Who was Woodward’s first source?
By on Nov 17th, 2005 at 9:03 am
Who was Woodward’s first source?
White House official denies that it was President Bush, Andrew Card, or Dan Bartlett. Rove denies. Colin Powell denies. Former CIA Director George Tenet denies. Tenet’s deputy John McLaughlin denies. Cheney? “No comment.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Woodward has seemed annoyed by the entire culture in DC. That in itself doesn’t say much. But, he hasn’t given a clue other than to say he doesn’t have a “bombshell”.
Libby’s defense says this is a bombshell because it proves that Fitzgerald missed key elements in his investigation and that Libby was not the first to speak of Plame.
It’s more wait and see if the truth ever comes out.
November 17th, 2005 at 9:12 amRaw Story says it’s Hadley…could that be so?
November 17th, 2005 at 9:14 amYou guys are so skeptical. Won’t believe anything our government says. The Bush/Cheney crew is truthful, honest, and deserving of our trust. Bush goes to NASCAR races every election year, and the multi-national corporations and the Ralph Reed’s of the world are behind the administration. What more do you need in the way of proof?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but until Scott McClellan once again assures the press that no one in the White House was the source, only then will you believe it. After all, if you can’t believe Scottie, just who can you believe?
November 17th, 2005 at 9:18 amIt’s got to be Hadley. His name just seemed to drop off the radar to fast. Either Hadley or Ari although Hadley seems more like the type of Woodward source.
November 17th, 2005 at 9:41 amFollow me, my leftist, Bush-hating friends, if you can – Woodward says he talked to a total of THREE people about Plame, and that these THREE people included “current and former administration officials,” Woodward’s own words.
Now, we know that one of Woodward’s sources was Andy Card…but Card issued a full waiver to Woodward, so we know Card didn’t leak. There’s one “current” administration official we can cross off the list.
We know it wasn’t Rove…Rove issued a waiver as well, and his people and his lawyers are all saying it wasn’t him….that’s two current officials we can cross off the list. There is only one remaining possibility. What we’re left with is “and FORMER…”
Clearly, the leaker is a former official who no longer works in the administration.
This has got to be the suckiest Fitzmas of all time for folks afflicted with Bush derangement syndrome. You don’t get Rove, you don’t get Cheney, and now it’s a virtual certainty that Libby will walk – Fitz’s accusation of perjury against Libby is tied to the fact that Libby allegedly “lied” about being the first person to talk to a reporter about Plame. WHOOPSIE! We know now it wasn’t Libby who first leaked – it was someone else who leaked to Woodward. Scooter walks.
Merry Fitzmas!
SWS
November 17th, 2005 at 9:42 amSS – hey, f*cktard, he said current OR former officials. Thanks for playing, but you gotta be able to read to be a contender.
November 17th, 2005 at 9:45 amDon’t bother with SS. Complete repub/nazi apologist that’s just here to annoy us. Doesn’t want to talk except shit about liberals.
I have alot more respect for Bernstein these days than Woodward. Woodward has become part of the ruling oligarchy in a peripheral way, a la Judith Miller.
Could it possibly be tricky Dick Cheney? That would be a fitzmas dream come true.
November 17th, 2005 at 9:52 amHey DumbSh*t,
You’re welcome – come back to the game when you can freaking COUNT, you moron. “OR FORMER….” Why the hell do you think he put that in his press release if the three people he talked to were all CURRENT?
Jeez, liberals are so freaking stupid.
November 17th, 2005 at 9:56 amSo Dumb Fox, is it your contention that if Woodward said “current OR former”, that his group of three has to contain at least one current member?
November 17th, 2005 at 9:57 amThat all three could not be “former” if he uses the word “or”?
#5 “Fitz’s accusation of perjury against Libby is tied to the fact that Libby allegedly “lied†about being the first person to talk to a reporter about Plame. ”
Wrong. Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s accusation of perjury against Libby is tied to the fact that Libby told investigators that he first heard Valerie Plame’s name from reporters when, as his own notes indicate, he first heard her name from Vice President Cheney.
And because Libby lied, Mr. Fitzgerald has been having a hard time trying to learn the truth. This should surprise no one. Conservatives have no respect for the truth, no matter what the president says.
The Vice President was involved in the leak, and per the President’s explicit promise to the nation, he should resign immediately.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:01 amTomaig,
Dumbfox doesn’t like it when you make him think….
November 17th, 2005 at 10:02 am~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0) Bush administration lobbing missiles at public-unconvinced about the “threat”- administration’s game -presumably-make diehards change mind/win over skeptics of the public.
-latest missiles involves aluminum tubes-Story complicated-
a) September (7th-8th)- New York Times-”Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes which American officials believed were intended as components to enrich uranium”
American officials-aluminum tubes blocked/intercepted-declined citing ’sensitivity’.
b) Having leaked story-administration ran with- September *8 Sunday-Vice President Cheney, - NBC “Meet the Press,” referred to aluminum tubes- “What we have seen recently is that [Saddam Hussein] is trying through his illicit procurement network to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(*Aj) Tubes story was Leaked on sep 7th to press, the story above broke sep 8th after Leaked to “press”
Authors’ of above article were
September 8, 2002
New York Times
U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts
By Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cheney
Hadley
Woodward
Gordon
Miller
My Guess
though Gannon, the Shill, 200 WH trips?, HAS claimed to see the P.D.B with Plames name.
How did he get his hands on a secret Plame / Wilson / Nigeria Uranium paper?
Gannon was in PRESS Corps, ..he could have spread Info…
Who Owned Faux Talon News??
**Speculating
November 17th, 2005 at 10:05 am@this Juncture.–AJ
Here’s the other gem from Woodward’s press release that curiously seems to be getting almost NO play in the MSM or on the lefty blogs:
“When asked by Fitzgerald if it was possible I told Libby I knew Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and was involved in his assignment, I testified that it was possible I asked a question about Wilson or his wife, but that I had no recollection of doing so.”
So, take this statement that Woodward has been almost on a crusade over the last year, popping up on any talking heads news shows that will have him, deriding the CIA leak case as being much ado about nothing. He has criticized Fitz repeatedly, calling the whole thing a waste of time and money.
We know Dumbfox can’t add, but surely one of you Bush haters can put two and two together…..?
November 17th, 2005 at 10:06 amThis doesn’t get Libby off the hook, no matter what. He was indicted for lying about Cooper, Miller and Russert. Whether or not he was the “first” to contact the press is irrelevant to the indictment — the attorneys are simply trying to suggest sloppiness on the part of Fitzgerald for his assertion that Libby appeared to be the “first in the chain” of contacts, and the first WH House official to leak the name. However, the “sloppy investigation” angle is lame out of the gate, and pretty transparent straw-clutching.
The Wingers are hoping for an “a-HA!” moment here. They may get one, but I’m not sure it’s going to be the one they want.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:08 amWayne, exactly…when did fitz say he was accussing libby of being the first to leak the name, as the repubs have brought up so many times, libby did not get an indictment for revealing the source, just saying where he got the information and partaking in a cover up story that he persisted through the grand jury….duh!!
the american public will learn the truth and so far everything is pointing to the wh
November 17th, 2005 at 10:09 am“Wrong. Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s accusation of perjury against Libby is tied to the fact that Libby told investigators that he first heard Valerie Plame’s name from reporters when, as his own notes indicate, he first heard her name from Vice President Cheney.”
That makes NO sense at all – it wasn’t illegal for Cheney to have informed Libby about Plame – they both have the appropriate security clearances to talk about classified information. What would the incentive be for Libby to lie about something that wasn’t illegal? The alleged lie came when Libby told Fitz that he heard Plame’s name from a REPORTER, remember? Fitz pressed him on this, and Libby said it was Russert – Russert denies, Fitz thinks Libby lied, and he’s indicted for perjury.
But WHOOPSIE! Libby didn’t hear it from Russert, but he did hear it from WOODWARD. The central fact in the indictment was that Libby lied when he said he heard Plame’s name from a reporter – it wasn’t a lie. He heard it from Woodward.
Fitz’s indictment implodes. Charges dismissed. Scooter walks. Merry Fitzmas.
SWS
November 17th, 2005 at 10:12 amThe treason list grows longer by the day…
Why does Cheney hate America and us patriotic Americans so much that he would release the name of an undercover CIA operative during a time of war? It must be because he hates everything we stand for — you know, “peace and democracy”, since neither peace nor democracy is good for him and his other Halliburton-Big Oil corporate raiders.
Mr. Cheney: please stop hating us…
On second thought, just go away. And take all the trolls with you…
November 17th, 2005 at 10:13 amLibby is guilty same basic thing as Martha Stewart-Lying to a Prosecutor, although Im sure someone will come along and say she was jailed for Insider Trading.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:15 amSorry (in more ways than one)SS. You are forgetting about the timeline. Libby knew about Plame before he talked to Woodward. Read the indictment.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:16 amChris and Runningdog, not surprisingly you are both missing the entire point. The BASIS for the indictment of perjury was that Fitz thought Libby was lying when he said he first heard Plame’s name from a REPORTER. Fitz believed that Libby had either found out her name himself or heard it from the VP and not from a reporter.
We know now it was ENTIRELY POSSIBLE that he heard Plame’s name from Woodward, who admitted to knowing her identity a full month before Libby’s conversations with Cooper, Miller, et al. If this indictment isn’t dismissed, Scooter will walk based on reasonable doubt – either way, Scooter walks.
Merry Fitzmas.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:19 amIs this the “explicit promise” you’re talking about?
“If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,” Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. “If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.”
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/
“If the person has violated the law….”
So what law do YOU say was violated, W.A.S.? Fitzgerald sure didn’t indict anybody for any aspect of the actual “outing” of Plame…
November 17th, 2005 at 10:19 amAlvord, I’ve read it – it doesn’t say Libby knew about Plame before talking to Woodward.
Sorry.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:19 amAs you can SEE from my post Above Smith,The White House Likes to Plant Stories..then Mine them.
besides that the Judges whom looked over the Fitz Briefs and Papers (8 pages were left out of public view) were what made the judges D&R alike, to let Fitz Move Forward in the Case and expand it, so they must have ’seen’ something.
Ahh dunno what those 8 pages contained.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:21 amDo You?
Boo Hoo – It looks like Fitzmas will be cancelled this year! HO! HO! HO!
November 17th, 2005 at 10:24 amTom,
Yeah, interesting that the Bush haters just can’t wrap their pointy little heads around FACTS….like the FACT that NO ONE in the administration “outed” anyone who was covert as defined by law.
They have convenient memories…which makes sense, considering the massive attempt by liberals and democrats to perpetuate revisionist history about Saddam’s WMD’s and the runup to the Iraq war.
When you have selective memory, as liberals do, you can remain in your own little fantasy world forever.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:24 amHey SS – it’s not about COUNTING, it about LOGIC, aka the rightwing achilles heel. And I see there’s another assclown who doesn’t get it.
Follow me… Because Woodward used “OR”, that means each source is either current (C) or former (F). You could have CCC, CCF, CFF, FFF as valid combinations.
If he had used “AND”, you could deduce that the sources are a combo of C and F. So either CFF, or CCF.
But Woodward did not use AND. He used OR. So you are wrong. Thanks for playing.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:25 amWoodward is a slime ball, waterboy for Bush-Cheney and has thrown himself into this for the sole purpose of deflecting from Libby, but folks, it just wont work.
You see folks, Woodward is an ego-maniac. He was on the outside while this big story was developing. He is insanely jealous because, after all, he had exposed Nixon, he was the man, him and his source. Now where is he? Sucking hind tit.
So now what does he do? He says to himself, “self, you got to get in the mix, and the only way to do that is to come out and say that you were the first”.
Now, why would he do that, you may ask. Simple folks, he has been carrying the waterbags and the douchebags for Bush-Cheney from the gitgo. He has been on every TV show there is saying this was not a crime, nothing to it. Now with him out there and being the “first” in line it makes his fairy tale more compelling. If Bob did not believe in the story, there must not be anything to it.
Go ahead and buy this shitbags story folks, that is what the administration is hoping for. Does it help Libby, not one damn bit. The Libby charges are repeatedly lying to the grand jury and investigators. Period.
Whoe leaked to Woodward? Probably no one, but he has a whole office full that he could point to, and they would all back him up. After all, he is on the bushlandia payroll and has been for 5 years.
Think about this foiks. He supposedly single handedly brought down the Nixon administration. Why is he working so hard to prop up the Bushies? MONEY AND POWER!
November 17th, 2005 at 10:25 amThe Law of Lying, Ask Martha, is a separate issue.
A law was Broken, Yes?
Libby then Resigned.
Next Neo-Con Please…
November 17th, 2005 at 10:30 am“Follow me… Because Woodward used “ORâ€, that means each source is either current (C) or former (F). You could have CCC, CCF, CFF, FFF as valid combinations.”
Dumbsh*t, it looks like you are as horrible at logic as you are counting….follow me on this…if Woodward was ONLY talking about CURRENT officials, WHY would he use the word “OR”? He would have just said “I spoke to three current officials.” He didn’t. He said “current OR former.” We know that TWO of those sources ARE CC, but they’ve both release waivers. Logic indicates the third source is an F, otherwise there is simply no need to use the word “OR.”
Capisce? Thanks for playing.
SWS
November 17th, 2005 at 10:30 amyou’re right, dumb fox. SS and conservatives don’t care about LOGIC, and can’t even comprehend logic. If they don’t get it by now, they never will. you’re arguing with someone that believes his own lies.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:33 amWhat is is?
and or or?
Notice Bushco still wont Talk about the Uranium Forgeries??
November 17th, 2005 at 10:34 amGosh golly! Never knew reporters kept so many secrets! Isn’t this “Woodman” or “Woodward” fella a friend of the President? Did this “Woodman” guy kill the CIA?
I’m so confused!
November 17th, 2005 at 10:36 amWell for what it’s worth…
First of all, having a security clearance does NOT automatically grant you access to any classifed information you want. You MUST have a NEED TO KNOW! There was no need for Libby to be told that Wilson’s wife was a CIA employee with a classified status. In fact, I would argue that there was never a NEED for the Vice President to be told this, either, so whoever told the Vice President about Mrs Wilson may have violated the law, but that’s a separate matter. The point is, her employment status was classified at the time it appeared in Robert Novak’s column, so someone must have leaked it out somehow, so somewhere along the line a crime was committed.
Second, Mr. Fitzgerald’s timeline of events was based on what he was able to learn and piece together up to that point. But, and this is the part that doesn’t seem to be reaching some people, LIBBY LIED! This made it difficult to learn exactly what happened. Now, if everyone who was interrogated by the FBI and who testified before the Grand Jury had told the truth from the beginning, we would have learned how it all happened. But because at least one person did not do that, this has been made harder.
The investigation is not over, and the fact that no indictments have come down yet naming who leaked the name does not prove that none will ever come. That is just wishful thinking on the part of the Bush supporters.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:37 amGee, SS, now you’re thinking for Woodward TOO! Wow, you must be an even bigger brainiac than you think you are…
How about this: he said “OR” because that’s what reporters, administration officials, etc., do when they want to throw off the public from the truth. By saying “current or former”, he could just as easily have been talking about only current administration officials. Since you seem to be so caught up in your own logic world, why is it more likely that by saying “OR”, he meant “at least one former”? To those of us with more than shit-for-brains, the use of the word “OR” gives the speaker an out — it could be any or all of the above possibilities! So, Woodward could have used the word “OR” simply to expand the universe of possibilities to include the entire universe, rather than just current officials or just former officials. Doesn’t necessarily mean he absolutely MUST have been talking to at least one former official.
Oh, and here’s another interesting nugget for you, reality-challenged wingnuts: why does “former” have to be construed to refer to “Clinton” as the wingnuts apparently think it is??? There are PLENTY of “former administration officials,” both in this administration and those even before Clinton, who come to mind.
Here’s a possibility: Cheney is both a CURRENT administration official, and a FORMER administration official (Sec. Def. for Bush I). Maybe Woodward used “OR” to refer to Cheney in both ways???
Bottom line: nobody really knows. Except Woodward. Oh yeah, and except Cheney too.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:40 amThese reporters are becoming the focus, not WH conduct, as the Post suggested yesterday. Leave it these Republican assholes to invent new ways of corruption. They’re forcing us to re-examine our laws due to their shady ways. They ruin EVERYTHING.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:40 amMy whole problem with this is what the media is doing to damage our national security. The outcries by the media of the “supposed” outing of noncovert agent, are sickening. Meanwhile, the Post felt the need to put our nation at risk by revealing the existence of the holding cells for terrorists. That story does not get any press or outrage but because Plame, who has been at a desk job since ‘98, was revealed to work for the CIA, gets tons of airtime. There is something wrong here and America knows it.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:46 amZTOP – Huh?
Who is construing “…former officials” as referring to officals from the Clinton administration?
I think most folks took it to mean “one who formerly worked in the GWB white house”, not “one who worked for a former administration”.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:48 amSS – “WHY would he use the word “ORâ€?”
To confuse idiots like yourself.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:50 amMSNBC Home » World News » Conflict in Iraq
Live Vote
Do you agree with Vice President Cheney that Democratic critics of the Iraq war are ‘opportunists’?
Yes. The Democrats are trying to use the Iraq issue for political gain.
No. The Democrats are asking legitimate questions about the road to war in Iraq.
I’m not sure.
Vote to see results
Live Vote
Do you agree with Vice President Cheney that Democratic critics of the Iraq war are ‘opportunists’? * 13333 responses
Yes. The Democrats are trying to use the Iraq issue for political gain.
30%
No. The Democrats are asking legitimate questions about the road to war in Iraq.
69%
I’m not sure.
1%
Not a scientifically valid survey. Click to learn more.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:50 am#33 Yupp agreed
just another smoke bomb, Give Flush and O’Liely something to NOT talk about.
Blah Blah BLAH….
Next Lie-O-Con Please
November 17th, 2005 at 10:54 am“Nobody in THIS White House had ANYTHING to do with this Wilson business.”
Lie.Lie.Lie. Thats all we get out of this bunch these days. We know where the WMDS are. No involvement in this leak. The War will pay for itself. I served my country in the NG honorably. I never snorted cocaine.
Lie.Lie.Lie. it’s what history will remember them for, despite the bleating of the trolls in here.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:54 am“To confuse idiots like yourself.”
Ah, Dipsh*t, so utterly predictable….like all liberals, when you can’t argue issues or facts, hurl insults.
Thanks for playing.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:55 am#20 Sceptimus, you horse’s ass — Fitz’ indictments (3 of them, anyway) are related to specific conflicts between Libby’s testimony and the testimonies of Russert, Cooper and Miller. He cannot be exonerated just because “a reporter” told him about Plame, if in fact Woodward did. The charge is that he lied about what the other three reporters told him…and did it repreatedly.
#36 You like gulags, November? You enjoy living in the Fourth Reich? What a little charmer, YOU are!
November 17th, 2005 at 10:59 amHARRIS INTERACTIVE: BUSH APPROVAL DOWN TO 34%^
Look out below! He’s comin’ in hot with no landing gear!
November 17th, 2005 at 11:02 amGitmo #37: “most folks took it to mean “one who formerly worked in the GWB white house…”? As your god Ronnie Ray-gun used to say, “well…there you go again…”.
Who are these “most folks”? Since you and the SS fuhrer want to parse Woodward’s words so closely, who knows what he meant by “former administration officials”? He’s not saying, so there’s no basis for your ass-umption that he only was referring to officials formerly in Georgie-Porgie’s administration.
There — I’ve run circles ’round you logically. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second tahhhhmmm…
November 17th, 2005 at 11:05 amSceptic Smith,
Stop trying to confuse the case.
Libby was indicted for perjury. He lied to the Grand jury. He told them that he heard Valerie Plames name from Tim Russert. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0722-06.htm (a Bloomberg report). If he first heard it from Woodward then he is still guilty of perjury. Given that Woodward said
“When asked by Fitzgerald if it was possible I told Libby I knew Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and was involved in his assignment, I testified that it was possible I asked a question about Wilson or his wife, but that I had no recollection of doing so.†(according to you, you didn’t cite a source)
Then it would seem rather unlikely for Libby to have heard it from Woodward (Unless Woodward is now lying to protect Libby)…
So, Libby still lied because he DIDN’T hear it from Tim Russert.
Why are you having such a hard time understanding that this looks like perjury. If I told a jury “Joe told me” and Joe said “I didn’t tell him”, and there were documents (Libby’s own notes) that showed that I had heard it from Jim before I claimed that Joe had told me. Would I be charged with perjury. Damn straight I would.
Woodward has just raised more questions about who else was involved, and not cleared Libby of Perjury.
As for your semantic arguments about “and” and “or” The phrase “current or former officials” does not preclude either current or former officials. The phrase “current and former officials” means that it has to be a combination of both. Given that Woodward has gone on to say (several times) that he is protecting his sources I would expect him to phrase things to spread the possible identity as wide as he could. So, while he said OR he might just be trying to hide the fact that they are all still current officials. You are trying to read too much into it in demanding that but OR he meant AND.
And I’m not even going to ask if it was an exclusive or…
Z.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:06 amWoodward had his ‘conversation’ in mid-june.
Libby’s indictment indicates Libby received information June 11th and 12th from Cheney, the “undersecretary of state,” and a senior administration official, that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.
Libby’s indictment indicates that he made many false claims in July, repeated under oath to the Grand Jury, that he “didn’t know if it was true” that wilson’s wife worked in the CIA, however the evidence flatly contradicts those statements.
Woodward’s revelation is wholy irrelevant to that.
Fitz’s lack of indictment on the outing of a CIA official cannot be taken as proof that no crime was committed. The argument of logic is left as an exercise to the readers.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:17 am#48 Thank you from a fellow Ohioan.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:21 am“Fitz’ indictments (3 of them, anyway) are related to specific conflicts between Libby’s testimony and the testimonies of Russert, Cooper and Miller. He cannot be exonerated just because “a reporter†told him about Plame, if in fact Woodward did. The charge is that he lied about what the other three reporters told him…and did it repreatedly.”
The charges all relate to the alleged lies that Libby told when he said he’d heard from reporters about Plame. The perjury charges alleged against him with respect to conversations with Cooper and Miller are that in his conversations with those two, Libby was making statements like “Reporters are talking about Wilson’s wife….” THAT is what is being alleged to be a lie. Only, WHOOPSIE! We know now it wasn’t a lie – reporters like Bob Woodward WERE talking about Plame, a month before Libby ever had any conversations with Miller or Cooper. Here, at the risk of repeating myself, this statement from Woodward’s own press release sums up Fitz’s HUGE problem:
“When asked by Fitzgerald if it was possible I told Libby I knew Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and was involved in his assignment, I testified that it was possible I asked a question about Wilson or his wife, but that I had no recollection of doing so.”
There’s the door that Scooter walks through, written in Woodward’s own words….it is possible that he told Libby about Plame. And a MONTH before Libby had any coversations with Miller or Cooper. Reporters WERE talking about Plame, at least Woodward was, and Libby didn’t LIE.
Indictment dismissed, Scooter walks. Game over.
Merry Fitzmas.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:29 amLet’s not get in too big a hurry to have all of this get resolved within the next few months. The longer this goes on, the closer it gets to the election in November 2006. The closer it gets to the election, the more the repubs will want this to go away.
Have faith that the American people will tell the president and vice president to resign or they will ask for a recall vote to take place and get them out of office. They are more of a disgrace to the office of president than anything Clinton had done. (In fact, lets bring back Clinton to clean up the oval office.)
Just recall how Bush stalled on every investigation that has taken place during his term and you will see that eventually the American people get answers that make Bush look like the dumb_ss that he is. After all, his drinking again will become apparent in the next couple of months because Laura will be leaving him.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:33 amSceptic Smith,
You obviously refused to answer my post because it was too clear for you.
Libby LIED. He explicitly stated that he had heard from Tim Russert that Plame blah blah blah… But he left notes that show that he had already heard that from Cheney prior to that. Tim Russert stated that he hadn’t told Libby.
What part of this do you not understand? Given that Woodward has not identified Libby as his source, nor has he stated that he DID tell him anything. It sounds much more like he didn’t as Woodward would surely have learned the value of keeping accurate notes that he could use for legal purposes later.
If anyone is doing any wishful thinking it is you. As all that needs to happen now is that Fitzgerald will investigate Woodward a bit further and the perjury case against Libby will continue. Until Woodward says “I told Libby” rather than “I don’t think that I talked about that with Libby” Libby does NOT have an out.
Z.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:42 amreally SS, get a JOB dude! You seem to have way more time on your hands than us EMPLOYED Americans supporting your Welfare living ASS!
November 17th, 2005 at 11:49 am#8 – LOL. I almost spit on screen. I love it when right wingers truly shine. And you my friend have truly shown yourself to me a mental midget. Congratulations. In the future you should think about what you’re going to write before you put fingers to keys.
PS It’s called a logical operator…you should check it out.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:55 am“Why are you having such a hard time understanding that this looks like perjury. If I told a jury “Joe told me†and Joe said “I didn’t tell himâ€, and there were documents (Libby’s own notes) that showed that I had heard it from Jim before I claimed that Joe had told me. Would I be charged with perjury. Damn straight I would.”
And if in course of a normal work day to talk to not just Joe and Jim, but DOZENS of other people, you would walk. Damn straight you would. Scooter said Russert. He meant Woodward. It’s not perjury to confuse reporters’ names, particularly when you talk to several of them a day, every day, all week long.
Reasonable doubt. Libby wasn’t intentionally lying or obstucting anything – he said Russert, he meant Woodward. Lots of names, every day, hundreds of different conversastions. Reasonable doubt. Scooter walks.
What part of this is so hard for you to understand?
November 17th, 2005 at 11:56 am#49 The charges all relate to the alleged lies that Libby told when he said he’d heard from reporters about Plame. The perjury charges alleged against him with respect to conversations with Cooper and Miller are that in his conversations with those two, Libby was making statements like “Reporters are talking about Wilson’s wife….†THAT is what is being alleged to be a lie.
_____
Nice try — but the allegation is that HE LIED ABOUT MAKING THOSE STATEMENTS. Read the indictment, dummy — or even just the last paragraph:
“3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;”
November 17th, 2005 at 11:59 am“PS It’s called a logical operator…you should check it out.”
Yes, and it is logically used for a very specific reason in Bob Woodward’s press release. What a shame you’re too stupid to realize what it is.
I almost crapped on the screen with laughter at your idiocy. I love the smell of leftard’s imploding in the morning….smells like victory.
SWS
November 17th, 2005 at 12:06 pm“3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;â€
Which part of this don’t you understand, dummy? Do you not understand English? Comprende, Espanol, quizas? Here, I can only try to dumb-down my analogies so far….let the WAPO explain it to you:
“I think it’s a considerable boost to the defendant’s case,” said John Moustakas, a former federal prosecutor who has no role in the case. “It casts doubt about whether Fitzgerald knew everything as he charged someone with very serious offenses.” Other legal experts agreed.
Moustakas said Woodward also has considerable credibility because he has been granted “unprecedented access” to the inner workings of the Bush White House. “When Woodward says this information was disclosed to me in a nonchalant and casual way — not as if it was classified — it helps corroborate Libby’s account about himself and about the administration,” Moustakas said.
Booyah! Game over.
Scooter walks.
November 17th, 2005 at 12:22 pmSceptic Smith,
Interesting Claims that you make… Let me make a careful parsing of your latest post as you did…
“I almost crapped on the screen with laughter…”
Interesting choice of words here. If you had said “I crapped on the screen” it would have been clear… However you said almost. That clearly means you either almost crapped, or you almost hit the screen. The specific mention of the screen is obviously there to provide an out, so you have clearly just crapped.
“Smells like victory”
Well, now we know that you think victory smells like sh*t to you.
That explains a lot about your position on various things.
You are still reading too much into the or. Perhaps he meant an exclusive or so either former or current but nor a mix of former and current.
Z.
November 17th, 2005 at 12:25 pmRepublican talking points on this whole affair are so delusional and silly that they make them look like alien hunters :)
Keep it up RepTards :)
November 17th, 2005 at 12:27 pmA couple things…
First, Fitzgerald said precisely that Libbly was the “first government official KNOWN to have” leaked Plames name to the press, NOT that he WAS the first. NO impact on the charges against Libby that way.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007043.php
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9665308/#051116a
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/17/93214/532
Next, Fitgerald has EVIDENCE, as stated in the indictment that Libby heard about Plame from 1-Under Secretary of State AND 2-senior officier of the CIA AND 3-Vice President of the US AND 4-a CIA briefer. Won’t matter even if Libby claims to have heard from Woodward, since it sounds like he lied about the 4 other ways he heard.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf
Also, on the whole “outing of a undercover CIA agent”… Two things; It should be considered as fact now by BOTH sides that Libby did tell (use “leak” if you wish) Miller and Rove did tell Cooper about Plame. That is again now stipulated by both sides… Then, the CIA obviously felt the “leak” did damage since they asked the Justice Dept to investigate it AND Fitzgerald, who had WAY more info on this than any of US in this, said in the press conference “In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer WAS CLASSIFIED. Not only was it classified, but it was NOT widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson’s friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.” At this point, IMHO only a moron could say the White House didn’t have anything to do with leaking classified info. Just because Libby wasn’t indicted on it clearly doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html
Stupid argument (on all sides) about meaning of that use of the word “or”. WE don’t know for sure how Woodward meant it, both sides of the arguement are just GUESSING. An appropriate way to discuss this would be to say “I think it means” which adds the correct amount of uncertainty.
To those on BOTH sides… We will all know more about all this as each day goes by so (unless you are Libby) just relax and let’s see where it goes.
“That’s what I think, but who cares what I think!”
November 17th, 2005 at 12:28 pmThe gyrations of the SS-scheissfuehrer troll are laughable. Last week it tried to pretended it was all about obstruction of justice and perjury instead of leaking, this week it wants it the other way. There ore those who fall for it, but they do not take their information from this site.
November 17th, 2005 at 12:34 pmbutwhocares,
‘Only a moron’ is pretty much the only description that fits partisan republicans :)
November 17th, 2005 at 12:37 pmtwoplustwo,
It also claims to be ex-military (wounded). YEAH RIGHT! If it’s ex-military, the wound was in its head!
November 17th, 2005 at 12:38 pmThe only important fact.
Who was indicted FOR A CRIME? Libby – yet ANOTHER republican criminal…
November 17th, 2005 at 12:39 pmHmmmm. Sceptimus either went out for lunch…or finally bothered to read the indictment.
November 17th, 2005 at 12:57 pmSS declares victory if Libby walks. The rest of us call it a sad day because the country still has no answers to a thousand-and-one questions that we’re entitled to know as citizens.
November 17th, 2005 at 1:05 pmAll of the posturing from the trolls only shows their fear. I say who gives a crap who is indicted or who goes to jail. The point is, and is continuing to be made – there is rampant corruption and cronyism in this admin. Delay can go home with no charges and a complete dismissal but you know what? He is finished. Frist? Same thing, charges be damned.
Trolls can’t spin it. Trolls can’t get out of it. Trolls can’t hide it any longer. The truth will always out. It is now part of American history. Bush will go down as the most unpopular, the most unintelligent and the most corrupt president to date. Indictments mean nothing as they will only lie more and cover for each other.
Americans are realizing what they actually voted for and are not happy. On a positive note, maybe this will encourage Americans to THINK more about their vote and really get to know their candidates. Only a very few are willing to vote on a religious basis and it has become clear that is what happened here. The trolls know it. They post ad nauseum these last few days because of sheer desperation. Look at it this way, the more they post the more in danger they feel.
When animals are cornered, they attack.
November 17th, 2005 at 1:07 pm“there is rampant corruption and cronyism in this admin. Delay can go home with no charges and a complete dismissal but you know what? He is finished. Frist? Same thing”
P&P, Delay and Frist are not in the administration so using them to bolster your claim of rampant corruption makes no sense.
What Libby did equals rampant corruption? I don’t think so. Please provide more evidence or withdraw the rampant corruption charge.
November 17th, 2005 at 1:39 pmAll of a sudden, Woodward comes out of his journalistic closet? I say what has Bush & Co. got on him. Incriminating photos of him with the White House Whore Jeff Gannon, perhaps?
November 17th, 2005 at 1:42 pmRegarding Woodward: There are holes in his story. Why did he say he didn’t come forward before because he didn’t want a subpoena, when it was many months before a grand jury was convened. Then after a grand jury began its hearing, Woodward still didn’t come forward, and, amazingly went on TV criticizing the prosecutor and predicting that this was a case of nothing. He finally tells his editor, but his apology is half-assed and not really apologetic for his duplicitous behavior.
November 17th, 2005 at 2:05 pmWhat the hell happened to Woodward? He has been a stenographer for Bush, writing very favorable books on him for years now.
Is he lying now in a futile effort to put the focus on the case against Libby? Is he protecting his “source” now because of a deal he made?
He now says he wouldn’t have spoken the way he did on those interviews had he to do it over again. What would he have said instead?
This case stinks from every angle. It suggests to me that the culprits are so high (Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice) that supreme efforts are being made in order to obfuscate and discredit whatever they can.
Sorry – Should have read putting a futile effort to put the focus on the PROSECUTOR’S case against Libby?
November 17th, 2005 at 2:17 pm#68 CI, I’m willing to assume that perhaps P&P “misspoke” and meant to say “rampant corruption and cronyism in this party.” There, now we can bring up DeLay and Frist.
November 17th, 2005 at 2:43 pm#57 – Once again. Instead of picking up a book on logic, you chose to put your fingers on the keys. It’s not your fault though. I would suggest you Google “logical operators” or pick up a book on “critical thinking”. Please…do it for your argument…do it for your family…do it to stop embarrassing yourself. Good luck with the search.
November 17th, 2005 at 2:59 pm#72 — sorry, not buying it. This site is full of posts claiming that this admin. is corrupt — but there are few facts brought up to support the claim.
November 17th, 2005 at 3:33 pmthat should have been “#71″
November 17th, 2005 at 3:34 pmSiliconeBoob,
Lets talk Brown, Halliburton, the Oil Executives who colluded with Cheney and the Carlyle Group’s illegal sales of weapons, briber, and stealing of Iraqi money. There’s more republican corruption in than the previous NYC mob that fitzgerald took down before.
The Bush/Cheney mob is just a set of more stupid and inept crooks than the NYC ones… And you’re just a more stupid person for not being able to see it :)
November 17th, 2005 at 4:01 pmOh sorry 57, I meant 56. 57 actually tried to explain this concept to smith. We’ll see if he gets it.
November 17th, 2005 at 4:58 pmNice try bnye, I didn’t explain it to Sceptical Smith… I insulted him, and then tried yet again to state that if woodward made a conscious choice to use or it can mean almost anything.
However he probably isn’t listening.
On the topic (kind of) it’s worth reading the following posts by Bob Harris…
http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/731/1/
http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/721/1/
http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2003_06_15.html#000779
Given that a noticable proportion of Americans will apparently believe almost anything (and I’m sure that the same goes for every nation) and that they don’t like being wrong I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised by septic smith.
Z.
November 17th, 2005 at 5:52 pmimplant, you are owed nothing here. You are an interloper and your opinion is worthless and provides no value.
November 18th, 2005 at 9:47 am