Posted on 11/16/2005 11:20:59 AM PST by Pikamax
Exactly. I say, lets clear the air. Get all the facts out now. The Dems made this into a security issue, when all along it was a political issue.... get Bush, get Cheney. Well they succeeded in undermining the war effort and lowering Bush`s standing with the American people. Problem is, this ain't over. Far from it. The truth has a way of coming out in the end.
I think Woodward is an opportunist - I remember how he tried to minimize Clinton's scandals - with blatant disregard for logic - only because they threatened to overshadow Watergate.
Watching liars come apart, is like watching a piece of yarn coming loose in knitted sweater. It's just a little hole, at first.
Hey Howlin, this is a little interesting to me:
http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/pincus.html
Last year, just after Richard Clarke was peddling his lies in front of the 9/11 kangaroo court, Woodward's latest book came out. This book was wildly hyped by the left as the second blow in the one-two combo that was going to put Bushitler on the canvas for good and hand the White House to John Kerry. But when the book came out, it turned out to be a surprisingly even-handed, and in some ways even complimentary, depiction of the Bush Administration in the days following 9/11 and leading up to the Iraq war. Hell, the President even put it on White House's recommended reading list!
Do you suppose it's possible that the left is using Fitzgerald to take out Woodward, for failing to destroy George Bush last year? These people never forget a grudge, and never stop looking for ways to make those who cross up their schemes pay dearly.
Pincus...Poor little Pincus. :)
agree!!!
If you listen very, very carefully, you will hear the mainstream media starting to mumble some quiet prayers: "please God, stop this case before it goes to trial!"
Doesn't damage it in the slightest. He's not charged with anything to do with Valerie Plame, but with lying under oath.
Especially since it seems that EVERYONE but Rove knew about Plame. Too bad, so sad.
I cant wait to hear what THE GREAT ONE (mark levin) has to say about this tonite.
Was channel surfing on the cables. Not sure which reported the apology story. It was a reporterette.
"I testified that after the mid-June 2003 interview, I told Walter Pincus, a reporter at The Post, without naming my source, that I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst. Pincus does not recall that I passed this information on."From Pincus June 12, 2003 article:
"Armed with information purportedly showing that Iraqi officials had been seeking to buy uranium in Niger...the CIA in early February 2002 dispatched a retired U.S. ambassador to the country to investigate the claims, according to the senior U.S. officials and the former government official...The sources spoke on condition of anonymity and on condition that the name of the former ambassador not be disclosed." (June 12, 2003)Hmm...
Pincus has critical and revealing details about a high profile story that he JUST wrote about, but he does no follow up?
That's a little more than odd.
It isn't until a month later when Novak uses the term "CIA operative" that this whole bruhaha gets going.
Q: Are the operating members of the left (the dems and ABCNBCCBSCNNWASHPOSTNYTIMESLATIMESETC) that focused on 1 word? Is it possible that they are seizing on 1 word --a word which Novak explained was mudanely used and was not used to indicate any kind of covert or undercover status-- to fabricate a story to make an anti-war argument?
You tell me. I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Right?
Also...I wonder if "mid-June" means before or after June 12?
If "mid-June" is before June 12, then it might be possible to believe that Pincus learned of "the ambassador" from Woodward, did some investigating, found additional "sources" and wrote his June 12 piece.
" Going back to Woodward's statement, the administration officials he spoke with only said that "Wilson's wife worked as an analyst on WMDs". There would be no way that the official (whether Rove, Libby, or other) could be accused of knowing that Wilson's wife was either an undercover or covert CIA operative, because all they referred to Wilson's wife was an analyst on WMD. An analyst is hardly a covert (or undercover) field operative.
If "mid June" means after June 12, then Pincus already knew (or was told) about Wilson. Course, it turns out that the source for the June 12th Pincus piece was none other than Wilson himself. However, given the level of detail in the June 12 piece AND the quotes from the unnamed sources (i.e., Wilson), it is hard to believe that Woodwards "mid-June" revelation would have mattered to Pincus. He had already written/published or was already writing the June 12 piece.
Another words, the fix was already in.
The only thing that Pincus didn't do, was to use Google and figure out that Joe Wilson 1) had a wife and 2) her name was Valarie Plame. And, that is something that anyone could have done on June 12, 2003. And, it is probably what Bob Novak (or an assistant) did in his lead up to the now-famous July 14 article. And, that Novak contacted CIA and asked the status of Plame and the CIA didn't request that the name not be used, only makes this situation more curious. It also seems to lend a fair share of credibility that, indeed, the CIA was in on this thing (Investigate the CIA OR Was the Joe Wilson Valerie Plame Affair a CIA Plot?).
All roads lead back to CIA.
All I can say is, FREEPER Wolfstar deserves a Pulitzer for writing the piece "Set up? Anatomy of the contrived Wilson 'scandal'" in October of 2003. Any FREEPER who wants to know how this was all planned, whether you believe the CIA angle or not, should read that post.
Why do I have a hard time believing Editor and Publisher?
Reminds me of:
What the man said, going down for the last time, in a fithy ICEHOLE... he just wanted OUT..
yup, they all knew who she was before engaging in discussions with Libby and Rove, and along with a prosecutor who was only interested in nailing someone for perjury, helped Libby (so far) step right into it.
Wait..I got the impression that Woodward is saying that a WH official told HIM the identity...which is it?
It's already worked on me! Where's a simple timeline!>?!?!?!
Or Woodward???
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.