Cheney gave Libby OK to rip foe: mag

The New York Daily News ^ | February 10, 2006 | Richard Sisk

[new yorker 77]

Hidden in this article

Cheney gave Libby OK to rip foe: mag

....

But Libby will not contend in his defense that he was only following orders from Cheney and others, Libby's lawyers said yesterday.

"There is no truth at all to the story that Mr. Libby's lawyers have advised the Court or the Special Counsel that he will raise a defense based on authorization by superiors," Libby lawyer Bill Jeffress said in a statement.

....

[Admin Moderator]

Do not alter the published headline again.

Thanks,

AM

[pepperhead]

I even seen FOX reporting this today on one show.

[Mike Darancette]

AM

KA-BOOM!

[Dog Gone]

What was your fake headline that you used in violation of FR rules?

[dmz]

He's gonna call you a liberal for that. LOL.

[Dammit]

I believe the general consensus around here is to leave headlines as they are, and editorialize in your comments.

That's not only the consensus, those are the forum rules.

I dunno. If want to play softball, I have to play by the rules. If I want to play at FR, I'm not sure why it should be different.

If I don't like the rules of the game, I'll find a different game.

I'm not sure what I'm missing here.

[Hadley V. Baxendale]

So, which is it?

[dmz]

I'm not sure what I'm missing here.
____

Obviously, you're not missing anything at all. But once the poster in question reads your comment, you'll also be labelled a liberal.

Cheers, dammit.

[FourtySeven]

I thought you both might like to read more (if not all) of Jeffress' statement. It appears to be the whole statement regarding this affair, but I can't be sure.

“There is no truth at all to the story that Mr. Libby’s lawyers have advised the Court or the Special Counsel that he will raise a defense based on authorization by superiors. Indeed, there has never been any conference call between Mr. Libby's defense lawyers and Judge Walton. We do not know who reporters are relying on as sources for this story, but any such persons are neither knowledgeable nor authorized to speak for Mr. Libby's defense team.”

source

This is an even stronger indictment against the MSM reporting of this case. (at least it appears so to me). Given the clear tones Jeffress is using, it seems clear to me that Libby never said anything like, "Cheney (or any superior) authorized him to leak Valerie Plame's identity".

Maybe I'm missing something basic. I honestly don't understand given the clear language of this statement, how it can appear in a story (by MSNBC or anyone) with a headline of "Libby defense to allege Cheney role". It's just absurd! This statement, IMO, should be it's own story, with the headline, "Libby's defense denies charge of superior authorization in leak probe", or something like that.

Maybe some lurking, leftist troll can make an FR account and explain it to me. I'd really like to know why the media keeps reporting the same story, when there's clear evidence that it (Libby saying he had authorization of superiors) was never said.

[Peach]

Even FNC has neglected to mention that Libby's attorney has denied this one story from an unknown web site. We thought we'd seen it all with the CBS National Guard stories. Then we thought maybe the MSM had learned its lesson and would report more honestly in the future. We were wrong. At least, I was wrong.

There is an all out war by the presstitutes to lie and deceive the American people and until the Republicans in Congress and Scott McClellan and Karl Rove understand that and start holding major press releases to point out to the American people how they are being lied to, I don't think it's going to stop anytime soon.

[Howlin]

Scooter ping to a Friday article.

[Mike Darancette]

When you change title (and it is a valid thing to do) just put "[My Title]" at the end of your title. It keeps the syntax cops away.

[Just mythoughts]

bttt