What I Told Fitzgerald:
By on Dec 11th, 2005 at 10:55 am
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
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
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
She really screwed up. She shouldn’t have tipped off Luskin. She’s a reporter not a defense attorney.
December 11th, 2005 at 11:02 amOnce again, a reported involved in this incredibly important story can’t recall pretty basic details about very notable conversations?
Come on. She’s laying cover for Luskin/Rove in her testimony. There’s no way Luskin’s anything but happy to see this “I don’t remember” explanation from Novak.
December 11th, 2005 at 11:25 amIf you and I see the intent of her article is to showcase hoe easy it is to forget, then so does Fitz. And if her testimony is all there was preventing Fitz from pressing charges I don’t see how it did more than delay the inevitable.
December 11th, 2005 at 11:36 amAfter watching meet the press this morningand reading V.Novak account i am disgusted with the press , Brooks to a lesser extend , but the time reporter was another spin master for the administration and report what they are told : PROPAGANDA .
I see no difference between Novak and Woodward’failure to share their research with their edidors . This makes them tools os and apologists for the admistration .Where are the reporters of yesterday who diligently reseached their stories.
December 11th, 2005 at 12:01 pmIf Novak’s testimony were to absolve Rove, then why is the prosecutor heading back to the Grand Jury? It seems to me that someone (mostly Rove) is up for indictment.
December 11th, 2005 at 12:03 pmIf Novak’s testimony were to absolve Rove, then why is the prosecutor heading back to the Grand Jury? It seems to me that someone (mostly Rove) is up for indictment. Also, how is Woodward’s mischief tied in with all to follow?
December 11th, 2005 at 12:14 pmWhat I find so amazing about these stories, i.e. Miller, Woodward, and now Novak, is that the editors are so far out of the loop of what their reporters are doing.
December 11th, 2005 at 12:30 pmViveca No-Facts.
I can’t recall if it was February or May…Maybe it was March…….Was it in the Am or the PM….Hmmm….I can’t recall.
Yet this reporter wants to known as someone who can talk to people and then “report” on the facts…..
Another insider hack. Send out the clowns.
-GSD
December 11th, 2005 at 12:44 pmTyranny + PROPAGANDA = Demon-o-cracy!= Tyranny + PROPAGANDA
December 11th, 2005 at 12:49 pmBob Novak, Viveca Novak, Bob Woodward — who else is going to find himself/herself involved in this because they had forgotten their roles as journalists?
December 11th, 2005 at 1:36 pmI don’t buy her excuse that she can’t remember what month — a reporter keeps notes – or should. These meeting occur and supervisors are never informed? They don’t even write a weekly summary of their activities for their own recollection, much less for a heads-up to their editors?
Get all the latest CIA leak investigation news, briefings, timelines and key documents at:
December 11th, 2005 at 10:35 pm“The PlameGate Document Center”