From: Adam 

George Sherwood wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:26:22 +0100, Adam wrote:
>
>> George Sherwood wrote:
>>> Adam wrote:
>>>
>>>> "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks,
particularly
>>>> leaks of classified information."
>>>>
>>>> Answers on a postcard to.....
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>> If the information is de-classified and authorized for release, it is
>>> not a leak.  You can be critical of why the information was authorized
>>> for release, but it is just silly to continue to call it a leak and go
>>> back to this quote.
>>>
>>> George
>> A constructive leak. i.e. it would appear by "outing"
Plame via such a
>> ruse one could leak info which even you (as prez etc) had not authorized
>> for release.
>>
>> Did Mr Bush "authorize" the revealing of plame's job to
the world ?
>>
>> Or was it "constructively leaked"?
>
> And where are you coming up with this fact?  There is nothing in the
> filing that even comes close.  This filing purely talks about the National
> Intelligence Estimate.  No on has even been charged with the leaking of
> Plame's name, not even Libby.  You are just speculating, I can make up any
> story I want.
>
> George

Oh BTW:

It has all the hallmarks of a constructive leak.

but

A) Did Mr Bush "authorize" the revealing of plame's job to the world ?

B) If not why then did it come out?


Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5