Woodward Says His Plame Source Not Libby

AP on Yahoo ^ | 11/16/05 | AP

[Safetgiver]

Not perjury. Making false statements. Quite different.

[popdonnelly]

Woodward's source wasn't Rove, either.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Woodward is a big liberal - maybe since they did not get Bush's chief as the left had hoped, woodward is manufacturing data to get Rove anyway they can."

I think it might be just the opposite. Other posters have shown that Woodward was never a big fan of the Plame investigation, and his story of the run-up to the war was fairly even-handed. I don't think Woodward is prominent in the "Bush lied" camp. No, I think he's coming out with this because he thinks Libby is being done an injustice, and that either someone else is the real culprit or that the whole thing is much ado about nothing. Probably the latter, I think, since Woodward's testimony will tend to re-open the issues of how widely Plame's identity was known and whether Libby was indeed the first to divulge it to reporters. I think Woodward is trying to muddy the waters for Fitz, to create ambiguities, because he thinks this whole thing will be bad for journalism in the long run.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I think Woodward is deliberately messing with Fitz and the Libby prosecution."

I agree (see post 63). Woody is on record as not being a fan of this investigation. I think he thinks it's unfair to Libby, on one hand, and bad for journalism, on the other.

[fedupjohn]

Did you see him on Larry King the night they had on two senators, Woodward and one otherperson who escapes me right now.. the Dem Senator started giving a lot of 'hype' on the case, Woodward reached in his pocket and pulled out a piece of paper (saying he was prepared for this) showed the senator; who promptly said nothing more on the subject. Now, I'd really like to know what was on that piece of paper!

It was a copy of the indictment. The Rat Senator was trying to say the indictment proved Bush lied about the war and Woodward banged back that a load of crap and you need to red the indictment. Slammed him pretty good.

[edcoil]

Is that the real Libby issue? Libby is not in trouble for leaking the name. My understanding of the charges is there was no underlying crime of releasing the name.

Libby's case is only about Libby not telling the truth of what he knew to the grand jury.

[oceanview]

yes, the last sentence of this article is unreal.

[Bryan24]

Bob Woodward is no dummy.

He sees what a few others, namely Victoria Toensing, see:

1. The CIA is the agency that promised a "slam dunk" with the intelligence.

2. The CIA has been the agency that has been leaking like a sieve on "bad intelligence".

3. Plame, a CIA WMD specialist, is the one who got Wilson to go to Niger TO REFUTE THE 16 WORDS AND MAKE BUSH LOOK WORSE.

4. Why was the CIA not coming forward with the evidence that SUPPORTED their intelligence on WMDs?

IMO, some rogue elements in the CIA are fighting a war against Bush. Woodward recognizes this. And Woodward recognizes the big picture.

[oceanview]

that Larry King show on the night of the Libby indictment, I believe Woodward was talking down Sen Dodd - makes alot of sense now.

[Steve_Seattle]

I am struck by the fact that Libby's story was consistent; all five indictments are basically for the same thing, telling the same story four times, and then Fitz added in obstruction of justice as a capstone for the perjury/false testimony indictments. So Libby really only has to undermine one of the indictments; if he does that, the others inevitably fall with it.

This gets down to {1) who Libby first heard about Plame from, and when; (2) Libby's memory about the sequence of events that were fairly close in time; (3) the extent to which other reporters knew about Plame independent of Libby; and (4) the degree to which Fitz gained some testimony only be agreeing to let witnesses NOT testify about other pertinent matters. All four of these approaches - and probably others I haven't even thought of - can be used to chip away at the certainty that Libby deliberately lied about a substantive issue.

[Arizona Carolyn]

No it was Dodd. Quite the arrogant jerk he was; until Woodward showed him that piece of paper.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Joe DiGenova today on John Gibson's show said by not knowing about Woodward Fitzgerald made a huge error and should have no recourse but drop charges against Libby -- he gave the statutes involved; said with the horrible presser Fitz did and then this it really makes Fitz look like he was just out to indict someone.... anyone.

[Arizona Carolyn]

What happens when you pick and choose who you want to talk to and who you don't -- how about Andrea Mitchell? She's said it was common knowledge who Plame was and everyone in Washington knew... which is why Woodward didn't think it was worth a second thought when he WAS told... why didn't Fitz talk to Mitchell and others who had another side of the story?

[Arizona Carolyn]

It is pathetic, indeed.... and when they try to fight back it's like a cat trying to get out of a paper sack.... a lot of noise and not much action.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Crossed my mind. He told Cheney.

[Arizona Carolyn]

I liked that Woodward was prepared... the GOP could take a few lessons.. BTW, I think a lot of people are confusing Woodwards politics with Carl Bernsteins -- a rabid Democrat...

[Arizona Carolyn]

Read my post here #73 -- De Genova explained why this case has to be sacked now.

[TigersEye]

What happens when you pick and choose who you want to talk to and who you don't --

If you are a Republican (some exceptions for RINOs) you get indicted. If you're a lib you get whitewashed, spin dried and hailed as a hero.

[G.Mason]

"Not so fast. The president allowed Woodward in to the Oval Office to research one of his most recent books."

The President didn't say that, I did.

" It never pays to try to make friends with a snake."

That is a certainty! ;)