See that post below? See the line that says "But in today's political climate an accusation is just as good as solid proof"? Well, here's a prime example of that. Howard Dean, in his mind, has already tried and convicted Dick Cheney of authorizing the leak of Valerie Plame's name. But there seems to be a problem with at Washington Times article. They apparently left of a small amount of text from what Patrick Fitzgerald wrote. They have "Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose the information about the NIE to the press by his superiors". They seem, for some reason, to have left this part out, "We also note that it is our understanding that...". So he's not actually saying that Libby testified to it, only that it's his understanding. While it may only be nine little words, those words make a difference. Also, unless I'm wrong, and there's a pretty good chance that I am, I don't believe that Libby's grand jury testimony has officially been released yet. I know some of it has, but not all. If that's the case, how is this stuff being "leaked"?
Filed under Daft Liberals
Filed under GOP
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
Wow, a leak of a leak. You could be on to something there.
Just hope that someone cools off Cheney before he kills someone.
Post a Comment