Posted on 11/15/2005 8:49:00 PM PST by atomicweeder
It has to be Bush.
Almost everyone inside the Beltway knew about Valerie!
It was idle talk at dinner parties!
I just went and read Woodward's own statement.
From reading the Post article I (like others here) had the mpression the source had told Woodward that he didn't believe "the information [about Plame]to be classified or sensitive".
But, if you read Woodward's statement, he doesn't say his source said any such thing. It's in the Post's poor sentence structure that one gets the wrong impression:
"Woodward told Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald that the official casually told him in mid-June 2003 that Plame worked as a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction, and that he did not believe the information to be classified or sensitive...".
In his own statement it is WOODWARD---talking to Fitzgerald---who says the reference to Plame did not appear TO HIM to be sensitive or classified. As far as I can tell, Woodward never qualifies what the official thought. A small, but crucial, difference.
And Woodward then shared that info with Pincus.
This opens up Pincus......he had better have mentioned this conversation to the GJ.
Woodward says:
I testified that on June 27, 2003 I met with Libby at 5:10 p.m. in his office adjacent to the White House. I took the 18-page list of questions with the page 5 reference to "yellowcake" to this interview and I believe I also had the other question list from June 20, which had the "Joe Wilson's wife" reference.In other words, Woodward says it's possible that HE revealed Plame to Libby. He makes it rather certain that Libby did NOT reveal her to Woodward. Libby's lawyers will run with this: Libby probably told the truth when he said he learned Plame's identity from a reporter. Perhaps he was mistaken when he said it was Russert. In fact, it was likely Woodward.I have four pages of typed notes from this interview, and I testified that there is no reference in them to Wilson or his wife. A portion of the typed notes shows that Libby discussed the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, mentioned "yellowcake" and said there was an "effort by the Iraqis to get it from Africa. It goes back to February '02." This was the time of Wilson's trip to Niger.
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. My notes do not include all the questions I asked, but I testified that if Libby had said anything on the subject, I would have recorded it in my notes.
Yeah.
Woodward heard it from Bill Casey at his bedside, just minutes before he died.
Defining and Defending The Terms of Our Surrender..
We are THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
"Vote for us...We're Gullible!"
And from our other sponsor...
Caving to DemonRATs since 1996...
Senate Pubbies!
So now Woodward has a Deeper Throat?
Thanks for the ping. Fascinating article.
Hummm? Before Wilson goes public, he's leaking to Pincus. Pinkus knows who he is. Woodward says he told Pincus that Wilson's wife worked on WMD for the CIA and Pincus says he doesn't remember that detail.
That dosen't quite pass the smell test.
What did Woodward write in the above?
You have to admit that every single one of these reporters who has written about this story cannot write as clear and concise as every single poster on FR.
Trained journalists have to be writing in such a confusing manner on purpose.
Well, this certainly lends credence to the idea that people forget what they are told, and get information wrong even in sworn testimony. Either Pinkus or Woodward testified falsely under oath, but I doubt Woodward did it on purpose.
I think Pinkus might have, because he got way too involved in the story. But maybe he too is just forgetful.
And yet Libby is being prosecuted for telling a story Libby thinks is true (just like Pinkus/Woodward) and being consistant about it.
Woodward's statement does not change the facts of Libbey's indictment, but it certainly changes the chemistry. We now have two reporters -- one on camera and one under oath -- who have said they knew about Plame. This really starts to confirm Libbey's claim that many people in Washington knew.
Not only that, but you now have a situation where one WAPO reporter is directly contradicting another.
Can anyone spell reasonable doubt?
Because the focus of this FUBAR nation's leaders is not on:
Iran's nukes
N. Korea's threats
bird flu epidemic possibility
the national debt
canceling military hardware programs to pay for global welfare
for God's sakes, Rumsfeld hinted the F-35 may be canceled to pay for global welfare
Katrina cost waste
the srewing of American taxpayers
the trashing of our national sovereignty
the destructon of the US Constitution
the elimnation of the phrase "limited government" from national dialogue
Russia's new ICBMs that avoid intercept
China's surging military threat
the failure to go after nations that sponsor terrorists like Syria and Iran
I can think of hundreds of more important issues and a need for national focus, but the anti-Americans in Congress and in Washington in general screw the USA for political power purposes.
Read my tagline. The same applies to Congress.
Ladies & gentlemen of the jury, you need only aanswer a few questions. Did Libby call the CIA and confirm Plame status in June 2003? Did he forget this, or did he mislead investigators when he testified in October?
I agree that Woodward's testimony does that - but the question is irrelevant in the context of the indictment. It is a smokescreen.
Let's see. You have Miller, a professional reporter, who "forgot" a key meeting with Libbey, for which she took and kept notes.
You Have Woodward an Pincus contradicting each orher on the key question of whether they discussed Plame's identity.
And you are going to convict a man on testimony from reporters -- a tribe which is self-evidently incapable to telling the truth?
THat would seem to rule out Ari Fleischer and Matalin (whats-her name married to the snake).
Smokescreen or not, the jury has to decide who is telling the truth, and whether you can convict a man for false memory when his accusers, as a class, have been proven to have false memories.
Not to mention the defense hasn't even started.
Why was Rove ever being prosecuted for this? The absurdity is beyond comprehension.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.