Woodward Was Told of Plame More Than Two Years Ago

Washington Post ^ | November 15, 20005 | Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig

[txrangerette]

Novak has said that his source was in the administration but not in the White House. Ari was in the WH. That leaves probably the State Dept. or the CIA, no?

[bagman]

Thanks, I'd forgotten that description of Novak's source.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

I'm sorry you don't understand what was said. Since several topics are being discussed, I would be glad to clarify something specific, if you would like to point it out.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

Yes, and my objection is to Woodward's discretion. For some reason, it appears to be non-existant.

[Stultis]

Pincus said he does not recall Woodward telling him that. In an interview, Pincus said he cannot imagine he would have forgotten such a conversation around the same time he was writing about Wilson.

Can't imagine why you would have forgotten, Walter? Gee, maybe it was because at the time (before the "leak" became a "gotcha" issue) this fact was favorable to the Republican administration and revealed Saint Joe as a liar? This is the kind of fact that partisan hacks like you routinely "forget".

[kabar]

Even if true that he had heard it from Woodward, that doesnt change the fact that Libby attempted to mislead the investigators and lied before the grand jury.

That is an allegation, not a fact. Libby is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

[OrioleFan]

Why does anyone in the White House even talk to these liberal "journalists"?

[txrangerette]

"not if you fail to mention that you heard about it earlier from Cheney..."

{{{Earlier}}} ??? No, dave, the whole point of this is a timeline problem. From what I read at the beginning of this thread, Bob Woodward had a conversation with Libby {{{BEFORE}}} Libby heard it mentioned by Cheney. Woodward says he could have discussed Wilson's wife with Libby at that time, but does not recall whether he did or did not. But he says HE KNEW, AND COULD HAVE MENTIONED IT to Libby.

And this was before Cheney, before any of the timeline that Fitzgerald constructed for purposes of the indictment. This is earlier than anything to come out so far.

[freema]

Have you seen this?

www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/266weygj.asp?pg=2

[TBP]

When does Fitzgerald interview General Vallely who has stated unequivocally that Joe Wilson told him his wife worked at CIA before any of this balogna hit the fan?

Probably never, considering that he has indicted about 60 Republicans and about 12 Democrats.

[TBP]

Pincus said he does not recall Woodward telling him that. In an interview, Pincus said he cannot imagine he would have forgotten such a conversation around the same time he was writing about Wilson.

So Pincus is now questioning Woodward. Pincus testified before the grand jury, didn't he?

Indict Perjuring Pincus.

[SuziQ]

I'll take Dick Nixon any day over this quiet, lurking creep. Screw you and the paper you rode in on, Bobby!

Hey man, you gotta get things off your chest. You're gonna get an ulcer if you hold your feelings in like that! ;o)

[TBP]

1) If everyone in Washington knew Plame wasn't covert (and let's assume the CIA also knew she wasn't covert), why then did the CIA ask the Justice Department to investigate this?

The CIA was under the control of a Klintoon appointee at the time. Perhaps they wanted ot undermine the White House.

2) Why the amplified hysteria these days about "Bush lying" regarding invading Iraq on manipulated intel? Isn't the "Bush lied"-to-get-us-into-Iraq charge about as old as the Shock & Awe campaign?

Yes, it is. To answer this question, you must understand how liberals define "lying." It means "disagreeing with liberals." Whatever they say is ipso facto true and whatever we say is ipso facto a lie. They believe in the old Communist adage, "Truth is whatever serves the party."

Could it be crucially important to amplify that charge now because the pending Libby trial might cover a lot about WMD pre-war intel, revealing something other than "Bush Lied" and therefore it's got to be re-ingrained in the consciousness of us all now, beforehand, to blunt any other discoveries?

The list of stuff our troops have found, which liberals have worked hard to suppress, shows that every reason given for our involvement was indeed true, which undermines everything they say (except for the principle above.) So now they ahve to work even harder to spread their disinformation.

3) Why is it that Major News Organizations feel compelled to hold some leaders accountable daily for their statements and positions (read: Republicans), while others have no such scrutiny applied to them (read: Democrats on previous statements about Iraq, Saddam & WMD's)?

Becasue they're liberal, partisan, activist Democrats -- at least until the Socialist Party achieves major-party status. Any conservative found in a newsroom will be hounded out of there.

[TBP]

Pincus and David Corn both knew who was who. Wilson ran to them and leaked the story in May 03.

Do you ahve a citation for that? If so, it could be very explosive.

[oceanview]

no, he still is.

[TBP]

It was Wilson.

Or Bill Casey.

Maybe Mark Felt or John Dean?

[oceanview]

that is the key point to me. the issue of whether this is applicable to what Libby is actually charged with (not smeared with, as Fizgerald has smeared him with everything) is in question - it probably isn't. but it just shows that the GJ was a perjury setting - only for Rove and Libby. any claims from the reporters, having not been fully investigated, means they were never at risk for perjury indictments. the GJ should have been shut down once it was determined that the underlying crime did not occur - since that didn't happen, its only fair that perjury charges be possible for anyone who testified there, not just Rove and Libby (or maybe Ari now).

[petercooper]

Ari?