Times of London: Woodward’s Source Was Hadley
Times of London: Woodward’s Source Was Hadley
From the 11/20 Times of London:
The mysterious source who gave America’s foremost journalist, Bob Woodward, a tip-off about the CIA agent at the centre of one of Washington’s biggest political storms was Stephen Hadley, the White House national security adviser, according to lawyers close to the investigation.
Remember what Hadley said during a White House press briefing on Friday:
Q Were you the administration official who talked with Bob Woodward about the identity of a CIA operative?
MR. HADLEY: I have seen press reports that — and only press reports — that Bob Woodward has talked about, I guess, three sources from the administration that he had. I’ve also seen press reports from White House officials saying that I am not one of his sources.
If the Times of London report is true, Hadley was intentionally trying to mislead the press and the public by repeating information from White House officials that he knew to be false. If he did the same to Fitzgerald, he will be in serious legal jeopardy.
More information about Hadley’s role in the leak scandal here.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Busted!
November 20th, 2005 at 12:37 amSo I guess Scottie “Staypuft Marshmellow Boy” McLellan can now answer questions about the investigation, because every other cheese bag in the White House is yapping away.
-GSD
November 20th, 2005 at 1:09 amHadley denies it.
Booby was penning a book on Little Boot’s second term and was practically living in the EOB.
My money is on Cheney — he’s the original source of the leak and will ultimately be the target of Santa Fitz’ next grand jury.
November 20th, 2005 at 1:14 am.
Seems odd that the White House would have Hadley out front so much if he was in this much potential jeopardy.
November 20th, 2005 at 2:15 amCould it be possible that there was mention of Woodward’s name in anybody’s testimony to Fitzgerald, but we’ve never learned of it.
That seems doubtful. So unless it’s not Hadley, and whoever it is never testified, somebody has a problem.
Also, I never understood that theory that Rove wasn’t indicted because his e-mail right after talking to Cooper to Hadley didn’t say anything about it. I think that’s baloney. What’s that e-mail supposed to look like?
Rove: Hey Stephen, I just outed a CIA agent to the press.
Hadley: Sorry, Karl, I outed her first.
I don’t buy that Fitzgerald saw anything in those e-mails to make look Rove any better.
November 20th, 2005 at 2:44 amWhat a degree of political, intellectual and moral decay these recent events reveal!
November 20th, 2005 at 3:16 amGeorge W. Bush was initially selected by a partisan Supreme Court to be President of the United States despite the fact that he lost the election. Two of the “justices” deciding the Bush V Gore case were actually in conflict of interest and should have, under existing legislation, recused themselves, and as a result, the presidency was usurped, and the man who was elected, and I believe would have been an outstanding president, Al Gore, was denied to America.
How anyone today could call themselves a republican, in good conscience, with pride, would be amazing. Amazingly stupid!
November 20th, 2005 at 3:18 amI too believe Darth Chency is behind it all, but more expeditious to hang an underling like Hadley out to dry? Remember how non-responsive and defensive Condi was in her confirmation hearings? And how testy she was particularly with Barbara Boxer? She’s missed the mark from the very beginning.
November 20th, 2005 at 3:23 amre: “Seems odd that the White House would have Hadley out front so much if he was in this much potential jeopardy.”
Not if the conspiracy set up Hadley as the fall guy in case someone discovered the conspiracy. And it is not much jeopardy when you can expect a pardon if you are caught. With Woodward in the time line, and his story, this pretty much establishes how the conspiracy worked. Hadley leaks by “casually mentioning Wilson’s wife works for the CIA” to Woodward. The “casual mention” is part of the conspiracy. The conspiracy required Hadley to leak Plame “casually” and refer to Plame as “Wilson’s wife” off-handed, so as not to seem like a concerted White House effort and keep suspicion down. All reports I have seen quote reporters saying admin sources mentioned Wilsons wife in an offhand or casual comment. Woodward said it was offhand remark, gossip. Novak said “I did not dig it up it was given to me”, etc. The plan called for 2 or 3 leakers, Libby probably the first as the fall guy, to leak to designated reporters and confirm to all other reporters who called to confirm. The planners knew that the reporters would then call another source to confirm. Rove’s reporters would call Libby to confirm and Libby’s reporters would call Rove to confirm, and each would only confirm to any other reproter not their “leakees”. The confirmation would be something like: “Yeah I heard that too from reporters” Lower admin members were probably ordered either implicitly or explicitly to “confirm” the story but not leak. For example Libby leaks to Woodward, Miller, and a 3rd reporter, “C” and confirms to all other repoters who called by saying something like “Yeah I heard the rumor too from reporters.” Rove leaks to reporters “D” “E” and “F” and likewise confirms to all others. Maybe a 3rd admin source leaks to reporters “G” “H” and “I”. The conspiracy hoped this would muddy the waters enough so the leak would seem like the “idle gossip among reporters” Woodward and Novak said it was. JAB
November 20th, 2005 at 8:30 am#2
How long before the first “no comment” from the WH…
November 20th, 2005 at 8:34 amYou think Fitz has had to go home each and every day and wash the disgusting stench of “Access Journalism” off his raw skin?
November 20th, 2005 at 8:37 amWhat a smooth way to point at the WH circling the wagons. It seems like a way to remove the potential for his words biting him back later on.
November 20th, 2005 at 9:23 amWhat would American get out of Hadley and Libby being convicted of anything? The WH can easily distance itself from them.
Remember, Nixon was careless and had to resign only because he was exposed by his own extreme arrogance. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove… they are arrogant. But, they aren’t careless when it comes to insulating themselves and covering tracks.
November 20th, 2005 at 9:36 amIf memory serves, Hadley offered his resignation after the WH said that the infamous 16 words should not have been in the speech.
They had been struck from a big speech several months earlier and Hadley said that he should have caught them on round two (how anyone could have forgotten the CIA Director’s calls and memos on the topic is another example of not to be believed forgetfulness).
If this is proven, we have NSA who not only can’t remember important facts regarding nuclear proliferation, he’s revealing the identity of covert agents to outsiders. Sounds like a perfect candidate to serve in this incompetent White House.
New on EWM: “Society of Co-opted Journalists Presents Inaugural Judy Miller Award to Bob Woodwardâ€
November 20th, 2005 at 9:52 amyeah, but if you want a really hot story, find out if Hadley was also the one that signed off on the use of lions in interrogating detainees!
http://www.hairytruth.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2005 at 11:56 amSome people are speculating that it was Kindasleazy Rice:
November 20th, 2005 at 12:32 pmhttp://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=AC6B02C0-EBE3-9A80-CF094C1B798E1588
Have you seen this excellent letter to Patrick Fitzgerald from John Dean?
An Open Letter To Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald From Former White House Counsel John W. Dean
November 20th, 2005 at 12:34 pmhttp://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051118.html
I think the Times is out on a limb on this one. They don’t have sources the NYT or WP don’t have and neither of them are reporting it as “Hadley is the guy.”
I think the Times’ editors just made a premature decision that it was Hadley based on the evidence everyone already has.
November 20th, 2005 at 12:53 pmRegardless of who did the “dastardly deed” as Shakespeare would say——-why was her cover blown?
What was the reason—-seems to me there must have been a reason to do this? Is there something more that isn’t apparent? Just asking?
November 20th, 2005 at 2:48 pmHadley was supposedly behind the forged niger document as well – no surprise he’d be involved in this deeply.
November 20th, 2005 at 2:49 pmI also think it was Hadley, who was acting for Cheney. I think Cheney is behind most of the nefarious doings in this WH — he’s had many years to line up his people, work his long-term plan.
November 20th, 2005 at 4:01 pmIf Hadley is eventually indicted, the WH will distance themselves from him and Libby. These guys are all out to save their own skin — if the indicted can’t be made to rat them out, they will live to scheme again.
#21, Ryan, I also have believed that Hadley, through his connections, was the one who arranged the forged documents about Niger.
(I just saw Bush getting his most important exercise today, riding his bike with the Chinese Olympic team. Barf.)
#18 Amy, awesome. Thanks.
November 21st, 2005 at 1:40 amRead the letter from findlaw.com that Amy posted.
Seems we need to put more pressure on Fitz.
November 21st, 2005 at 1:42 amWasn’t Hadley working as a top aide to Condi Rice during all this? Is it possible that she knows more about this than has been aired? Any thoughts on this?
November 21st, 2005 at 9:53 amMissed #17 – thanks belatedly for the info!
November 21st, 2005 at 10:25 amRegarding #25—-Hadley working for Rice would put Hadley in a position to have access to information—information Hadley should have and not have.
Why was Hadley’s cover blown is the question——-not who did it—–the why is the most important imo.
November 21st, 2005 at 12:41 pm