Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 11/16/2005 4:25:19 PM PST by notes2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: notes2005

I bet MSDNC Matthews is going to cry himself to sleep tonight.


2 posted on 11/16/2005 4:25:55 PM PST by Rosemont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005

Hey Woody, how long were you prepared to let Libby twist in the breeze?


3 posted on 11/16/2005 4:27:26 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005
Wah Waaaaaaa!
9 posted on 11/16/2005 4:34:45 PM PST by Solamente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005
Bob Woodward's version of when and where he learned the identity of a CIA operative contradicts a special prosecutor's contention that Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide was the first to make the disclosure to reporters.

Did Fitzgerald say this?

13 posted on 11/16/2005 4:38:17 PM PST by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005

Notice another MSM whore coming OUT after the INDICTMENTS are made.


15 posted on 11/16/2005 4:40:34 PM PST by funkywbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005
This is a real dilema for Washington insiders and RAT operatives. Who do you believe, the special prosecutor who may be trying to ingratiate himself with the beltway power players or, Bob Woodward, the man who has already ingratiated himself with the same people?

Their game plan will probably be to just ignore the statement in public and chastise him in private at the coming holiday cocktail parties.

16 posted on 11/16/2005 4:42:00 PM PST by capydick ("A good conscience is a continual Christmas")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005
Woodward????? That creep still around?????

I bet Bill Casey told him about Plane during one of their deathbed conversations!

19 posted on 11/16/2005 4:44:59 PM PST by Sociopathocracy (The Left and Islamo-fascism, the twin cancers of human history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005
Everyone is speculating if Rove, Sheeny or some one else in the White House leaked to Woodward. Think about it Bush had everyone working in the White House sign a waiver of any confidentiality. Woodward is saying that the name of his source is confidential.

One must assume that Woodward's source is not in the White House.

My guess is the State Department.

20 posted on 11/16/2005 4:45:13 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Mesocons for Rice '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005

I smell a trap here. Why would the AP report this unless there's a trick up their sleeves?


21 posted on 11/16/2005 4:47:37 PM PST by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005
DeGenova was on TV with Brit Hume tonight. That man was furious at Fitz and said that Justice Department rules demand that Fitz review his case because there is now reasonable doubt. Specifically, he mentioned Fitz' reprehensible press conference where he blamed Libby for being the first person in the administration to reveal Valerie Plame's name.

DeGenova also stated that Fitz was attempting to give the impression that Plame was covert when he used the word classified.

22 posted on 11/16/2005 4:55:44 PM PST by OldFriend (The Dems enABLEd DANGER and 3,000 Americans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005
Bob Woodward's version of when and where he learned the identity of a CIA operative contradicts a special prosecutor's contention that Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide was the first to make the disclosure to reporters.

LOL. No s**t Dick Tracy.

28 posted on 11/16/2005 4:57:51 PM PST by Stentor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005
he was in the middle of finishing a book about the administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, and didn't want to be subpoenaed to testify.

Of course, it's all abut Woodward. Had to beat Deep Throat into publication.

32 posted on 11/16/2005 5:00:40 PM PST by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005
"We can't tell the whole story. I would like to. It's one that will be told some day," he said.

Geez. He got burned on the Deep Throat thing so here he goes again.

40 posted on 11/16/2005 5:07:11 PM PST by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005

My ugly thought for the day...Bush met with Woodward for his first book and gave several one on one's if memory serves. I will hope it's Powell but this makes me a bit uneasy. There's no crime but depending on who the source is the MSM will convict instantly. This was clearly a casual conversation with Woodward and the focus was not on Plame which makes me think it may have been just an offhand remark...but I'm sure it's someone in a prominent position. Whoever that is will be guilty the moment their name comes out.


42 posted on 11/16/2005 5:17:02 PM PST by Bogeygolfer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005
 
 
I watched the bloggerman tonight to get his take on Woodward's statement today and it's hilarious. He made this point about 12 times and had two guest make the same point.

Seems ole Keith is spinning Fitz's statement that Libby was the first official to leak Plame to the press, into the prosecutor saying Libby was the first "known" official to leak Plame to the press.

Now, I can understand what he's saying and it is correct that Fitzgerald said "known" in his statement, but bloggerhead wasn't saying, "well Libby is only the first "known" official..." two weeks ago. He was saying that Fitzgerald proved that Libby was the leaker, conveniently missing the "known" at that time.

Now please excuse me while I visit my therapist and remove the images of the last 20 minutes watching this idiot.

 

 

73 posted on 11/16/2005 5:35:55 PM PST by HawaiianGecko (Facts are neither debatable nor open to "I have a right to this opinion" nonsense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005

Who would ever think this? Woodward helping republicans? But what took him so darn long?


75 posted on 11/16/2005 5:36:07 PM PST by ladyinred ("Progressive" = code word for Communist/Nazi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005

I tell you what, Woodward is no longer of any use to the Left. They're tearing him up over at DU.


82 posted on 11/16/2005 5:40:18 PM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005
The Washington Post said Wednesday that Woodward had given a sworn deposition to Fitzgerald on Monday. According to the Post, Woodward's source told Fitzgerald after Libby's indictment that the source had talked to Woodward in mid-June 2003. Woodward also talked to Libby and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card at about the same time in connection with his book. But Woodward said in a statement printed in the Post that he didn't recall talking about Plame with Card or Libby.

Woodward did not go to Fitzgerald. The SOURCE went to Fitzgerald.

The question is as Woodward the only person the SOURCE told about Plame?

Why would Fitzgerald even interwiew Woodward. Fiztgerald said it was not a crime to tell the media who Plame was and to whom she was married. The crime was Libby saying that Russert was his source. When Russert said he was not Libbys source. Russert told the grand jury he could not have been Libby's source becuase he did not know about Plame. Russert said he never discussed Plame with Libby. Libby said Russert told Libby about Plame.

But what if the source that told Woodward also said he told Russert and there is proof the source told Woodward then that would support the sources statement that he also told Russert.

If the source told Russert then that is proof Russert was lying when he said he did not know about Plame. If Russert lied when he said he did not know about Plame then it is likley he lied when he said he never told Libby.

That is what is significant here.

I think Woodwards source was George Tenet. I think Tenet went to Fitzgerald after libby was indicted. Up to that point there was fear that Fitzgerald would indict who ever leaked the story about Plame. But plame did not fall under the law protecting covert agents. She had to be covert in the last 5 years and it had been 9 years since she was covert. Once Fitzgerald said it was not a crime to leak about Plame, then the source could safely reveil he was both woodards and Russerts source.

The person that told the press about Plame did not committ a crime. That means the leaker could go to Fitzgerald and tell which reporters he told about Plame. He Could tell him WHEN he told the reporters about plame.

What if the leaker tesified that he leaked to Russert before Russert met with Libby. If Fitzgerald asked how do I know you are a leaker, the leaker would have to prove he leaked. The leaker must have said I also leaked it to Woodward. That is why Woodward was giving a deposition.

If that be true then, Libby told the truth and Russert was the one who committed perjury.

To believe that Libby comitted perjury, one has to believe that Libby lied knowing that if Russert did not lie to back him up, Libby was going to be indicted. How could anyone in the Bush Administration believe for one second that Russert would lie for them. But if Russert did not lie for libby then LIbby was going to get indicted.

The only other option is Russert did lie about being Libby's source.

To believe that Russert lied you only have to believe that Russert as a left wing hate Bush NBC reporter wanted to nail a Bush/Cheney employee and protect his source. If the Source was Tennet then the source was the CIA head appointed by Bill Clinton. Tenet also used to work for a number of Democrats on the hill as did Russert before he went to work for ABC.

But both Tenet and Libby are Democrats working in a Republican administration. Tenet may have decided to get his fellow Democrat off by nailing Russert.

Perhaps Tenet and Libby are buddies and Tenet and Russert are not.

This is an interesting game. But the only reason I can see to need to depose Woodward is to prove the man who said he was Woodwards source was not lying. That would be necessary in case the source claimed he was also Russerts Source. In that case Russert is lying and Libby was telling the truth.

122 posted on 11/16/2005 6:19:35 PM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005

I hope the media doesn't drown out the true story (now it's finally coming out) with this crap about phospherous. Betcha they will.


131 posted on 11/16/2005 6:34:38 PM PST by cake_crumb (Leftist Credo: One Wing to Rule Them All and to the Dark Side Bind Them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: notes2005
Because his source in the leak case has refused to be identified publicly, Woodward said his hands are tied. "We can't tell the whole story. I would like to. It's one that will be told some day," he said.

There certainly isn't anything in the constitution about the press shielding the names of those inside the government who leak classified information. Unless maybe it is under the section on treason.

135 posted on 11/16/2005 6:41:03 PM PST by weegee (To understand the left is to rationalize how abortion can be a birthright.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson