Great analysis on Woodward here, from DailyKos....

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/11/16/6476/8939

<snip>

(1) Another WH senior official committed perjury and obstruction;

(2) There is no justification for the WH to conceal the identity of this Senior Administraiton Official;

(3) Could this new SAO leaker be the VP?

(4) Woodward's attempt to minimize the leak makes no sense.

Puts new Woodward testimony in context of Plamegate investigation.

Woodward always interviews the big boys.

Why would Cheney tell Fitz about his leaking to Woodward, then release Woodward from confidentiality. That seems to expose Cheney to prosecution - he wouldn't do it willingly.

My guess is Wurmser, based on:

Those close to the investigation say that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been told that David Wurmser, then a Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney on loan from the office of then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John Bolton, met with Cheney and his chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby in June 2003 and told Libby that Plame set up the Wilson trip. He asserted that it was a boondoggle, the sources said.

Libby then shared the information with Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, the sources said. Wurmser also passed on the same information about Wilson to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, they added.

Within a week, Wurmser, on orders from "executives in the office of the vice president," was told to leak her name to a specific group of reporters in an effort to muzzle her husband, Wilson, who had become a thorn in the side of the administration, those close to the inquiry say. It is unclear who Wurmser had spoken with in the media, the sources said, but they confirmed he did speak with reporters at national media outlets about Plame.

"Libby wanted to discredit him right from the start," one source close to the investigation told RAW STORY. "He used David Wurmser to help him do that."

More...

That's who Woodward was sucking up to at the time.

Wouldn't that be a hoot?:bounce:

The best I have read yet regarding Woodward's smarmy involvement.

Shame on you Bob!

In any case, Fitzgerald made another visit early Friday morning—shortly before the grand jury voted to indict Dick Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby—to the office of James Sharp, President George W. Bush's own lawyer in the case, to tell him the president's closest aide would not be charged. Rove remains in some jeopardy, but the consensus view of lawyers close to the case is that he has probably dodged the bullet. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9865842/site/newsweek/

Now, the reporters WERE NOT IN THE ROOM with Fitz and Sharp. Maybe Fitz DID say that Rove would not be charged....but WHAT ELSE might Fitz have told Sharp? That his client was in LEGAL jeopardy, perhaps???

it's been trashed by practically everyone.

Why would Fitz march over to Sharp's office JUST to tell him that Karl was out of danger for now? You could do that on the PHONE!!!

Sharp is the PERSONAL attorney for the Monkey, not a WH counsel.

Of course, everyone had preconceived notions, and ASSUMED the visit HAD to be about Rove. But no one was in the room with them; and things are not always as they appear.

It would be interesting if Fitz told Sharp his client could be in legal jeopardy. The case sure as hell isn't closed, is it???

His legend speaks for itself

http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr196-woodward.html

along with Ben Bradlee's friendship with Richard Helms

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbradleeB.htm

Woodward's tendency to stretch the truth or ignore it outright is evidenced by his Wm. Casey deathbed interview, of which nothing need be added or subtracted to stretch credibility to its utmost limits.

Add to that his willingness to be led by his handlers with the Watergate investigation and, voila, you have the perfect foil. I refer you to his handling of Robert F. Bennett (of the Mullen & Co. CIA front) during Watergate:

"What's missing is an understanding of Deep Throat, Woodward's garage-lurking source who guided the reporters to some of their biggest leads. If he was just a concerned citizen, great. But if Deep Throat had his own agenda, then he used the Washington Post to shape the story for his own purposes and got away clean.

"I have told Woodward everything I know about the Watergate case, except the Mullen Company's tie to the CIA."--Robert F. Bennett, testifying before House Special Committee on Intelligence, July 2, 1974.

Robert Bennett was the head of Robert R. Mullen and Co., a CIA front headquartered in the very same building as the CIA's Domestic Operations Division. The Mullen Co. did legitimate PR work; it also did PR for other CIA fronts and provided cover abroad for CIA operations. Bennett's most notable employee was Howard Hunt, a former chief of covert actions for the Domestic Operations Division of the CIA."

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/07.03.97/scoop-9727.html

Bennett, oddly enough, is now SENATOR Robert F. Bennett (R-UT) now. What more could Woodward be hiding...or who is he really protecting ?

I didn't know that about Bennett.

Havent got time to read all of your suggestions right now, but will later.

(snip)

It is not sad in any sense for Woodward, but for the country. In many ways, Woodward's personal transformation over three decades from outside-journalist-watchdog (who opposes the Government and subjects its claims to skeptical scrutiny) to insider-government-tool (whose goal is to become ingratiated with the Government and be the well-liked propaganda instrument of its officials) is quite emblematic of the transformation generally over this same time period of the nation's mass media.

(snip)

Jeez, do I ever miss Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite and others from that era. The current band of presstitutes is largely worthless.

From his close Republican ties and now obvious allegiance and his about face from any substantial legitimate journalism since Watergate, I have had my doubts, even with what seems rather overdone journalism credit regarding Watergate.

The core reason behind Watergate was never fully investigated or exposed, in addition Ive often wondered why Woodward is given much more credit and accolades on "Watergate" than Carl Bernstein.

the detriment of the deserving. It doesn't signify that others share their adulation, at all. Remember how massively the public repudiated their vilification of Clinton.

Rent the movie HEARTBURN with Nicholson and Streep. That is the Carl and Nora Ephron story in a nutshell. Carl lost a LOT of good favor over the way he handled that mess. It marginalized him, in a big picture sort of way.

Nora ain't without friends, ya see. And she was right--he was a miserable asshole. A BASTARD. Not NICE.

But hey, BRIGHT SPOT!!! He only screwed over his wife and kids, he did not compromise his journalistic integrity!!

Stand by for the renaissance of CARL...I would BET ON IT!

:applause:

(snip)

It is not sad in any sense for Woodward, but for the country. In many ways, Woodward's personal transformation over three decades from outside-journalist-watchdog (who opposes the Government and subjects its claims to skeptical scrutiny) to insider-government-tool (whose goal is to become ingratiated with the Government and be the well-liked propaganda instrument of its officials) is quite emblematic of the transformation generally over this same time period of the nation's mass media.

(snip)

I am sorry - but Woodward was NEVER an "outside journalist watchdog." That's part of the American Myth. Do you know that Woodward was a military intelligence officer who worked at the Whitehouse in the 1960s?

As someone else mentioned in this thread, there's a lot more that meets the eye. We still don't know the full story behind Watergate.


I also think it's interesting the Carl Bernstein has distanced himself from the Beltway establishment. He also wrote that famous Rolling Stone peice about the CIA and the press.


There is a lot more to this story. Will we ever get the truth?

or could you describe it a bit?

and found some hits -

It was called "Operation Mockingbird"

Here's some info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird



This link, while talking about Daniel Pearl, reprints some of the article from 1977.


http://www.unknownnews.net/hh030102.html

1. Rather than "no justification" (for the WH's witholding of the official's/s' name/s), "no justification in law", seems to me to make the point more strongly.

2. The corruption of this WH is not "similar" to that of Nixon's. It looks as if, by the time the full audit reveals most of the truth, it will be perceived to be more abysmal by an order of magnitude than anything before it; unparalled anywhere in the world. A truly extraordinary disgrace.

do NOT get Libby off the hook.

Excellent article, thanks for posting it.

Fitz has him for perjury at the very least.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-freeman/assistant-to-the-who_b_10706.html

By Aaron Freeman:

"I Google "Scooter Libby." I click on the Justice Department web site and there's the Libby indictment. On indictment page one, count one, paragraph "A," sentence one it says, "Beginning on or about January 20, 2001 and continuing through the date of this indictment, defendent I. Lewis Libby, also known as 'Scooter Libby,' was employed as Assistant to the President of the United States' comma.


I say, "Say wha-" "Assistant to the president of the United States?" I'm reading this the same week Newsweek's cover says "Cheney's Man." Then I look up the salaries of the top White House staff. "Assistant to the President" tops the White House pay scale. A hundred and sixty one thousand dollars a year. Not too shabby. So now I'm really curious as to how come I don't know this. How come headlines don't say "Two of the President's top aides involved in CIA leakgate?"

I call my friend the dashing network anchor and ask, "How come I don't know Scooter Libby was "Assistant to the President?" Dashing Network Anchor says, "You mean assistant to the Vice President." The same thing when I call my friend the big time editor, "Vice President, Cheney's guy." Then I call my friend the Media Decision Maker. I say, "Scooter... assistant to the PRESIDENT? Is there some kind of policy you guys got at your fancy news organization not to mention that little nugget?" Media Decision Maker says, from a great height, "You mean assistant to the VICE president." "No I mean Assistant to the President, you know, Bush 43 who wishes his poll numbers were that high? According to the indictment and the salary Libby's number one job was 'Assistant to the President.' Did you read the indictment?" Media Decision maker says, "Well, no but I'll get back to you."

On the one hand it's comforting that, at least among my media friends, there's no conspiracy to protect the president. On the other hand it is terrifying that prestigious journalists reporting to millions are relying on second-hand information spun by G-d knows who. My reporter friends are good, honorable people. But they're also mostly my age and have, I believe, 20th-century news habits. When they Google they tend not to click the Department of Justice site for the Libby indictment or intelligence.senate.gov to read the actual committee report on prewar WMD claims. Instead they click on the Washington Post or New York Times' coverage of those documents. That used to be the best we could do.

But like I said, I feel better thinking there is no conspiracy by the press to protect the president. Although there is that Newsweek cover story "Cheney's Man." Within the article is an insert graphic that pictures the top half of page one of the Libby indictment as if it had been torn from the rest. In the jagged edge of the graphic tear just happens to delete the phrase "Assistant to the President." But again, I'm sure it's just coincidence.

(emphasis added)

Just a coincidence indeed. :sarcasm:

What a hell of a news day!

Rove is the “original unnamed source” that alerted Fitzgerald that Woodward played a role in the leak. Rove’s giving up info as part of his plea bargain in exchange for a reduced sentence when Fitz wraps it all up and indicts a shitload of Admin officials.

Woodward the Chump was led to believe it was just a game of WH “gossip” and “chatter” and he hasn’t come to the realization that he was nothing more than a well-placed and strategic Media Propaganda Tool for them.

They used him to push their B.S……he was just a pawn and not the “insider” they made him think he was. They played on his ego to suck him in to unwittingly do their dirty work. I don’t think he personally heard Tenet say “slam dunk” but played it off as he did after someone casually replayed the supposed comment to him. The intention was to bolster the public’s belief in their Big Lie. It was a calculated move on their part.

He was told about Plame in the hopes that he’d have loose lips and pass it along on their behalf, saving them direct involvement. Whoever told him Tenet’s comment and Plame’s identity also told him there was “minimal” damage done to the CIA to defuse public criticism and create a pre-emptive Talking Point. He was their Puppet every step of the way. Dance, Woodward, dance...

There are too many possibilities as to the “third unnamed source” Woodward testified about so I‘m not going to speculate on who it might be. I suspect that whoever it is will more than likely give up yet another “name” or corroborate evidence against an existing one. As the net widens, Fitz gets closer to landing Cheney.

A leopard doesn't change its stripes. Woodward must have wanted his own glory all along, the stories are just an angle.

Trust is broken here...

So I think he got his info from a top somebody ... Condi and Cheney are my top suspects.

I don't know if Condi was ever subpoenaed to testify before the first GJ. If not, this could be why Woodward's name never came up before. Perhaps it was thought this would be a good strategy to take heat off Libby (which it really doesn't) and make the WH look like a pro-active agent in the investigation (too late for that). Anyway, what was Condi doing on November 3rd?

She sure wasn't at Rosa Parks funeral in Detroit. On November 4th her Middle East trip was announced.