Cheney's office at center of CIA leak indictment [Reuters busted, again.... What "leak indictment?]

Reuters ^ | Sat Oct 29, 2005 3:40 PM ET | James Vicini and Adam Entous

[rabair]

Cheney's office at center of CIA leak indictment

Sat Oct 29, 2005 3:40 PM ET By James Vicini and Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The indictment of former top White House aide Lewis Libby in the CIA leak investigation will put Vice President Dick Cheney's office at the center of court proceedings, raising the

[rabair]

Alright folks check this out. First, the smaller issue. "Cheney's office" isn't at the center of anything. Libby is. But more importantly, did I miss something? I don't recall there being a "leak indictment". Maybe someone could send me the information on this, because I wasn't aware there was anyone indicted on the (non)leak.

I emailed this to thepoliticalteen.net who has a post up now.

Only I hadn't noticed until I sent it, what I now posted in his comments section. I was using the Reuters via Yahoo! link in my email to him, but I got this one straight from the source. Look at the URL. It ends in "US-BUSH-LEAK.xml", now I may be nitpicking there... but doesn't that just show a little agenda? (not that anyone would be surprised)

[FormerACLUmember]

I would be surprised if "Roto-Reuters Sewer Service" ever told the truth.

[leadpenny]

Kinda pickin' at nits, imo. They were indictments that came out of the CIA leak investigation.

[Cboldt]

Not excusing perjury, but it strikes me that Clinton was indicted for perjury in a civil case (Jones v. Clinton) where not only did Clinton perjur himself, he was probly on the losing side (he settled, so no final determination under the law).

In contrast, Libby was indicted for perjury in a criminal case where but for the fact he didn't tell the truth, he would not have broken the law.

[rabair]

if they had changed "indictment" to "investigation" in the headline, I might not have cared... or even putting the word "investigation" before "indictment" in the headline.. but calling it a "leak indictment" is straight up lying. Not just keeping it short to make it easier, it's lying...

[Patriot from Philly]

You can go to Reuters website and give them feedback. I sent them some last week when they editorialized in a "news" story.

Plus I really hate Reuters. They have an ongoing dispute with the US military in Iraq about an incident when its reporters (probably terrorists) were shot.

They should really recuse themselves from reporting on the US military - it's almost a conflict of interest.

[EagleUSA]

The liberal media is just beside itself...it cannot even get the facts right, because the real facts are not what they wanted.

It is just like poor old liberal leftist Dan Rather who could not get it right either, because he was so dedicated to get GETTING IT WRONG.

[Rocky]

Just the usual baloney from Reuters.

[CedarDave]

Reporters by nature will try to trip up an interviewee. In this case doubly so if that person is a high administrative aide in the hated Bush White House. No matter how close you think you are to the reporter as a person, they are still Rat MSM reporters. With everything else going on in the White House, you must never forget that fact or let down your guard. Libby apparently did so and got burned. Moral -- do your job and never talk to RAT reporters (i.e. any of them!)

[Rapscallion]

Reuters: Hyping the news to survive.

[shield]

We're definitely in the day OUR LORD spoke of when evil (lying) would be good, and good (telling the truth) would be evil.

Judgment is a comin' for all those lying scumbags. The day is fast approaching that what 'seeds you've sown you'll be reaping.' Sooner than later...enough already...

[rabair]

Just the usual baloney from Reuters.

Well said... this isn't as bad as the "White Supremacists Riot" lie from the AP a couple weeks ago, but it's sort of just par for the course and I think important to get the word out... Perhaps the Senate Dems should be pointing their "Culture of Corruption" fingers at the MSM.

[leadpenny]

I was looking at the original title of the thread and the body of the article. I missed Reuters headline.

Still, the headline won't change any minds either way.

[Reactionary]

"Perhaps the Senate Dems should be pointing their "Culture of Corruption" fingers at the MSM."

It's always entertaining to hear social hedonists go on about "corruption."

You would be tempted to think degenerates and liars are inching towards some level of self-respect.

[rabair]

Yeah, I can see how that could be confusing. My FR headline doesn't really have the Reuters headline which was:

"Cheney's office at center of CIA leak indictment"

[Smartaleck]

And the AP too -

By LARRY MARGASAK and PETE YOST, Associated Press Writers
"The starting point was Bush's claim in his State of the Union address in January 2003 that Saddam Hussein had tried to acquire uranium ****from the African nation of Niger***** as part of an effort to develop weapons of mass destruction. "

Bush did not say Niger. He said from Africa which could be any of several countries.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051029/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_reconstruction_4;_ylt=AqgB8VXxwraLgibOZRsAdWUGw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

[DoughtyOne]

Actually, I consider it to be a big deal. Not telling the truth or perjury is not the same as ratting out a member of the CIA.

Reuters is revealing one of two things here, an agenda and or grossly incompetent staff.

[Txsleuth]

Mort Kondrake just referred to Cheney as Darth Vader...

[VictoryGal]

> Bush did not say Niger. He said from Africa which could be any of several countries.

Which intelligence was he referring to if not the Niger doc?

I'd love to be able to offer this as an alternative angle, but only if it stands up. If there's no other uranium acquisition intelligence other than the Niger stuff, then this dog won't hunt.

[Brilliant]

The only way I can see Cheney getting in trouble is if he told Libby to lie.

[leadpenny]

Maybe Chris Matthews doubles as a Reuters headline writer?

[leadpenny]

As a compliment, no doubt?

[DoughtyOne]

LOL

[rabair]

well as I understand it, Wilson's ACTUAL findings and as well as the Senate Intel Committee's WERE that Saddam had "sought to buy" as Dubya said. The thing is the media and Wilson at the hands of the Dems pulled a switcheroo and made it about how "Saddam didn't buy" Uranium. Now that's true. And to the average person who doesn't scrutinize the media, they might think "WHAA!? That means Bush lied!"... But if you look, Bush, said "British Intelligence" had found that Saddam had "sought to buy" (which is intel they stand by). He never said or even implied that Saddam had the stuff, just that he wanted it. Which as far as I know is the truth..

Didn't Niger not sell because they were afraid of what would happen if they got caught? Isn't this confirmed by their own government? The whole "forged documents" thing had nothing to do with what Dubya said... I'm pretty sure those were some French documents or something anyway.

Either way, the media pulled the switcheroo and decided to pretend Bush had said Saddam "bought" the stuff, rather than the truth which is that he said (and Saddam did) "sought to buy". So they basically put words in his mouth to call him a liar about, and to this day they still do it. I don't even hear the FNC folks correcting the record when they have a "Fair and Balanced" debate and some lefty spouts off about Niger. Ah... I'm bored with this for now...

[newzjunkey]

Their headline is sensationalism and inaccurate. This stuff matters because many people don't look beyond the headlines. They know exactly what they're doing when they write something like this. It's their craft; it's their profession to know.

Cheney's name is used only to grab attention.

[leadpenny]

Anyone who reads only headlines either doesn't care or already has their mind made up. They don't matter.

[RetSignman]

Every time I hear any MSM media tell their stories I think of one of Hitlers propaganda method's (paraphrase). 'The masses are ignorant, just keep telling them same story over and over and they will soon believe it to be true' Hey, it works, just ask any liberal democrat, that's probably where they got it from.

[rabair]

I disagree... I say the average person only reads headlines and hears the soundbytes on TV... they may not "care" the way we "care", but when it comes time to vote they have absorbed so much of this BS, and it's all they really know... Think about how many people vote, and how many of them are truly informed... This stuff has a tremendous impact on the average person, IMO.

[jess35]

You mean the leak that wasn't a leak?

[popdonnelly]

These people will do everything in their power to get Cheney, and then Bush. Watch.

[sgtyork]

Some may call it picking at nits...

...others would call it adhering to proper legal distinctions that were delineated by the prosecutor himself in his announcement on Friday!

These were indictments for perjury and obstruction of justice and were not related to leaking. This isn't hard, read!

[fantom]

they missed their big chance. remember if your going to get them get them all. this is a huge overreach. whats left of the dmsm's cred is shot. seriously they screwed up bigtime.

[rabair]

exactly. well said sgtyork

[Smartaleck]

"I'd love to be able to offer this as an alternative angle, but only if it stands up. If there's no other uranium acquisition intelligence other than the Niger stuff, then this dog won't hunt."

Just a guess, not ALL intel is public.

[Nimby]

But it does wind up looking like Libby lied to protect someone else (Cheney). Loyalty is one of the greatest attributes the WH has, and it mkaes me wonder if they don't think thre's a chance a crime could have been committed or at least that they could be railroaded for one.

[singledot777]

Reuters is right and wrong.
As many have pointed out, Reuters refers to a leak that does not exist, since the information was declassified.
But the part where Cheney is said to be involved in this "leak" strikes me as true. I say this because Fitzgerald said for the first time this week that:
"it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson."
This suggest that Fitzgerald is going after multiple white house officials.