Is George W Bush guilty of authorizing a leak? Can we define "Is"? What is "is"? Have we heard this before?
471820
At this point, I'm not sure if he even understands the difference between authorizing a leak and taking one.
1011563
The following is an interesting little factoid you may interested in:\n\n \nJune 4, 2006 -- More on George W. Bush's "Sanctity of Marriage" gay marriage constitutional ban. \nGeorge W. Bush's marital problems have just taken another turn for the worse. Apparently, Mr. Bush has not only engaged in an extra-marital affair with a member of the opposite sex who is also a senior member of his Cabinet, but also a member of the same sex. WMR received the following  release this morning from Leola McConnell, Democratic candidate for Governor of Nevada (who has been endorsed by WMR). McConnell is a one-time professional dominatrix.\n"President Bush's speech to the nation Monday. If he doesn't say he's a gay American or at the least a bisexual one then he shouldn't be making one at all. And the notion that it would be in regards to writing bigotry into our nation's Constitution is reprehensible. Too bad it isn't me doing the rebuttal because in 1984, I watched him perform (with the enthusiasm of homosexual male who had done this many times before) a homosexual act on another man, namely Victor Ashe. Victor Ashe is the current Ambassador to the nation of Poland who should also come out like former Governor McGreevey of New Jersey and admit to being a gay American. Other homo-erotic acts were also performed by then private citizen George Bush because I performed one of them on him personally. \n\nI am the woman this website (bushssecretlifein84.tripod.com) speaks of that has been posted on the net nearly two years now. None of this would be the business of anyone but President Bush's little ruse to save his failed presidency by using DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] to divide Americans one from the other has to be exposed as the act of a desperate closeted homosexual man. The only crime in being GLBT is in the hiding. The President needs to come clean with the American people about his own past sexual behavior before he tries to besmirch the humanity of people in search of sincerely committing to the same bonds of matrimony he's afforded. He violated his own vows of monogamy having a homosexual affair with a long time family friend of whom his wife had no knowledge. His hypocrisy seems to know no bounds. \n\nI had planned to run for governor of Nevada without going into any of this but his planned nationally televised address to the nation makes it necessary for me to address his attempt at division in as public a way as he picked to try this Bushification of reality regarding same sex marriages.\n\nSincerely,\nLeola McConnell\nLiberal Democratic candidate for Governor of Nevada\n --------------------------------------\nNow, aint this special!?
883345
Indicted for what?\n\nAnother silly Yahoo Answers question.\n\nComparing GW to Saddam H. "waters down" the crimes that the Saddam committed.\n\nC'mon people.  Think critically.  I didn't even vote for the Prez, but I can still think rationally enough to constructively criticize without resorting to phantom conspiracy theories!
193002
What are you talking about?  Even if he wanted to do something like that (and I don't believe he does) he can't.  No president can do that.\n\nI am not now, nor have I ever been a supporter of President George Bush, but I am continually amazed with the comments about and the allegations about, President Bush.  Maybe it is the influence from such propagandists as Michael Moore, but whatever it is, building on a factual foundation isn't part of it.
909868
He says he did it so it wouldn't effect the elections. Hey every liar has a reason of one or the other. You either have the balls to tell the truth, or you lie. How can you justify it? He started his flip flopping from the very start. He tells you one thing one week then later on it's the opposite. Like trying to sell the American voter on the idea that the reason we are in Iraq is because of the oil. That is not what he was saying before. The President cares about one person......George.
39528
There is outrage, but there needs to be even more. Bush DID break the law, which states that the government must show proof of the likelihood of obtaining significant information relating to the commission (or leading to the commission) of a crime to a court and obtain a warrant to conduct surveilance actions. Instead, he simply wraps himself in the flag and chants his mantra of national security ... yet in what are reported to be thousands (if not millions) of wiretaped conversations and emails, the government can not point out ONE instance in which they obtained any information that actually had an effect on our national security.\nAnd as for torture and holding of prisoners, he wants to have it both ways. He says they are being held as ememy combatants, so they are not under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. But that would put them under the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions, of which we were signatories the last time I checked. And those rules are pretty specific in terms of how prisoners can be held and that they can't be tortured. Violating that is an international war crime, which is the same things we (through the Iraqi's) are currently charging Saddam with.\nWouldn't it be interesting to see how the world court would deal with these infractions ... because you can bet that if we weren't the world power we are, old George W. would be called to the Hague for a trial.
531147
George W. Bush has intentionally misled the Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war against Iraq, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 1001 and intentionally conspired with others to defraud the United States in connection with the war against Iraq in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371; and \n\n George W. Bush has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805; and \n\n George W. Bush has conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the "supreme Law of the Land"; and \n\n George W. Bush has acted to strip Americans of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to legal counsel, without charge and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant", all in subversion of law; and \n\n In all of this George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the State of ___________ and of the United States. \n\nBe it resolved that George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. \n\nGeorge W. Bush and Richard Cheney, by such conduct, warrant impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States;
949171
In Bush's case its E. He can not tell the truth!
68684
In the course of this program being published in the New York Times, the Bush administration has had to speak publicly about the facts that there is a Classified program that helps the US to listen in on 30 international phone calls between reasonably suspected terrorists and people on US soil. I believe that this leak is not helpful to anyone by telling the public about it. The government official who leaked the information will likely be tried for their crime and with any luck the Bush administration will fix their leaky ship.
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!!
552612
the political science term is "protofascist." and yes, it has.\n-------------\nThe article mirror\nProponents of the impeachment, (Specifically, several different legal efforts, and a very large internet community) of current President of the United States, George W. Bush, assert that one or more of President Bush's actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can constitutionally be impeached.[1][2]\n\nThis article presents a list of suggested rationales to impeach Bush, which have been offered by commentators, legal analysts, Democrat politicians and others. The points raised in this article are not to be viewed as a monolithic list, but as an assembly of discrete rationales which favour impeaching Bush that have been gathered from multiple sources. (This article is simply and only a report of those rationales to impeach generated by those who favor impeachment, and, in order to conform to Wikipedias NPOV standards, a rebutal by those who are opposed to impeachment.)For example, The Center for Constitutional Rights, a civil rights legal advocacy non-profit organization based in New York,[3] discusses some arguments in Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush.[4]\n\n[edit]\n\nSuggested reasons to impeach\nSeveral individuals and organisations have alleged that President Bush has been guilty of transgressions that amount to "high crimes and misdemeanors." Some voices in the media and legal analysts have made a case for impeachment based on multiple allegedly impeachable offenses. The following discussion explains in more detail the arguments that are used.\n\n[edit]\n\nNSA warrantless surveillance controversy\nMain article: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy \nIn the context of the "war on terror", President Bush ordered wiretapping of certain international calls to and from U.S. without a warrant. Whether this is legal is currently debated, since the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted to remedy supposedly similar actions in the past (i.e. Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret, Church Committee). Additionally, it allegedly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures - this includes electronic surveillance. These allegations have been advanced by articles published in The Christian Science Monitor and The Nation.[5] In its defense, the administration has asserted that FISA does not apply as the President was authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the presidential powers as Commander-in-Chief inherent in the Constitution (unitary executive theory), to bypass FISA.[6] (See also: Separation of powers and rule of law.)\n\nIn January 2006, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service released two legal analyses concluding that "...no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law."[7] On February 13, 2006, the American Bar Association issued a statement denouncing the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. Their analysis observes that the key arguments advanced by the Bush administration are not compatible with the law.[8] Also five former FISA judges voiced their doubts as to the legallity of the program. [9]\n\nSome commentators, responding to the Bush administration's justification of the program, say that its interpretation of presidential power overthrows the Constitutional system of checks and balances and ignores other provisions of the Constitution mandating that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and v
650653
he is the worsdt president ever. He isn't even technically president, since he only got into office by cheating.\nHe is an evil fascist, and a wannabe dictator. He is running our country into the ground financially, and ruining americas standing as an ethical country by making us into a protofascist nation.\n---------------The article mirror\nProponents of the impeachment, (Specifically, several different legal efforts, and a very large internet community) of current President of the United States, George W. Bush, assert that one or more of President Bush's actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can constitutionally be impeached.[1][2]\n\nThis article presents a list of suggested rationales to impeach Bush, which have been offered by commentators, legal analysts, Democrat politicians and others. The points raised in this article are not to be viewed as a monolithic list, but as an assembly of discrete rationales which favour impeaching Bush that have been gathered from multiple sources. (This article is simply and only a report of those rationales to impeach generated by those who favor impeachment, and, in order to conform to Wikipedias NPOV standards, a rebutal by those who are opposed to impeachment.)For example, The Center for Constitutional Rights, a civil rights legal advocacy non-profit organization based in New York,[3] discusses some arguments in Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush.[4]\n\n[edit]\n\nSuggested reasons to impeach\nSeveral individuals and organisations have alleged that President Bush has been guilty of transgressions that amount to "high crimes and misdemeanors." Some voices in the media and legal analysts have made a case for impeachment based on multiple allegedly impeachable offenses. The following discussion explains in more detail the arguments that are used.\n\n[edit]\n\nNSA warrantless surveillance controversy\nMain article: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy \nIn the context of the "war on terror", President Bush ordered wiretapping of certain international calls to and from U.S. without a warrant. Whether this is legal is currently debated, since the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted to remedy supposedly similar actions in the past (i.e. Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret, Church Committee). Additionally, it allegedly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures - this includes electronic surveillance. These allegations have been advanced by articles published in The Christian Science Monitor and The Nation.[5] In its defense, the administration has asserted that FISA does not apply as the President was authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the presidential powers as Commander-in-Chief inherent in the Constitution (unitary executive theory), to bypass FISA.[6] (See also: Separation of powers and rule of law.)\n\nIn January 2006, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service released two legal analyses concluding that "...no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law."[7] On February 13, 2006, the American Bar Association issued a statement denouncing the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. Their analysis observes that the key arguments advanced by the Bush administration are not compatible with the law.[8] Also five former FISA judges voiced their doubts as to the legallity of the program. [9]\n\nSome commentators, responding to the Bush administration's justification of the program, say that its inter
929767
Yes, he is for something only if it benefits him which shows how spineless and shallow he is. Only an opportunist. I do feel though that bush has not been criticized enough for his wiretaps, etc.\nI also feel replacing the word censured with criticized would have\nexpressed what you meant by the question. I have to give Credit to Bill for serving 8 years. Though his lies were blatant and terrible, I CENSURE the American public for reelecting him for the second term. Al Gore's reputation was destroyed simply by the president he served and not acts he committed himself.
411484
Actually a person can only be charged with treason during war time, which requires an act of Congress. Offically we are not at war right now, the last war as approved by Congress was WW2. So he would obviously be removed from office, and if found out he leaked secrets then he would be placed in prison.
162958
When I first heard about the outing of a covert CIA agent, the wife of one of the most out-spoken critics of Bush's wanting to go to war, I knew right then Bush was responsible.  Now Scooter Libby says his "superiors" told him to leak the info... You think the VP did this without the President's knowledge??? Of course not!  It's exactly the kind of down right "meaness" that Bush has been known for since he was Gov. of Texas...We go to war without provocation for the first time in history.  We torture prisoners for the first time in history.  The destroying of the enviornment, 8 trillion deficit, Katrina...If Bush manages to somehow not be impeached, at least history will be the judge of this presidency!\n\nIn answer to below... it is against the law for a government official with access to classified information to expose the identify of a covert CIA agent.  It puts the life of the agent and the lives of those they are working with or have worked with under-cover in danger.
119597
Bush wants to wiretap Americans on a wild goose chase for terrorists - yet he allows 6 ports to be placed under the operational control of a company from UAE, home to 2 of the 9/11 hijackers.\n\nGee, yeah, Bush is doing "a heck of a job".
961638
The Democrat operative Richard Armitage admitted to being the leaker. Nothing is going to happen to him because no crime was committed.\n\nThe Liberal press did very little coverage of it. That is why you didn`t know.\nThat is also why you see all the posts here of uniformed answers about Scooter Libby who was indited for an unrelated issue and had nothing to do with the outing.