Will you read this old DU thread about Woodward from Oct. 29th?

The thread is called:

"either Woodward's lying or there's a new leak scandal"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5219462


Very interesting in light of recent developments.

I'd forgotten about his appearance on CNN. I'm wondering if Fitzpatrick was wondering about him back then. Wouldn't be surprised if Fitz "helped" the sources to allow Woodward to testify...

I just finished reading the post article about Woodward's testimony and they closed with his quote about the leak causing minimal damage. How the hell would he know that?

I am feeling great hatred towards Mr. Woodward this morning. He is in so deep with these crooks that he now has their point of view. He's rooting for the bad guys because he is in love with being their inside author.

Just because someone casually gives you classified information doesn't mean they aren't giving you classified information. As if the law was about the tone of their voice and not the content of what they reveal? The fact that he didn't go to Fitzie on his own should make him guilty of obstruction. Will Bush cease contact with him now because he didn't cooperate sooner? That would be consistent with his summer of 2003 remarks but of course they pretend now that they didn't say things like that.

It is nice to have this back in the headlines again.

to this comment:

The fact that he didn't go to Fitzie on his own should make him guilty of obstruction.

I heard a Senator say recently that an assessment hasn't even been done yet. I think it was Kennedy.

It's bizarre.

Woodward said:

"They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger of any kind and there was just some embarrassment."

1. Why would Woodward make this statement on CNN?
2. Why would he have this information in the first place?
3. Wouldn't the CIA know this was bullshit (he said it on CNN after all)?

by Bushco. I hope he has to resign over this.

After all, how could he possibly have such a statement refuted? He's engaging in the worst kind of 'journalism' in posturing himself as the 'expert' or 'source' with only two possible results: (1) people are merely divided on whether they regard him as credible, and (2) the CIA releases a damage assessment report that in and of itself further damages intelligence gathering operations. Let's take these two possible outcomes individually.

Woodward has traded on his Watergate role for his entire career. (Let's never forget that justice was never fully meted out for Watergate.) Much of that 'trade' has been deflecting or muting awareness of corruption in the GOP, from Iran/Contra to Iraq. Since it's worked in the past, why not continue. It sells books and those sales enrich Woodward.

If the CIA issues a statement or summary of any damage assessment, they'd merely be assisting those having interests inimical to nuclear nonproliferation by telling them whether they did a good job 'cleaning house.' Alternatively, such a CIA report/statement might be repudiated. Since such information is highly likely to become evidential in probable future litigation, the CIA is between a rock and a hard place if they say anything. Woodward knows this. Thus, such a claim on his part has the effect of either shoring up a "reasonable doubt" in future proceedings or baiting the CIA into creating a "BIG STORY." It's a no-lose for Woodward.

I heard Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, on Randi Rhodes about a month ago and he said there HAD been a "Post mortem" done. He said the "mortem" part was appropriate, as in someone died. Larry Johnson has also written, if my memory serves me, that there was significant damage done. I think I believe them more than Woodward, without a doubt.

Thank you.

this, H2O Man.

unsettling that a "journalist" such as Woodward plays so significant a role with molding the "perception management" for the powers behind this administration. Just as the three branches of the federal government are supposed to be separate, the press is intended to be distinct. But just as with Judith Miller, we find that those distinctions have been blurred, and that the democratic process is damaged. As a citizen, I am outraged.

Last night on Hardball, the show ended when time ran out before David Gregory could make an important point. While I would not suggest we will get the whole truth from Hardball and/or Countdown with K.O., I do think that we may see some important commentary on this new information.

Who told Woodward? How did Fitzgerald come to know he had information? Who might Woodward be hoping to help? To harm? These are fascinating questions.

have to say...bummer.

The press needs to do some serious house-cleaning to at least try to get its reputation back.

I agree about all the questions posed--fascinating.

Seems like it is a curious, curious thing Woodward said indeed.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_11_13_atrios_archive.html#113215921197992541

interesting comments!

Let's keep this :kick: ed!