he lies he lies, and he is still our President. \n\nClinton lied about a blowj*b, and he was impeached. \n\nWTF is America coming to???
505312
yes, but he said he wouldn't tell anyone
125159
it cant be said with the information provided
68427
I would like you to post references to the evidence you have that would warrant impeachment. I'm not a Bush supporter, but I'm also not a Bush basher. I will judge him on the fact, not speculations. Some people say he lied, others say he had incorrect information. Some people say his domestic spying program is illegal, others say it was all done within the law. I'm waiting for the facts to come out before I make up my mind.
815359
The word must be out that leaks will be anonymously taken at the NYT. I think both sides are leaking to the paper. Some things should be leaked, others shouldn't. It keeps the murky waters of our government slightly more transparent.
1098485
EXACTLY!!!\n\nThere is a story circulating right now about the Bush administration, ONCE AGAIN, violating privacy laws by getting access to all banking/financial transactions; although, they claim to have only looked at international transactions. They have the authority to do this BUT not until they go before a judge and get approval. Of course with Bush not believing in the consitution, he did not do that = broke the law AGAIN!!\n\nNow, to counter this Bush has been bombarding talk radio and Fox News (even saw an upset guy on pbs The Newshour yesterday about it) with propaganda that does not explain the entire story as I did in the first paragraph. \n\nTheir defense is we are in a 'war on terror'. So, basically because we are in a war on terror, they believe they can ignore all the laws and ppl's right to privacy, etc...\n\nSo, as you stated... with them attacking the press for reporting this story.. there goes freedom of speech and the press.\n\nBtw, the laws about a reporter revealing his/her source are very vague. A reporter does have the right to tell his/her source but most don't because that hinders ppl from wanting to tell them things later. I personally think that if someone tells a reporter something and the act of telling is in itself breaking the law then the reporter SHOULD be required to tell his/her source. IE, this Carl Rove thing about the CIA agent leak. We all know he was behind that but the reporter won't tell.
673483
NOT AT ALL.\n\nDICTATOR BUSH DOES WHATEVER HE WANTS. SCANDAL AFTER SCANDAL HE CONTINUES TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS AND NOBODY IS STOPPING HIM.  HE'S LONG OVERDUE FOR IMPEACHMENT.
957941
We have come to recognize the Bush Administration as keeping all kinds of secrets down through the years. They are not about to change at this point. They may change if they lose power but never have we seen so many crooks.
698831
No, Dick Cheney got in serious trouble this year for leaking the name of a CIA agent. So basically the answer is; if the vice president can't get away with it than nobody else can.
358516
First, to answer your question, yes!!!!!!!\n\nNow for the poster that said Clinton was impeached.  He was not.  It was never even put on the Senate floor, it was only a show of force in the Congress.\n\nAs for Bush, he can lie, steal, cheat and do whatever he wants.  The republicans are too scared of him to even censure him.  But just wait until the next Democrat takes office.  They will be investigated if they use toilet tissue instead of a Kleenex to blow their nose.  Lets see, what kind of charge could that be?  Improper usage of government property?  God help this country!!
581181
Congratulations for asking the funniest question of the day.\n\nIf you are actually serious, the answer is a decided NO.\nThe Bush administration has squandered virtually any credibility it had ... non-existent WMDs, violating the law left and right, rampant secrecy.
47347
Actually, tough as this might be to accept there are a number of reasons...\n\n- It has not been proven that he lied\n- It has not been proven that he broke any laws\n\nContrary to conspiracy theories, a republican led congress cannot prevent an impeachment if either of the above occur, or prevent an investigation or judicial hearing should the democrats push for one.\n\nReality, take a deep breath and try to take this in, as we can assume the democrats would drive for this the second they felt they could, it is a fairly safe assumption that President Bush has done nothing that would warrant his impeachment.\n\nSorry to burst your bubble...
602243
Bush didn't keep his word is the correct answer to the question.
1185447
The one I come from but it's supposed to be a big secret. The president knows. I'm suprised he didn't let it slip yet.
73830
Technically, if the president authorized illegal wiretapping, it would be an impeachable offense.\n\nThe reality is that is just not going to happen.  I think the White House will press for their own investigation to find whoever leaked this story to try and keep the focus away from the fact that the leaks happened.  And unless the balance of power shifts in this year's mid-term elections, I think the president would have to murder someone before most Republicans would even think of voting for impeachment.
949171
In Bush's case its E. He can not tell the truth!
171022
I don't believe anything that moron says. Best way to tell if Bush is lying is if his lips are moving.