All Hank, all the time.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Couldn't this be a warning shot towards the admin?

I was thinking something similar. Previous documents said "superiors" which implicates Cheney, but not Bush. This clearly is saying Bush was involved in the whole thing.

Maybe Fitzgerald's pissed off that this thing took so fucking long?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I was thinking something similar. Previous documents said "superiors" which implicates Cheney, but not Bush. This clearly is saying Bush was involved in the whole thing.

Maybe Fitzgerald's pissed off that this thing took so fucking long?

He's definitely pissed off.

From NYT: "The president has the legal power to declassify information, and Mr. Libby indicated in his testimony that the president's decision — which he said was conveyed through Mr. Cheney — gave him legal cover to pass on information contained in a National Intelligence Estimate." But I note that Fitzgerald's filing states that even after Libby was told the document was declassified, official word was that it was still classified when people wanted to see it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
He's definitely pissed off.

From NYT: "The president has the legal power to declassify information, and Mr. Libby indicated in his testimony that the president's decision — which he said was conveyed through Mr. Cheney — gave him legal cover to pass on information contained in a National Intelligence Estimate." But I note that Fitzgerald's filing states that even after Libby was told the document was declassified, official word was that it was still classified when people wanted to see it.

This morning's WaPo says they didn't bother to tell National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley that it was declassified, leading him to waste time on moving to declassify it. Evidently the declassification itself was secret. Oh, the irony.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Larry Johnson is pissed.

"George Bush did not leak to protect America. He leaked to cover his ass. That, my friends, is the definition of a coward."

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Does unwritten, third-hand notification of the President's authorizing release of information cause it to be declassified?

Sure. It's just like double secret probation.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
This issue was touched on back in Feburary, when Cheney was interviewed by Brit Hume after Cheney shot a man in the face. Apparently there was an allusion to what came out today in earlier briefs, but it referred to Libby's "superiors," but not by name. The question was whether or not Cheney could declassify information.

There's an NPR interview from around that time regarding an executive orders to classify or declassify. The attorney they interviewed suggests that declassification can only happen by the person who originally classified the information, the successor in the office of the person who originally classified the information or the supervisor of the person who classified.

I'm quite sure that's wrong. The President is always authorized to declassify information. That's not the same as saying he can do it without actually notifying anyone of the fact except for Cheney and Scooter, but he can do it.

[Replaced_Texan]

If the unemployment rate is at a 4 1/2 year low, why are we in such a rush to kick out members of the workforce?

I don't get it. If we had a huge, huge unemployment problem I'd understand the "they're taking american jobs" argument a little better. But the timing of the immigration bill is just weird given the current state of the economy.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm quite sure that's wrong. The President is always authorized to declassify information. That's not the same as saying he can do it without actually notifying anyone of the fact except for Cheney and Scooter, but he can do it.

Oh, there wasn't a question about the President's power to declassify in that particular interview. The question was whether the Vice President could do it, and then they went into what the law was about declassification.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
If the unemployment rate is at a 4 1/2 year low, why are we in such a rush to kick out members of the workforce?

I don't get it. If we had a huge, huge unemployment problem I'd understand the "they're taking american jobs" argument a little better. But the timing of the immigration bill is just weird given the current state of the economy.

I think it's pretty well established that immigration confers very substantial benefits to society at large, but that almost all of these benefits are enjoyed by the immigrants themselves, and that the pressure on wages hurts those who are otherwise least well off. (Krugman wrote this a few weeks ago, and I have not seen his facts challenged.)

Which is to say that I do not believe that the resistance to immigration is prompted by economic factors, since it's to the benefit of much of the GOP's constuency. It's more of a cultural hot-button issue.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think it's pretty well established that immigration confers very substantial benefits to society at large, but that almost all of these benefits are enjoyed by the immigrants themselves, and that the pressure on wages hurts those who are otherwise least well off. (Krugman wrote this a few weeks ago, and I have not seen his facts challenged.)

Which is to say that I do not believe that the resistance to immigration is prompted by economic factors, since it's to the benefit of much of the GOP's constuency. It's more of a cultural hot-button issue.

No one, that I've seen, is questioning legal immigration. To be intellectually honest, you can't conflate that with illegal immigration.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No one, that I've seen, is questioning legal immigration. To be intellectually honest, you can't conflate that with illegal immigration.

But since the debate is about, in part, what immigration to make legal, you can't separate them either.

There are two aspects to the debate:

1) What immigration should be legal (i.e., whom do we let in, and in what circumstances/with what qualifications, etc.)

2) What we should do about illegal immigrants (i.e., how severe should the punishment be; what controls do we impose upon employers to help enforcement).

Krugman's point applies to question 1, as does RT's inquiry. We don't worry about intelligent, highly paid, white collar immigration despite the fact that it may displace some citizens from being employed. At the low end, blue-collar level, we do worry (apparently) about "taking american jobs". Why is that, and should we make that distinction?

And, once we've decided the first question, to what lengths do we want to go to enforce the rules?

Unfortunately, the debate on 2 seems heavily influenced by a disagreement on the resolution of question 1. So you can't really separate them either.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Larry Johnson is pissed.

"George Bush did not leak to protect America. He leaked to cover his ass. That, my friends, is the definition of a coward."

Byron York in the Corner commenting on this non-story.

confess to being a little baffled by the excitement over the revelation, in Patrick Fitzgerald's latest filing, that Vice President Dick Cheney told Lewis Libby that President Bush had authorized Libby to discuss some parts of the National Intelligence Estimate with reporters. First of all, it should be made clear -- as it has not been in some discussions -- that Fitzgerald does not say that Bush authorized Libby to say anything about Valerie Plame. As a matter of fact, on page 27, Fitzgerald writes that as late as September 2003, "the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President's Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson's CIA employment..."

As for leaking portions of the National Intelligence Estimate, yes, it was classified, although it would later be declassified. But it should be remembered that when the president decides to make something public, then it can be made public. In the Plame case, there has been much discussion of the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Would anyone argue that this disclosure was unauthorized?

Also, it's useful to remember what was happening at the time of the so-called leak. There was an enormous clamor over the "16 words" in the State of the Union address, and about pre-war intelligence in general. The administration was in the process of declassifying various pre-war intelligence matters. In the midst of that came the specific accusations of Joseph Wilson in the pages of the July 6, 2003 New York Times. How was the White House to answer them? On pages 23 and 24 of the motion, Fitzgerald describes what Libby was authorized to tell reporter Judith Miller during their July 8, 2003 meeting, two days after Wilson's op-ed was published:

Defendant testified that he thought he brought a brief abstract of the NIE’s key judgments to the meeting with Miller on July 8. Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was “vigorously trying to procure” uranium....Defendant advised Miller that Wilson had reported that he had learned that in 1999 an Iraqi delegation visited Niger and sought to expand commercial relations, which was understood to be a reference to a desire to obtain uranium. Later during the discussion about Wilson and the NIE, defendant advised Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA.

Now the fact that an envoy had been sent to Africa, that that envoy was Joseph Wilson, that he had been exploring possible Iraqi overtures to obtain uranium, and that he had reached some conclusions about the matter -- all that was pretty much out of the bag by the time Libby met Miller on July 8, wasn't it? And, by the way, who had let it out of the bag? That's not to say that Joseph Wilson leaked classified information; he did not reveal, for example, all of his contacts during the trip, and apparently those remain classified. Of course, Libby didn't leak that, either. In any event, the basic facts of the trip and Wilson's conclusions -- precisely the matters Libby wanted to discuss with Judith Miller -- were quite public.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But since the debate is about, in part, what immigration to make legal, you can't separate them either.

There are two aspects to the debate:

1) What immigration should be legal (i.e., whom do we let in, and in what circumstances/with what qualifications, etc.)

2) What we should do about illegal immigrants (i.e., how severe should the punishment be; what controls do we impose upon employers to help enforcement).

Krugman's point applies to question 1, as does RT's inquiry. We don't worry about intelligent, highly paid, white collar immigration despite the fact that it may displace some citizens from being employed. At the low end, blue-collar level, we do worry (apparently) about "taking american jobs". Why is that, and should we make that distinction?

And, once we've decided the first question, to what lengths do we want to go to enforce the rules?

Unfortunately, the debate on 2 seems heavily influenced by a disagreement on the resolution of question 1. So you can't really separate them either.

I'm only separating them due to Ty's "culturual" comment. I think a large majority of Americans are comfortable with legal immigration, retardless of their home country. In other words, this is not a racism issue.

I think Krugman's point is that illegal immigration depresses low end wages, and that if we got rid of that as a labor source, wages in that bracket would have to rise, which could be good for low end workers (forget about any inflation arguments).

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm only separating them due to Ty's "culturual" comment. I think a large majority of Americans are comfortable with legal immigration, retardless of their home country. In other words, this is not a racism issue.

I wish this were the case, but I think that you are wrong. (At least with people here in this red state, anyway.) Based upon a couple of conversations I've overheard in the last few days (one with lawyers in an elevator at the courthouse, one in a restaurant), I think that this snippet from http://www.wonkette.com/politics/imm...ell-165810.php is all too accurate:

• WASHINGTON, April 7 — Immigrants. They come in many shapes, sizes, and nationalities, but the only shape, size, and nationality you need to remember is “lazy, swarthy Mexican.” Maybe with a flag (the wrong flag). The House of Representatives (that’s the crazy one) doesn’t like them. The Senate (that’s the rich one) doesn’t either, but needs them to a) vote for George Allen or whoever in 2008 and b) bus their dishes. It’s quite a quandary.
  
  ********
  
  If you yourself are an immigrant, consider adopting an Irish accent. Everyone will find you too rakish and charming to deport, unless you accidentally travel back in time to the 19th Century.

We don't hear about the Irish or Eastern Europeans living here illegally -- we hear about Mexican construction workers and the fact that there's a bunch of bodegas in my mom's old neighborhood.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm only separating them due to Ty's "culturual" comment. I think a large majority of Americans are comfortable with legal immigration, retardless of their home country. In other words, this is not a racism issue.

I think Krugman's point is that illegal immigration depresses low end wages, and that if we got rid of that as a labor source, wages in that bracket would have to rise, which could be good for low end workers (forget about any inflation arguments).

I don't think any of what you say in the first paragraph is correct (well, maybe teh first sentence). Americans are comfortable with legal immigration only because it allows only certain favored nations' immigrants and educated people who can fill good jobs, and few of them. It has never been true, however, that americans favored legal immigration as a general matter. First it was italians and irish, then other europeans, and then other countries. If you wanted to say what they favor, it's wealthy, educated immigrants than aren't disfavored, not legal immigrants (I suspect many americans would vote, if put to them, to bar all mexican, central american, etc. immigration, and probably se asian too). I won't go so far as to say this is direct racism, althoug it may well be, but i'm pretty sure joe six pack, and maybe even jacques chablis, talks about "immigrants" in a condescending manner without regard to whether they have a green card or not.

As for Krugman's argument, I'm not sure it's right. He assumes that immigrants are competing for the same low-end jobs that americans are. From what I've seen, most of the jobs taken by illegal immigrants are ones that would not be filled by americans, which is precisely why there's demand for illegals to fill them. This could be because the job is nasty, or because it wouldnt' be a job at minimum wage, or some other reason. But I don't think that illegal immigrants are exactly displacing american labor at mcdonalds.