I cant wait to hear what THE GREAT ONE (mark levin) has to say about this tonite.
"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.
"Woodward is quoted as saying he told Pincus that he knew about Plame's true identity as a CIA operative in 2003. Pincus said, in the same story, that he did not recall Woodward telling him that"
Woodward says he testified that he told Pincus that Plame worked for the CIA. This occurred sometime after mid-June, 2003, but Woodward doesn't specify when.
Woodward AS Deep Throat....BRILLIANT!
Woodward hasn't been a big fan of the Plamegate story, as is indicated here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510686/posts
LMAO!!
I wonder what all these leftist reporters are going to say when Libby's counsel puts them under oath and grills their asses on the stand--right there in public. I'll bet they can't wait. I wonder what other secrets they have (and have been allowed to keep quiet by Fitzmas) will come tumbling out between now and then so they can cover their sorry cans.
Never in the history of the MSM has so much been written about so little, with meaning to so few. He said, she said, I don't remember.... But it's interesting this comes out now. Personally, I am lost for the significance of it....
Selective listening is an innate skill of liberal reporters.
Reporters covering each other butts...
Those must be some pretty big covers. :-o
At last--the rest of the story.
Fitzgerald has been set up and duped by the leftist media.
Say goodbye to your judicial career, Fitz!
Since its not welcome on Free Republic you can draw your own conclusions by clicking on the link National Security Adviser was Woodward's source, attorneys say .
I just wanna hear Chris Mathews was called to testify yesterday. Let's Play Hardball.
As my husband always says: "Don't you like chick fights?"
(LOL!)
Why is it so important about Mrs. Wilson? She is of no significance in the CIA or anywhere else. No secrets were/are compromised, no agents endangered, no law broken or even nicked. There is nothing there. This is another case of the crats making an emotional lipquivering accusation that the president puts sugar in his coffee. The accusation has zero significance to anything but repeat it enough times in righteous indignation and the press sells the emotion and takes no thought for the substance. It is the intensity of the accusation and the identities of the accuser and accused that matter. It could all be done in nonsense syllables to the same effect.