Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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)

1 posted on 10/29/2005 2:54:43 PM PDT by rabair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: rabair

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


2 posted on 10/29/2005 2:57:49 PM PDT by FormerACLUmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rabair

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


3 posted on 10/29/2005 2:58:46 PM PDT by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rabair
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.

4 posted on 10/29/2005 3:00:36 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rabair

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.


6 posted on 10/29/2005 3:02:39 PM PDT by Patriot from Philly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rabair

Just the usual baloney from Reuters.


8 posted on 10/29/2005 3:03:02 PM PDT by Rocky (Air America: Robbing the poor to feed the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rabair
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!)
9 posted on 10/29/2005 3:07:24 PM PDT by CedarDave (Life was simpler before Cindy showed up in Crawford.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rabair

Reuters: Hyping the news to survive.


10 posted on 10/29/2005 3:07:38 PM PDT by Rapscallion (It goes far deeper than contempt of Congress. Government takes so much and gives so little.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rabair
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...

11 posted on 10/29/2005 3:08:15 PM PDT by shield (The Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God!!!! by Dr. H. Ross, Astrophysicist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rabair

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


16 posted on 10/29/2005 3:25:26 PM PDT by Smartaleck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rabair

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


20 posted on 10/29/2005 3:31:27 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rabair

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


30 posted on 10/29/2005 7:43:27 PM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rabair
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.
36 posted on 04/09/2006 7:11:09 AM PDT by singledot777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson