NY Times Hinting CHENEY Is Key Woodward Source?

[Hardrock69]

NY Times Hinting Cheney
Is Key Woodward Source?

By E&P Staff
11-17-5


NEW YORK -- In an article for Thursday's New York Times, reporter Todd Purdum, through the process of elimination, leaves Vice President Cheney still standing as a high ranking Bush administration official who has not denied being Bob Woodward's newly revealed key source in the Plame/CIA leak case.

Woodward provided sworn testimony to the federal grand jury on Monday, but said the source that mentioned Valerie Plame's CIA job to him in mid-June 2003 had still not authorized him to disclose his or her name. This "set off a frantic new round of guessing about who that source might be and a wave of public denials by spokesmen for possible suspects," Purdum observes.


Then he ticks them off: "A senior administration official said that neither President Bush himself, nor his chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., nor his counselor, Dan Bartlett, was Mr. Woodward's source. So did spokesmen for former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, former C.I.A. Director George J. Tenet and his deputy John E. McLaughlin.

"A lawyer for Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff who has acknowledged conversations with reporters about the case and remains under investigation, said Mr. Rove was not Mr. Woodward's source.

"Vice President Cheney did not join the parade of denials. A spokeswoman said he would have no comment on an ongoing investigation. Several other officials could not be reached for comment."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001523755

[LoungeMachine]

Watergate Reporter Drops Bombshell In CIA Leak Case
11.17.2005 8:27 AM EST

Bob Woodward says he was first to learn Valerie Plame's identity.


Just weeks after former vice presidential aid I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted for lying to a grand jury about revealing the name of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame to reporters, legendary Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward
revealed that he was actually the first person to learn her name from a government official.

In a story in Wednesday's Washington Post, Woodward — who, along with colleague Carl Bernstein uncovered the 1972 Watergate scandal that led to President Nixon's resignation — said that he was casually told in mid-June 2003 that Plame worked as a CIA weapons analyst by a government source he has not named. Woodward said the source made it appear as if Plame's identity was not a classified secret.

The Woodward bombshell, which was not uncovered by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in his two-year investigation, threatens to prolong the inquiry and could give Libby's lawyer's new evidence to support his defense (see "Dick Cheney Aide 'Scooter' Libby Indicted In CIA Leak Case, Submits Resignation"), according to The New York Times. It also pokes a hole in the sterling reputation Fitzgerald has earned for his exhaustive investigations and intense attention to detail in bringing indictments.

Administration critics have charged that Plame's cover was blown to journalists in an attempt to discredit and get back at her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been critical of the White House's arguments for going to war in Iraq (see "Report Ties Vice President Cheney To CIA Leak").

Woodward gave sworn testimony to Fitzgerald on Monday after his original source disclosed their conversation to the prosecutor. Because Woodward did not reveal his source, it set off a guessing game in Washington that unleashed a string of denials. A senior administration official told the Times that neither the president, his chief of staff, Andrew Card, nor his counselor, Dan Bartlett, were Woodward's source. Spokespersons for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former CIA director George Tenet and deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove — who is still under investigation in the case — also denied being involved.

Vice President Dick Cheney's spokesperson did not issue a denial, but would not comment on the ongoing investigation.

Woodward never wrote about the Plame case and only told his bosses at the Post about his conversation regarding her identity last month, just before Libby's indictment on making false statements about when he mentioned Plame's name with reporters.

Libby's lawyer called Woodward's information a "bombshell" that contradicted Fitzgerald's argument that Libby was the first government official to discuss Plame's CIA status with a journalist, former New York Times reporter Judith Miller on June 23, 2003, according to the Times.

Woodward said he had deliberately kept a low profile during the case to protect his sources. "The terms of engagement change when a reporter and reporters are being subpoenaed, agreeing to testify, being forced to testify, being jailed," Woodward told the Times. "That's the new element in this. And what it did, it caused me to become even more secretive about sources, and to protect them. I couldn't do my job if I couldn't protect them. And to really make sure that I don't become part of this process, but not to be less aggressive in reporting the news."

While the Woodward reveal does not necessarily affect the perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Libby, it could cast doubt on one of Fitzgerald's ongoing themes: that Libby lied when he told the grand jury that Plame's CIA identity was an open secret among reporters, according to the Times.

— Gil Kaufman

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine

Vice President Dick Cheney's spokesperson did not issue a denial, but would not comment on the ongoing investigation.




:D :D :D

Buh-Bye, Dick

[Nickdfresh]

BTW, I just read TIME's stuff on this this morning. LIBBY is being indicted for lying under oath, not for being the first...

I don't really think it effects his case one way or another...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
:D :D :D

Buh-Bye, Dick

We'll see what kind of balls DICK has.:)
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/EE/images/uploads/cheney.jpg

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
BTW, I just read TIME's stuff on this this morning. LIBBY is being indicted for lying under oath, not for being the first...

I don't really think it effects his case one way or another...

Lying under oath, eh? Didn't a certain politician get away with that a few years ago, without so much as an indictment? My memory seems to be failing me right now.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Lying under oath, eh? Didn't a certain politician get away with that a few years ago, without so much as an indictment? My memory seems to be failing me right now.

Nope. He didn't lie.:)

[Cathedral]

Political Corruption is like a dick without underwear...it swings in both directions.

When are you all going to learn that having us voters at each others throats is absolutely the way both sides want it.
It makes it much easier to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

Hmmmm, wool, now what could that possibly refer to?

I have come to the factual conclusion that anyone who defends any politician is a hypocrite.

Truth is, we all get played everyday by the people we elect to represent us and our interests...But when is the last time any representing went on for any of us?

Fuck 'Em All

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Lying under oath, eh? Didn't a certain politician get away with that a few years ago, without so much as an indictment? My memory seems to be failing me right now.

Let me help you.

His name was Ollie North

The treasonous piece of shit can be seen on FAUX

:rolleyes:

[Warham]

Ollie North isn't/wasn't a politician. He was a career military man.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Ollie North isn't/wasn't a politician. He was a career military man.

No, he's a treasonous felon who should be in prison :rolleyes:

You'll back anyone with an R next to 'em :rolleyes:

[Warham]

No, I want you to answer the question I posed. We don't have to go back to 1986 for the answer. In fact, we only need to go back to 1998 to see when the last fellow got in trouble for 'misspeaking' in front of a jury.

[Keeyth]

That depends on what your definition of 'is' is... :D

...and what he may or may not have lied about didn't get 2000 soldiers killed for no reason... ...or blow the cover of a CIA operative. He was just trying to cover himself getting blown.:D

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Warham
Lying under oath, eh? Didn't a certain politician get away with that a few years ago, without so much as an indictment? My memory seems to be failing me right now.

sorry, your memory is failing you. :D clinton was not indicted, that's true. but only because he reached an agreement with the independent prosecutor to pay a fine and have his law license suspended. link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1126591.stm)



Originally posted by Cathedral

I have come to the factual conclusion that anyone who defends any politician is a hypocrite.

and cat! easy. not all politicians are bad guys. call me a hypocrite if you want, but there are definitely a few that i would trust with my life. without question. (actually, at least 1 from the opposing party...)