COMMENTS: 54
Woodward-gate?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Media and Culture headlines via email.
It was bad enough when Woodward shifted in recent years from the tough, no-holds-barred investigative reporter of the Watergate era to his current incarnation as a best-selling author and soft courtier to the powerful.
Things got worse when he consistently withheld stories from the Post (where he is assistant managing editor) and information from his superiors that resulted in the newspaper being scooped -- most notably about the identity of Deep Throat.
Woodward's metamorphosis appeared to have reached its nadir last month when he appeared on the Larry King show to claim that the Plamegate scandal that has rocked the White House started "kind of as gossip, as chatter," and "there's a lot of innocent actions in all this." Woodward then went on to denounce special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald as a "junkyard dog" who "turns over rocks, and rocks under rocks."
Excuse me -- but isn't that precisely the job Fitzgerald was hired to do? Not according to Woodward, who believes "a really thoughtful prosecutor" would instead say, "maybe this is not one to go to the court with." Nevertheless, the day after Woodward's remarks, Fitzgerald announced the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, for perjury, false statements, and obstruction.
Now comes the startling news that a senior Bush administration official told Woodward that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative about a month before her identity was made public. Other than to say it was not Libby, Woodward and other editors at the Post refuse to identify the official.
The revelation that a still-unnamed top White House official (not Karl Rove, according to Rove's spokesman) told Woodward about Plame well before Libby revealed her identity to Judy Miller came in the course of a two-hour deposition Woodward gave on Monday. Fitzgerald interviewed Woodward about the previously undisclosed conversation after the anonymous official contacted the special counsel a week after Libby was indicted.
Woodward's testimony obviously raises questions about Libby's indictment. "Will Mr. Fitzgerald now say he was wrong to say on TV that Scooter Libby was the first official to give this information to a reporter?" one of Libby's lawyers, William Jeffress Jr., asked the Post. "Why did Mr. Fitzgerald indict Mr. Libby before fully investigating what other reporters knew about Wilson's wife?"
As the Post's own article states, "Woodward and Post editors refused to disclose the official's name or provide crucial details about the testimony." Moreover, "Woodward did not share the information with Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. until last month, and the only Post reporter whom Woodward said he remembers telling in the summer of 2003 does not recall the conversation taking place."
As Post reporters Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig delicately reported, Executive Editor Downie "declined to say whether he was upset that Woodward withheld the information from him." Downie also told them "he could not explain why Woodward said he provided a tip about Wilson's wife to Walter Pincus, a Post reporter writing about the subject, but did not pursue the matter when the CIA leak investigation began." Downie added "Woodward has often worked under ground rules while doing research for his books that prevent him from naming sources or even using the information they provide until much later."
Further, although Woodward says "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 says he does not recall Woodward telling him that. In fact, Pincus "cannot imagine he would have forgotten such a conversation" around the same time he was writing about Wilson.
"Are you kidding?" Pincus told his own newspaper. "I certainly would have remembered that."
Shades of Little Miss Run Amok! Information too sensitive to share with editors ... co-workers who don't recall conversations you claim to have had with them ... Say it ain't so, Bob! Unfortunately it is so, and Woodward has apparently once again put his newspaper at risk for his own personal profit and aggrandizement. It's been evident for some time that his book-writing career conflicts with his reporting at the Washington Post, and it is well past time for Woodward to choose one or the other, instead of trying to have his cake and eat it too.
As Sydney Schanberg wrote recently in the Village Voice, "Critics in the press have suggested that Woodward is too close to some of his sources to provide readers with an undiluted picture of their activities.
"His remarks about the Fitzgerald investigation convey the attitude of a sometime insider reluctant to offend -- and that is hardly a definition of what a serious, independent reporter is supposed to be. It's a far piece from Watergate."
For example, as Woodward testified in his deposition, he discussed Iraq policy with Libby on June 27, 2003 as part of his research for yet another "insider's" book about the Bush administration. According to the Post, "He said he does not believe Libby said anything about Plame."
But Woodward also told Fitzgerald, based on an 18-page list of questions he planned to ask Libby, (which included the phrases "yellowcake" and "Joe Wilson's wife") that it "is possible he asked Libby about Plame or her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson." Woodward also said, however, that he "had no recollection" of mentioning the pair to Libby.
Let's recap, shall we? Woodward says he "does not believe" Libby said anything about Plame; he has "no recollection" of mentioning Plame or her husband to Libby; but it "is possible" that he asked Libby about both. And although he told Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie nothing, he says he did tell Post reporter Walter Pincus that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst. But Pincus says he recalls nothing of the sort.
Got that? Clear as mud, right?
This much at least is clear: Woodward's testimony changes key elements in the chronology Fitzgerald announced when indicting Libby; Woodward's unnamed official is now revealed to be the first government employee to disclose Plame's CIA employment to a reporter; and Woodward is that reporter ...
Woodward's previously undisclosed involvement in the Plamegate affair must also be viewed in light of his repeated public dismissals of its importance. The Larry King show was but the latest -- as Woodward told National Public Radio this summer, "When I think all of the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great."
Woodward declined to elaborate on the statement he released to The Post late yesterday afternoon and publicly last night, and would not answer any questions. That's too bad, because I have at least two: What did Bob Woodward know about the leak of Valerie Plame's secret identity?
And when did he know it?
Stay up to date with the latest Media and Culture headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Nov 17, 2005 12:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He had two sources according to the Post, one unnamed. He was this great guy in the 70s and now he is Bush shill. Did he take notes from Judy since the stories are a lot alike, as this article points out? The Post should show him the door, as they do not need him. I am sure this best selling author made enough money off Bush&CO friends and supporters to retire. Sad day, there are not any newspapers you can trust sometimes. But then they are all own by big corporations who are invested in the right slant on their stories. At least there not as bad as TV reporters, no matter what station the work for unless it is the BBC.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: aw Story says Hadley was his source
Posted by: cyclone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rockpicker on Nov 17, 2005 2:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» What NPR does not cover
Posted by: the islander
» I concur
Posted by: qrswave
» And, let's start by...
Posted by: qrswave
» RE: shut the whole thing down
Posted by: covalentbonded
Comments are closed-
Posted by: navistic50 on Nov 17, 2005 3:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't believe Mr. Woodward or his former associate Mr. Bernstein are being honest. I went through Watergate like many of our generation and came to appreicate and even revere the work they accomplished to expose former President Nixon and compamy.
This "admission" by Mr Woodward sure seems to come at a very fortunate time, at least fortunate to someone attempting to cloud the water and get their reflection angled right in the mirror.
I am throughly convinced now that Bush and Company are so corrupt that they touch everything within their realm with the belief of entitlement and the sense that they are above the law.
Sorry, Mr. Woodward, Watergate was bad enough, but this administration makes Watergate look like a walk in the park.
Since you have decided to align yourself with the Bush administration, and the use of your position to further assist a evil empire, you have failed the people and this country of ours. More so, you have failed yourself and have sold out.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Smoke & Mirrors
Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Smoke & Mirrors
Posted by: bogey11
» RE: Smoke & Mirrors
Posted by: cyclone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kencohen on Nov 17, 2005 3:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ken Cohen
Posted by: Basenjis
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rabblerowzer on Nov 17, 2005 4:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jjjhein on Nov 17, 2005 4:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shame on you Bob !
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sgtmartin1 on Nov 17, 2005 5:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Went through J-school at a time when his work was considered the best-in-class.
Now I can only hope that my integrity is modeled after the Woodward of 30 years ago, not the sycophant weasel he's become today.
New parody on EWM: Pentagon Caught Torturing Prisoners with Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Applications
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hotar on Nov 17, 2005 5:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"[O]ne of Libby's lawyers, William Jeffress Jr., asked the Post. 'Why did Mr. Fitzgerald indict Mr. Libby before fully investigating what other reporters knew about Wilson's wife?'"
He indicted him because Mr. Libby lied to the grand jury, plain and simple. No amount of bullshit can obscure that fact.
The Woodward revelation is nothing more than a transparent attempt to cloud the issues, by an administration that is scared stiff about what Fitzgerald may pull out of the hat next. Go get 'em, Patrick!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 42Years on Nov 17, 2005 6:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cephalis on Nov 17, 2005 6:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Nov 17, 2005 7:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For more details of a non-partisan grass roots effort click on do it before 2006
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The establishment.
Posted by: krose
» RE: The establishment.
Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: The establishment.
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: The establishment.
Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: The establishment.
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The establishment.
Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: The establishment.
Posted by: Lincoln fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: krose on Nov 17, 2005 7:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: NOT TO WORRY
Posted by: Bozwell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cuja1 on Nov 17, 2005 8:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Marta
Posted by: cyclone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bogey11 on Nov 17, 2005 8:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It Makes No Difference
Posted by: stoney13
» RE: It Makes No Difference
Posted by: cyclone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: colonist on Nov 17, 2005 9:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueFlorida on Nov 17, 2005 9:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I use logic and common sense.
And here are my conclusions:
At a time when the White House is most secretive White House of all time, when journalist can't ask the hard questions, Woodward is given unrestricted access to all top government officials for his book about the Road to the Iraq War. The White House front page linked to the book, promoting sells of the book.
So do you really believe Woodward who was behind breaking open the Watergate Scandal is a crusader for the people, the man who is going take down corrupt government officials?
Or have you realized Woodward is still the same person he was; only you had the wrong impression about him the first time. He was an opportunist then, he's an opportunist now. He takes advantage of whatever angle furthers his career.
And the most damning proof Woodard is embedded with the White House propaganda machine?
He's the one who gives the "Slam Dunk" quote by George Tenant, and thus protect the President and his men from charges of deliberately lying to America. Using that quote, they can say that is was the intelligent that was at fault. The CIA was wrong.
Lies.
The CIA debunked the yellowcake from Niger myth over and over again. The weapons inspectors were right; there are no weapons of mass destruction. After invading, the first thing the military did was secure the oil fields. Only after 2 months of not bothering to look for the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and the pressure from the media and generals on the ground, did the military attempt the search for WMDs.
Why didn't they look for WMDs as soon as they landed, since that was the mission?
Because they, and the White House, already knew there was no WMDs.
They lied.
And Woodward is yet another Rove Whore.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 17, 2005 10:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Man, have we ever wandered lost a long way from Watergate. . .and has its investigative wunderkind fallen so far from grace. . .
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Yeah, BOB, say it ain't so. . ."
Posted by: cyclone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Che on Nov 17, 2005 11:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: 3 simple words: Office of Naval Intelligence
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: 3 simple words: Office of Naval Intelligence
Posted by: Groucho Costello
Comments are closed-
Posted by: saywhat? on Nov 17, 2005 2:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i doubt the administration will get what they want from this. their constant lies of late will either drive us into a more extreme facist state, (right now they aren't the most popular boys on the block - except maybe jeff gannon), or bush will be impeached in 06. i move to impeach.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Rod in 83706 on Nov 17, 2005 5:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whoever told Novak also violated the letter of the law, but it was Novak who violated the letter and the spirit of the law by blowing Plame's cover by publishing that fact in a newspaper for all to read (and some of those readers may theoretically have tried to harm Plame). Providing the information to Novak is the equivalent of gossiping. Novak, by publishing the information in the paper, caused some real harm. Novak is the villain, maybe the only villain in this whole episode. He belongs in jail, or under one.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Woodward may be an elitist, but...
Posted by: squattyroo
» RE: Woodward may be an elitist, but...
Posted by: Rod in 83706
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jane 2000 on Nov 17, 2005 7:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gdp on Nov 17, 2005 11:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lasap on Nov 18, 2005 9:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Besides, I don't think it matters one way or another....IF Woodward knew before, he didn't out Plame....that's a very important matter on this subject.....
Libby outed her, and should be punished for it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Laura
Posted by: stoney13
» RE: Laura
Posted by: stoney13
» RE: Laura
Posted by: stoney13
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sallysommer on Nov 18, 2005 3:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jimi on Nov 19, 2005 12:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Woodward takes a hit for the team.
Woodward's story is thus:
It has to be before Libby said anything (backs up what Libby said, that it was common knowledge and scuttlebut). He has to have proof he was told (the Pinkus alibi). He can't have told his editors. Libby can't have said anything to him (Libby didn't use Woodward as an example of a reporter who knew), but maybe he said something to Libby! Otherwise, it seems fantastic he didn't bring it up with Libby at all.
Fantastic: thats a word that springs to mind when reading his testimony.
Gee, the Woodward's testimony doesn't sound concocted or anything.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dagumpster on Nov 19, 2005 7:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Nov 17, 2005 12:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He had two sources according to the Post, one unnamed. He was this great guy in the 70s and now he is Bush shill. Did he take notes from Judy since the stories are a lot alike, as this article points out? The Post should show him the door, as they do not need him. I am sure this best selling author made enough money off Bush&CO friends and supporters to retire. Sad day, there are not any newspapers you can trust sometimes. But then they are all own by big corporations who are invested in the right slant on their stories. At least there not as bad as TV reporters, no matter what station the work for unless it is the BBC.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: aw Story says Hadley was his source
Posted by: cyclone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rockpicker on Nov 17, 2005 2:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» What NPR does not cover
Posted by: the islander
» I concur
Posted by: qrswave
» And, let's start by...
Posted by: qrswave
» RE: shut the whole thing down
Posted by: covalentbonded
Comments are closed-
Posted by: navistic50 on Nov 17, 2005 3:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't believe Mr. Woodward or his former associate Mr. Bernstein are being honest. I went through Watergate like many of our generation and came to appreicate and even revere the work they accomplished to expose former President Nixon and compamy.
This "admission" by Mr Woodward sure seems to come at a very fortunate time, at least fortunate to someone attempting to cloud the water and get their reflection angled right in the mirror.
I am throughly convinced now that Bush and Company are so corrupt that they touch everything within their realm with the belief of entitlement and the sense that they are above the law.
Sorry, Mr. Woodward, Watergate was bad enough, but this administration makes Watergate look like a walk in the park.
Since you have decided to align yourself with the Bush administration, and the use of your position to further assist a evil empire, you have failed the people and this country of ours. More so, you have failed yourself and have sold out.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Smoke & Mirrors
Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Smoke & Mirrors
Posted by: bogey11
» RE: Smoke & Mirrors
Posted by: cyclone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kencohen on Nov 17, 2005 3:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ken Cohen
Posted by: Basenjis
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rabblerowzer on Nov 17, 2005 4:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jjjhein on Nov 17, 2005 4:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shame on you Bob !
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sgtmartin1 on Nov 17, 2005 5:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Went through J-school at a time when his work was considered the best-in-class.
Now I can only hope that my integrity is modeled after the Woodward of 30 years ago, not the sycophant weasel he's become today.
New parody on EWM: Pentagon Caught Torturing Prisoners with Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Applications
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hotar on Nov 17, 2005 5:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"[O]ne of Libby's lawyers, William Jeffress Jr., asked the Post. 'Why did Mr. Fitzgerald indict Mr. Libby before fully investigating what other reporters knew about Wilson's wife?'"
He indicted him because Mr. Libby lied to the grand jury, plain and simple. No amount of bullshit can obscure that fact.
The Woodward revelation is nothing more than a transparent attempt to cloud the issues, by an administration that is scared stiff about what Fitzgerald may pull out of the hat next. Go get 'em, Patrick!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 42Years on Nov 17, 2005 6:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cephalis on Nov 17, 2005 6:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Nov 17, 2005 7:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For more details of a non-partisan grass roots effort click on do it before 2006
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The establishment.
Posted by: krose
» RE: The establishment.
Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: The establishment.
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: The establishment.
Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: The establishment.
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The establishment.
Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: The establishment.
Posted by: Lincoln fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: krose on Nov 17, 2005 7:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: NOT TO WORRY
Posted by: Bozwell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cuja1 on Nov 17, 2005 8:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Marta
Posted by: cyclone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bogey11 on Nov 17, 2005 8:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It Makes No Difference
Posted by: stoney13
» RE: It Makes No Difference
Posted by: cyclone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: colonist on Nov 17, 2005 9:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueFlorida on Nov 17, 2005 9:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I use logic and common sense.
And here are my conclusions:
At a time when the White House is most secretive White House of all time, when journalist can't ask the hard questions, Woodward is given unrestricted access to all top government officials for his book about the Road to the Iraq War. The White House front page linked to the book, promoting sells of the book.
So do you really believe Woodward who was behind breaking open the Watergate Scandal is a crusader for the people, the man who is going take down corrupt government officials?
Or have you realized Woodward is still the same person he was; only you had the wrong impression about him the first time. He was an opportunist then, he's an opportunist now. He takes advantage of whatever angle furthers his career.
And the most damning proof Woodard is embedded with the White House propaganda machine?
He's the one who gives the "Slam Dunk" quote by George Tenant, and thus protect the President and his men from charges of deliberately lying to America. Using that quote, they can say that is was the intelligent that was at fault. The CIA was wrong.
Lies.
The CIA debunked the yellowcake from Niger myth over and over again. The weapons inspectors were right; there are no weapons of mass destruction. After invading, the first thing the military did was secure the oil fields. Only after 2 months of not bothering to look for the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and the pressure from the media and generals on the ground, did the military attempt the search for WMDs.
Why didn't they look for WMDs as soon as they landed, since that was the mission?
Because they, and the White House, already knew there was no WMDs.
They lied.
And Woodward is yet another Rove Whore.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 17, 2005 10:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Man, have we ever wandered lost a long way from Watergate. . .and has its investigative wunderkind fallen so far from grace. . .
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Yeah, BOB, say it ain't so. . ."
Posted by: cyclone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Che on Nov 17, 2005 11:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: 3 simple words: Office of Naval Intelligence
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: 3 simple words: Office of Naval Intelligence
Posted by: Groucho Costello
Comments are closed-
Posted by: saywhat? on Nov 17, 2005 2:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i doubt the administration will get what they want from this. their constant lies of late will either drive us into a more extreme facist state, (right now they aren't the most popular boys on the block - except maybe jeff gannon), or bush will be impeached in 06. i move to impeach.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Rod in 83706 on Nov 17, 2005 5:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whoever told Novak also violated the letter of the law, but it was Novak who violated the letter and the spirit of the law by blowing Plame's cover by publishing that fact in a newspaper for all to read (and some of those readers may theoretically have tried to harm Plame). Providing the information to Novak is the equivalent of gossiping. Novak, by publishing the information in the paper, caused some real harm. Novak is the villain, maybe the only villain in this whole episode. He belongs in jail, or under one.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Woodward may be an elitist, but...
Posted by: squattyroo
» RE: Woodward may be an elitist, but...
Posted by: Rod in 83706
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jane 2000 on Nov 17, 2005 7:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gdp on Nov 17, 2005 11:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lasap on Nov 18, 2005 9:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Besides, I don't think it matters one way or another....IF Woodward knew before, he didn't out Plame....that's a very important matter on this subject.....
Libby outed her, and should be punished for it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Laura
Posted by: stoney13
» RE: Laura
Posted by: stoney13
» RE: Laura
Posted by: stoney13
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sallysommer on Nov 18, 2005 3:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jimi on Nov 19, 2005 12:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Woodward takes a hit for the team.
Woodward's story is thus:
It has to be before Libby said anything (backs up what Libby said, that it was common knowledge and scuttlebut). He has to have proof he was told (the Pinkus alibi). He can't have told his editors. Libby can't have said anything to him (Libby didn't use Woodward as an example of a reporter who knew), but maybe he said something to Libby! Otherwise, it seems fantastic he didn't bring it up with Libby at all.
Fantastic: thats a word that springs to mind when reading his testimony.
Gee, the Woodward's testimony doesn't sound concocted or anything.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dagumpster on Nov 19, 2005 7:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Half-Naked Hot Chicks and Beer: The Sexist Guyland of the Super Bowl Beer Commercial
Can Obama and Dems Overcome the Right's Talk Radio Monopoly?
Why We're Addicted to Disaster Porn




