Chaney? Just hav'n a little fun...
Posted on 11/17/2005 6:12:45 PM PST by YaYa123
What to think of the quite astonishing revelation that Bob Woodward was told by administration sources—not Scooter Libby or Karl Rove, it seems clear—that Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and told a month before what Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said was the first revelation by an administration source, Libby, to a member of the press?
Here's the story from yesterday's Post on Woodward's testimony, and here's Woodward's statement, printed next to the story on the jump page. Here's the story by the Post's excellent media reporter Howard Kurtz on Woodward's apology to Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie for not telling him about this some time ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
Washington Post White House reporter Dana Priest on Keith Oberman reminds viewers "members of the administration" who might have been Woodward's source include the FBI, Pentagon, people all over Washington, not just those in the White House.
Priest throws out as possibilities, Karen Hughes (who was a former member of the administration at the time), and the First Lady's office.
One heck of a great column!
More like she is a traitor trying to unseat a President by subversive means.
Ummm, someone who isn't a Bush staffer?
Chaney? Just hav'n a little fun...
Doubt Ari because he testified much earlier. He would have given the info on Woodward then I would think. Did Powell testify earlier? What about Louie Freeh?
Can you imagine the outrage if the roles were reversed and somebody like Sandy Berger stole classified files and Rush Limbaugh knew about it and didn't say anything to the prosecutor?
They'd run Rush out on a rail.
You had me with you, all the way, until you sprang Rove as the leaker. It was NOT Rove, but whoever it is, the rest of your post is spot on. :-)
Woodward said that the leaker is a FORMER official.
It seems to me that any of the known subjects of the investigation would be in some kind of legal trouble if they remembered that they leaked to Woodward after Fitzgerald sent the grand jury home. This is what keeps me open to the idea that Woodward's source is someone outside of the sphere of the investigation. On the other hand, having heard Woodward describe the "leak" as sort of innocent gossip, I wonder if it's some underling, some WH gatekeeper type.
Somebody, one would think friend of the administration, decided they couldn't hold back as Libby took the fall. Could Woodward have prodded that? Whoever the somebody is, they don't want their name made public which is of some concern.
Said source OUTED Woodward, who was no called on, FINALLY, by Fitzy.
Bob Woodward did not, not, NOT come forward on his own. HE HAD BEEN IN HIDING!
And Bob Woodward, himself, said that he was "lying low", because he did NOT want to be subpoenaed.
I find it impossible to believe anyone could type this with a straight face.
And while HRC was writing briefs for the impeachment, she was flunking the bar exam. When is Mandy Gruenwald's (sp) gonna come up in this? If a husband/wife combo on the right was involved, all hell would break loose in the MSM.
Evidently, Woodward the kind of person that seeing their neighbor being assualted right across the street, wouldn't even call 911, because they didn't want to get involved.
I did not mean to say that Rove was the leaker. What I was saying that Fitzgerald was banking on the media not revealing the leaker. If the leaker is secret then Fitzgerald is where all special prosecutors in leaking cases have always been. They never get the actual leaker. But if the leaker as I suspect was trying to get Plame and Wilson in trouble he surely leaked to tons of media types, including Russert. If he did then Russert is toast. I think the leaker came forward after the indictments to dispute someones testimony. If the leaker came forward before Fitzgearld said the leak was not illegal the leaker could have been indicted.
If I had been sitting in Roves chair, the day Fitzgearld said leaking Plame's name was not a crime, I would have tried to get the leaker to come forward to impeach the testimoney of Russert. That could prove Libby innocent has and make Fitzgerald look like a stupid and incompetent partisan hack.
I think Rove might have done that. Rove had two years and the power of the executive branch to find the identity of the leaker. This was not an anti-bush leaker. I think the leaker was originally hoping to prove that the CIA allows Nepotism and had engaged in anti Bush activities. That failed because of meida bias. But this WAS a pro-bush leaker. Tenet was a Clinton guy but for some reaon Bush trusted him and left him at the CIA. I think Tenet may be the leaker. There is no way that Rove would have leaked this story. He would have known what the media would do with the leak.
Only a Democrat like Tenet would believe the media would be fair. But I do think that once the damage was done, Rove would try to control and fix the damage... if he could.
What I am speculating.. is that sometime in the last two years Rove has managed to figure out the leaker's identity. Rove may have through a lawyer convinced the leaker to come forward to prove that Libby is not guilty and that Fitzgerald is at best incompetent.
I think that the leaker coming forward after LIbby is indicted is a master stroke that Fitzgearld did not consider prior to the indictments.
I think Tenet is the leaker. I think that once Fitzgerald ruled the leaking was not illegal, then someone convinced the leaker to come forward to impeach the testimony of Russert.
Russert most likely did not want to go to jail like Miller so he lied and said he was not a source and had no knowledge of the matter. Russert has seen dozens of leaker cases since he has been in D.C. and no leaker has ever been revealed.
But here we have a case where the leaker revealed himself to the Prosecutor. That is a new play in the old media/leaker ballgame. A play never done before. All I am saying is the one guy that comes up with new plays is named Rove.
read later
I'm sorry, but what the left is doing -- undercutting morale and abetting the enemy in a time of war -- IS villainous. If not worse...
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.