Skip to comments.
Armitage Says He Was the Source in C.I.A. Leak
New York Times Terrorist Tip Sheet ^
| 09/07/06
| DAVID JOHNSTON
Posted on 09/07/2006 4:23:59 PM PDT by conservative in nyc
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
The NYT's take on their Armitage interview, for what it's worth.
To: conservative in nyc
I hope Novak doesn't suddenly say, "No, he's not my original source".
2
posted on
09/07/2006 4:26:28 PM PDT
by
paudio
(Universal Human Rights and Multiculturalism: Liberals want to have cake and eat it too!)
To: conservative in nyc
"But he said held back at the request of Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. He requested that I remain silent, Mr. Armitage, said."
No bias on Fitzgerald's part, huh? That seems so criminal.
3
posted on
09/07/2006 4:27:24 PM PDT
by
AlGone2001
(He's not a baby anymore...)
To: conservative in nyc
[But he said held back at the request of Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. He requested that I remain silent, Mr. Armitage, said. ]
So what WAS Fitzgerald really up to?
4
posted on
09/07/2006 4:27:42 PM PDT
by
Mad_Tom_Rackham
(Democrats. French, but more cowardly.)
To: conservative in nyc
...for what it's worth.Zip, zero, nada, ziltch, jack...
5
posted on
09/07/2006 4:29:36 PM PDT
by
johnny7
(“And what's Fonzie like? Come on Yolanda... what's Fonzie like?!”)
To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
So what WAS Fitzgerald really up to?
I think this is the typical behavior of a prosecuting attorney - asking people who appear before a grand jury not to discuss their testimony with anyone else, under penalty of being brought up on some sort of conspiracy or obstruction of justice charges if they do.
To: AlGone2001
"But he said held back at the request of Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. He requested that I remain silent, Mr. Armitage, said."
Wasn't it Senator Schumer who said of Mr. Fitzgerald, "He's a prosecutor's prosecutor."
7
posted on
09/07/2006 4:30:48 PM PDT
by
freedom4me
("Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom."--Ben Franklin)
To: conservative in nyc
What was the time frame from when Armitage talked to the FBI and when Fitzgerald was appointed?
Who at the FBI knew Armitage was the leaker before the special prosecutor was appointed who then told Armitage to keep quite?
There was a time the FBI knew but did not inform The President?
And the Secretary of State knew before Fitzgerald was appointed as well?
To: conservative in nyc
But he said held back at the request of Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. He requested that I remain silent, Mr. Armitage, said. How possibly to interpret that except in the context of a perjury trap? What exactly was Fitzgerald looking for for three years? How much of the taxpayers' money was wasted trying to find some Bush administration hide to tack to the Democrat barn?
Had somebody imbezzled that funding for booze and cheap cigars they'd go to jail but at least they'd have the booze and cheap cigars to show for it. What does the public have to show for this extravagant and apparently unnecessary waste of public money?
To: Billthedrill
This thread seems to be a duplicate.
10
posted on
09/07/2006 4:32:34 PM PDT
by
D Rider
To: conservative in nyc
To: conservative in nyc
Why didn't Armitage tell all this at the outset?
12
posted on
09/07/2006 4:35:37 PM PDT
by
Savage Beast
(9/11 was never repeated--thanks to President George Bush.)
To: conservative in nyc
Novak, Armitage and Fitzgerald all knew the truth but let the newspapers run wild, Miller to go to jail and Scooter Libby to be indicted. All heroes all--or are they totally without scruples and motivated by narcissism and hate? In any case no honor among them no matter what they proclaim.
To: conservative in nyc
From CBS:
Armitage says he didn't come forward because "the special counsel,once he was appointed, asked me not to discuss this and I honored his request.
But why didn't Armitage, Powell or the FBI inform The President before Fitzgerald was appointed?
To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
So what WAS Fitzgerald really up to?Trying to impeach Bush? That's my guess on his chief (and maybe only) objective.
He needs to resign NOW and spend the rest of his life repenting of what he's done.
15
posted on
09/07/2006 4:37:20 PM PDT
by
Ole Okie
To: shrinkermd
People at the FBI knew as well.
To: conservative in nyc

that FPOS fitz should be brought up on charges of prosicutorial misconduct and a DOZEN OTHER CHARGES.
then burnt at the stake!!!
17
posted on
09/07/2006 4:40:28 PM PDT
by
Chode
(American Hedonist ©®)
To: D Rider
There are no duplicate threads. Three organizations were granted interviews with Richard Armitage today - CBS News, McClatchy Newspapers, and the New York Times Terrorist Tip Sheet. This is the NYTTTS' article on the interview.
To: conservative in nyc
"Mr. Armitage said he did not recall the June 2003 conversation until Mr. Woodward called to remind him about it following Mr. Fitzgeralds news conference announcing of Mr. Libbys indictment." Right...And the dog ate his homework, too.
19
posted on
09/07/2006 4:45:22 PM PDT
by
norwaypinesavage
(Owning a hybrid is a badge of honor, telling the world you failed thermodynamics.)
To: conservative in nyc
The only way to put this to a spectacular close would be for the President to publicly request that the democrats who led the charge for this special prosecutor recommend who they feel should be appointed to try Armitage for treason.
I'd almost pay money to watch Schumer and Reed try to babble their way out of that request.
20
posted on
09/07/2006 4:45:38 PM PDT
by
par4
(If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson