RAWSTORY: CNN corrects CIA leak allegation

[sabra]

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/CNN_corrects_CIA_leak_allegation_0406.html

CNN corrects CIA leak allegation
RAW STORY


CNN errantly reported that according to grand jury testimony, president Bush had directly authorized Vice President Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis Libby to leak the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

CNN corrected the claim to more accurately reflect the content of the testimony, noting that it was Vice President Dick Cheney who Libby testified had told him the President had ok'ed the leak of classified information relating to pre-war intelligence. This means the President did not directly, by Libby's account, authorize him to leak Plame's name. However, according to Libby's testimony, Cheney did authorize leak of classified information claiming that Bush himself had given the go-ahead.

Libby, has been indicted for conspiracy and lying to federal investigators regarding the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

The report was made and corrected live on air.

[MADem]

1. Good thing Cheney bought that house on the Eastern shore!!!

He'll take the heat, he will resign.

WHO will be his replacement VP??? Condi?? McCAIN????

[davidwparker]

4. Jeb.

[zbdent]

6. No, it will be Condi

Why do you think she passed up the chance to f*ck up the NFL and get away from the madness?

Bush really wants his legacy to point out that "the party of Lincoln" finally did something historic for the Blacks . . . with the first Black/African-American VP . . .

Funny, there's actually a very vocal nudist who supports Condi and the party of sexual repression and "Christian Values" - which would normally totally eliminate Naturism worldwide . . .

[liberal N proud]

8. Cheney can't resign! - PNAC needs someone in the White House

This is his presidency and he is a key figure in the whole PNAC organization. For him to resign would mean failure of their agenda.

[Inland]

2. OH, okay. So Bush fires Cheney now, right? nt

[madinmaryland]

7. Not before giving Buckshot dick a Presidential Medal of Freedom!

[Whoa_Nelly]

3. Um...so how how is this different than * actually being involved?

If * OK'd it, then he is directly involved in breaking the IIPA of 1982.

[Journeyman]

10. My understanding is, Libby's testimony would be hearsay. . .

about the President's involvement, but direct testimony about the Vice President. The question now is, what has Cheney said about all this.

The President may still be implicated directly, but not by Libby's second-hand account.

But then, I'm not a lawyer.

[Whoa_Nelly]

15. So, will Cheney be brought in to testify UNDER OATH?

Would this be the next logical step?

[grasswire]

5. so Libby didn't say that Bush authorized the leak

Libby testified that Cheney SAID that Bush authorized the leak.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle!!

[0007]

9. Mr. McClellan will straighten out all the misguided journalist

in about an hour from now. That is if snotty has his head screwed on so it doesn't flop off.

[warrens]

12. If so, either Bush is guilty or Cheney lied or Scoot is lying...

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. Cheney told Libby Bush said to leak Plame's name and now we're expected to

believe that Bush could have possibly not been involved in the leak because Cheney is a LIAR? Cheney's a liar when it's convenient for the repukes, but a wonderful, truthful, and honorable man any other time?

This is a bullshit spin. Bush was involved...Cheney said so. If Cheney says it's true, it's true. I'll play their spin game. I now believe what Libby said Cheney Said is true. That's convenient for ME.

[Garbo 2004]

13. Libby testified he was authorized to leak NIE info re: Iraq. Not Plame. nt

[TahitiNut]

14. Perfect example of 'not illegal' but IMPEACHABLE.

Disclosing classified information regarding foreign intelligence deep-cover activities for purely partisan political reasons, damaging the security of the nation, is grounds for impeachment under any reasonable interpretation. It's an egregious abuse of authority and a violation of public trust.