"But Woodward is a liberal journalistic icon. He could not possibly be involved..."
The comments about Woodward by the DU site are totally disparaging; basically Woodward is a suck-up and a shill for the administration in order to gain access and sell books.
IF Woodward mentioned to Libby that Wilson's wife was with the CIA BEFORE Cheney told Libby about the Plame, and Libby NOW testifies that his recollection could have been incorrect, that it could have been Woodward and NOT Russert who mentioned Wilson's wife, then what evidence does Fitzgerald have that would, "beyond a reasonable doubt," prove that Libby committed perjury or obstruction?
P.S. Woodward couldn't be all that bad if DU despises him (kinda like what is a reasonable settlement? "one that both the plaintiff and the defendant hate"
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.
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.