I'd like to see this confirmed by other sources.
1 posted on
02/09/2006 10:33:45 AM PST by
conserv13
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 next last
To: conserv13
This national journal is Chrissy Matthew's source for his show Hairball...so expect this to be his main topic tonight.
2 posted on
02/09/2006 10:36:44 AM PST by
Txsleuth
(l drink tea, not kool-aid.)
To: conserv13
That's impossible, because we have already heard that Plame's identity was not classified at that time.
3 posted on
02/09/2006 10:38:12 AM PST by
Eva
To: conserv13
The prosecutor has refused to even state that any classified material was even leaked. This is a totally bogus, lame attempt to revive the Democrats' smear campaign.
4 posted on
02/09/2006 10:41:10 AM PST by
Eva
To: conserv13
Anonymous sources continue to multiply in this story.
5 posted on
02/09/2006 10:41:30 AM PST by
jazusamo
(A Progressive is only a Socialist in a transparent disguise.)
To: conserv13
What has this to do with Valerie Plame or for that matter obstruction of justice?
And of course we have the always interesting "unnamed sources"
To: Howlin
Reverse PING! :o)
Get a load of THIS!
8 posted on
02/09/2006 10:43:46 AM PST by
arasina
(So there.)
To: conserv13
I'd like it confirmed by NAMED sources - and then they should be prosecuted for leaking the info, which is secret (from the grand jury).
9 posted on
02/09/2006 10:43:59 AM PST by
MortMan
(Trains stop at train stations. On my desk is a workstation...)
To: conserv13
So is Libby lying? That's the real question here. If he is, then Cheney will contradict him and it will be a he said/he said thing.
If he's not lying, however, this is going to be an ungood thing.
11 posted on
02/09/2006 10:44:45 AM PST by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: conserv13
If this is so, why wasn't Cheney indicted?
12 posted on
02/09/2006 10:45:39 AM PST by
mystery-ak
(Army Wife.....toughest job in the military)
To: conserv13
LOL, Saddam and Sons defense team working hard!
14 posted on
02/09/2006 10:46:55 AM PST by
roses of sharon
("I would rather men ask why I have no statue, than why I have one". ) (Cato the Elder)
To: conserv13
This is as dubious as the earlier story about the Judge's opinion, based on old comments by Fitzgerald, that Valerie Plame was in fact a covert agent. This is just the sort of thing Clinton would do, when that sieve-like administration over saw the worst compromising of national security secrets in American history. We hear again and again how secretive the Bush administration is, yet now the accusation is that Cheney would jeopardize intelligence secrecy for minor political points. Plenty of reason not to buy this one folks. Just chalk it up to just another "Ratherism" without serious basis. Let's see some real proof, and then we'll talk. In the meantime, I am tired of hearing "Wolf, wolf" every five minutes from the partisan biased MSM, as their credibility is long, long been reduced to zero.
To: conserv13
OMG, it's Murry Waas again.
C'mon, guys - remember this dude?
24 posted on
02/09/2006 10:57:40 AM PST by
M. Thatcher
( I truly hope for two things before I die. The death of the Democrat Party, and the death of Islam.)
To: conserv13
Impossible.
Of all people, VP Cheney would never authorize the disclosure of ANY classified info for ANY reason.
Classified is Classified. period. End of discussion.
25 posted on
02/09/2006 10:59:38 AM PST by
roaddog727
(P=3/8 A. or, P=plenty...............)
Buried in this story are the following ...
Libby has never claimed that Cheney encouraged him to disclose information about Plame to the media. ... Finally, the new information indicates that Libby is likely to pursue a defense during his trial that he was broadly "authorized" by Cheney and other "superiors" to defend the Bush administration in making the case to go to war. Libby does not, however, appear to be claiming that he was acting specifically on Cheney's behalf in disclosing information about Plame to the press.
Note too, the article leads the reader to think in terms of "this is a leak case." But it's not. The charges against Libby are that he deliberately mislead investigators.
The thrust of the article in that regard is that Libby's defense team wants to show that Libby was pressed with bigger fish than affair de Plame, and therefore forgot that he knew for a fact that Plame worked for the CIA when he talked with investigators.
27 posted on
02/09/2006 11:00:18 AM PST by
Cboldt
To: conserv13
Just ask Joesph Wilson IV. I'm sure he'll be able to repeat it verbatim.
30 posted on
02/09/2006 11:09:22 AM PST by
D-Chivas
To: conserv13
The author of this story, which by the way is not a new story, is trying to conflate approval Libby may have had to discuss some "classified" info with the press, into an "approval" to reveal Valerie Plame's "classified" identity, when in fact it is not such an approval any more than is it evidence that her status was "classified".
Yet, you can bet that the dim-witted Dim Matthews will jump t o every erroneous conclusion the author is trying to present.
31 posted on
02/09/2006 11:10:43 AM PST by
Wuli
To: conserv13
"Maryland Libertarian. I live in Highlandtown, Baltimore." May I be one of many who will probably offer you 'condolences' for your honesty!.
33 posted on
02/09/2006 11:12:59 AM PST by
harpu
( "...it's better to be hated for who you are than loved for someone you're not!")
To: conserv13
I think I'll add a keyword to the list. One that describes this precisely!
35 posted on
02/09/2006 11:15:18 AM PST by
airborne
To: conserv13
Um, Libby is being charged with obstructing justice, not revealing classified information. So how would saying Cheney told him to release classified information help him in that regard? Hell all libby has to show is one person told him and that person be a reporter.
38 posted on
02/09/2006 11:25:19 AM PST by
mykpfsu
To: conserv13
Murray Waas Never-Has-Been
39 posted on
02/09/2006 11:30:15 AM PST by
Beckwith
(The liberal press has picked sides ... and they have sided with the Islamofascists)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson