READER COMMENTS ON
"RAW STORY Reveals Hadley was Woodward's Not-So-Deep Throat..."
(37 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 2:26 pm PT...
- it's Cheney
- um, no it's Karl Rove
- wait, no it's Scooter "pie" Libby
- no, no that's not it. it's that Hadley bloke
- but we all know Joe Wilson outed the Vali Girl
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 2:29 pm PT...
Watch Hardball with Chris Matthews ...
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 2:32 pm PT...
While your work as a disinfo specialist here at BRAD BLOG, Castro is always amusing (if sad), I'll take the opportunity to call you on your horseshit this afternoon, by asking for a shred of evidence concerning your claim that "but we all know Joe Wilson outed the Vali Girl"
Please supply one. Otherwise, while I have no problem with points of views that disagree with mine being posted here, I have no obligation to allow anyone to continue posting out and out lies here.
So put up please, or shut up, or I'll consider simply removing your posts in the future. Thank you.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 2:51 pm PT...
"- it's Cheney
- um, no it's Karl Rove
- wait, no it's Scooter "pie" Libby
- no, no that's not it. it's that Hadley bloke"
What a coincidence...
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 2:53 pm PT...
You demand proof but you allow rants about "controlled demolition of the WTC" based on the evidence free analysis of some crank with less integrity than Michael Mooreski. You allow post after post that equates Bush with Hitler and demeans the memory of all the victims Jew and non-Jew alike of the Third Reich. The evidence that Joe outed Vali is there for you to find.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 2:54 pm PT...
There goes castro and his wild-eyed conspiracy theories again.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 3:20 pm PT...
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 3:21 pm PT...
Hey look, I think I found Hadley's secretary. He's got a dress on and his name is Castro!
What a surprise....Cheney, Libby, Rove, Hadley and now all that's left for the family is John Bolton....
Traitors who knew they were before they piped up, that's why they're making a spectacle of themselves now.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 3:23 pm PT...
#1. It is a REPUBLICAN congressman pushing 9/11 conspiracy theories with this whole unsubstantiated "Able Danger" tripe.
#2 There has not been one post re: controlled demolitions of the WTC here. I personally dislike those theories, but the person who is currently pushing them is one of those...whaddya call them...scienticians. I know jaggoffs like you think that there is good ole Patriotic god-based Republican science and math and secular Jesus hating science and math, there is just Science and Math. This gentleman is a physicist. Just because you can't add without a calculator or read without moving your lips doesn't mean he's just some crank.
#3 It's odd Castro. The interweb has a "back" icon. I clicked it and saw nothing...repeat NOTHING from David or Brad or any other blogger here (myself included) comparing Bush to Hitler. If you meant a comment from a visitor to bradblog, we might be in agreement.
#4 Bush comparing himself to FDR and Churchill and Iraq to WWII is demeaning to those who fought back then...especially since according to Bush's political base, the Jews' job is to merely clear cut a landing strip for Jesus in Jerusalem.
#5 Oh, I just remembered, I was waiting at a ticket counter at LAX in 2003 when Joe Wilson came up to me and told me his wife was a secret agent. He was standing next to Britt Hume, Carl Cameron, and the Reverend Sun Yung Moon at the time.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 3:28 pm PT...
Supposedly "the official" was the one who actually alerted Fitz to the alleged conversation. And then Fitz sought out Woodward to ask him about the alleged conversation.
Why would Hadley do such a thing? Is he the new fall guy? Is this revelation supposed to undercut Fitz's investigation? I don't get it. It seems to me that Hadley has just nominated himself for felony charges.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 3:33 pm PT...
1) sweet of you to sign off your post with your nom d'amour. No really, it was sweet.
2) as to your point #1 there are a lot of conspiracy theories. I'm hoping you knew that
3) your #2 - with a Ph. D in EE I'll match my skills against your insult anyday
4) your #3 - read man the "bushitler", "concentration camps coming to the US" and the like are standard fare here
5) your #4 - gotta agree w/you on this one
6) your #5 - that wasn't rev moon, it was michael jackson
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 3:42 pm PT...
The current 9/11 theory is being pushed by a physicist.
This is what Howard Dean was talking about when he was jumped on for "floating theories". Bush 43 lacks transparency leaving conspiracy theories to flourish.
You may best me in a discussion of embedded computing systems or photonics, but I've got better momma jokes.
And if you think suspension of habeus corpus and denial of civil liberities can only happen to them brown folk who pray to God funny, then you may well one day wind up in a concentration camp.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 3:50 pm PT...
I'm going to throw some gasoline on this fire and see how hot it gets...
1) Where is the proof that the Plame was a covert CIA operative besides the standard liberal talking point that the CIA wouldn't have filed a criminal referral to the DoJ if she wasn't? It can be argued that the CIA is enganging in a bitter leak match with the White House over who is to blame for claiming that Iraq had WMDs.
2) Cheney's office hyped the evidence against Saddam, so maybe now the CIA is hyping the evidence against them.
3)On July 6, 2003, Wilson wrote an article claiming that he did some consulting for the CIA. Couldn't that attract some attention to him (and then his wife) from some foreign spies? A quick internet search of him would have brought up his wife, with the an FEC report of her contribution to Gore's campaign in 1999 using her covert name and her listed occupation as an employee with Brewster-Jennings & Associates.
4)Wilson had conversations with Novak in the days leading up to his article revealing Plame, since Wilson had learned that Novak knew about his wife. Wison didn't even tell or warn his wife about this, but just proceded to talk with Novak.
5)"The CIA occasionally asks news organizations to withhold the names of undercover agents, and news organizations usually comply. An intelligence official told The Post yesterday that no further harm would come from repeating Plame's name." From the Wash Post
6)The CIA accidently informed Cuba of Plame's identity in a classified document that was mistakingly given to the Cubans before any of this other stuff actually happened.
7)Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely was told by Wilson that his wife worked in the CIA in 2002
8)Vallely also said that Wilson took his wife to social events in Washington in paraded her around as his "CIA wife"
9)Plame gave up her role as a covert agent 9 years before the leak (NYT's Nicholas Kristof)
10) Others have come forward about Wilson touting Plame as his "CIA wife"
11)Wilson and Plame were on the cover of Vanity Fair in '94 together? Is that smart for a covert agent to do? (wait, she wasn't covert anymore at that point...)
12)The article Wilson wrote for the NYT was pretty inaccurate. One example, he said that the White House sent him on the mission, when in fact it was from the lobbying of his wife that he got to go. Another, his report didn't conclude either way about the yellowcake, but his article for the Times claims it did. Yet another, the CIA didn't want a report from him, just a quick oral briefing about the trip, but he filed a formal report anyways.
13)Plame and Wilson are both highly critical of the Bush administration and the war, and were before any of this started. They also contributed to Gore's campaign in the first place. The problem with this argument is that they have a right to think what they want and support who they want, but there is a motive for them having an agenda to out Bush from the beginning. (I find this one a little harder to believe, because its hard to prove this. But it's possible.)
So, let's see where this goes... someone let me know if they need the links for all these. I'm too busy at the moment to supply them all.
OT - Brad, great work on covering the '05 election. If only more people knew about these voting machines.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 3:51 pm PT...
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 3:52 pm PT...
#12 where do you come off with the racist crap? I lost a whole generation of relatives to the Nazis. If I were given to baseless insults like some (no not your) I'd add "and unlike your uncles they weren't killed falling out of the guard tower".
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 3:59 pm PT...
Your the only Limey who supports Bush. The rest of Great Britain hates the guy.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 4:05 pm PT...
Limey????? Born in Portugal, grew up mostly in Israel, US citizen since '60.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 4:35 pm PT...
CASTRO: You are a typical stupid rightwinger. Equating Hitler's propoganda machine to Bush's propoganda machine, has nothing to do with the killing of Jews. You're pea-sized-rightwing brain cannot distinguish topics, you lump them all together. Just like, if you don't support the Iraq War, you don't support the troops. I know you rightwingers have pea-brains and can't separate issues, but this is not a rightwing blog, and we're intelligent here, and can think and discuss issues at a deeper level than you.
Castro: "If you compare the way Hitler took over, propogandized, and suppressed the German media to the way the Bush administration is doing it, you hate Jews."
You're an asshole. If you can't separate the two issues, get lost and go to to a rightwing dittohead blog, where they can't separate issues. It's either that you're dumb, or it's a tactic. Either way, we don't fall for it.
Castro: "If you don't support the Iraq War, you don't support the troops."
Is there a word for this tactic? It works on idiots, I know that.
Castro: "If you question the president, you're unpatriotic."
I can go on and on with these rightwing tactics...
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 4:35 pm PT...
#15 Fake outrage.
You know what my point is, you choose to acknowledge it.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 4:35 pm PT...
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 4:37 pm PT...
Tell me.... why is the US fighting this Iraq War for Israel?
Why does US Military have to die to save your relatives/friends in Israel?
Why should the US spend billions of dollars of our tax money to fight Israel's War?
Explain that ...please?
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 4:39 pm PT...
94? Cover of Vanity fair? You sure about that buddy? Sarcasm only works if you don't make yourself look ignorant in the process.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 4:49 pm PT...
...and you're not Jewish, just like Steve F wasn't gay. That's another rightwing tactic: Pretend you're the victim to sway an arguement.
Steve F wasn't gay, and you're not Jewish. Neither one of you would be saying it if you were.
I might be gay AND Jewish, for all you know...
Usually, though, those who go around parading it, are lying...
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 4:51 pm PT...
Castro, you're nothing more but an ignorant pawn for their own games and likely more anti-semitic than the Zionists themselves.
You make zero sense and constantly refer to 9-11 as a conspiracy theory by crazed fools, just what part is the conspiracy?
And further you have no proof of there ever being a theory as well. Go back to the priest's school and join with the Bnai Bath where you belong in Richard Perle's school of false Zionism I heard its demanded your new application for review.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 11/16/2005 @ 4:53 pm PT...
I personally don't care what Castro thinks, though he's certainly entitled to think anything he wants.
But what is Woodward's motive here, except to help Libby's defense (it won't work, but what other motive could he have?)? Consider: Over two years ago Bush said he wanted to get to the bottom of the story of "Who outed Valerie Plame?" At that time, Woodward was already in possession of material facts in the case (a Bush insider had told him she was a C.I.A. operative). And he said nothing, not even to his own boss!
Woodward could have gone to Fitzgerald two years ago. If Fitzgerald has asked him, "Who's your source?" Woodward could have said, "I'm not at liberty to say (just as Judy Miller did)." But he said nothing. NOW HE COMES FORWARD? What possible motive could he have but to make Fitzgerald look bad for having said Libby was the first to reveal Plame's C.I.A. status?
The answer...none. The irony is that it won't make a difference, because Libby wasn't indicted for outing Valerie Plame, rather for lying and obstructing justice in the cover-up phase. Woodward's revelation won't have any effect on those charges, because Woodward's information pertains to a time before anything was known.
Woodward has said all along that he thinks the whole Plame affair is a tempest in a teapot. If he really believed that, he could have come forward two years ago without a worry. Too bad about him.
He's been contaminated by Inside-the-Beltway disease in the last 30 years. Too many friends in high places, obviously.
Washington is a cesspool. Sorry if that sounds unpatriotic to you, Castro. But the truth is, the septic tank at my condominium complex smells nicer than our nation's capital.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 5:14 pm PT...
Nittany Lion, #13:
1. In Fitzgerald's own words:
At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilsonís affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.
Or is he too liberal for you?
2. The CIA referred the case to the DOJ. The DOJ is not the CIA. Fitzgerald is not a CIA agent. OR IS HE????!!?!!1omfg
3. Joe Wilson has been involved with the government in some capacity since 1976 and was a big player in Iraq since 1990. If anything would draw attention to him and his wife, I think putting a noose around his neck and mocking Saddam Hussein would have been it. If that one week window between his article and Novak's really bothers you, perhaps you should pursue the matter more aggressively.
4. I don't know about this. Link or anything?
5. No further harm. That sort of implies that harm was done, yesno?
6. I don't know about this. Link or anything?
7. Vallely has since backed down from this claim.
A compendium of the times that Wilson and Vallely appeared on FOX has revealed that there is only one possible date, September 12, 2002, during which the two would have been in the green room within hours of each other.
8. see above.
9. "At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilsonís affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."
"Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilsonís employment status was classified. Prior to that date, her affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. Disclosure of classified information about an individualís employment by the CIA has the potential to damage the national security in ways that range from preventing that individualís future use in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who deal with them..."
10. And others have either stumbled over their words and don't stand by those claims. Are you going to repeat every one of your points twice?
11. '94? They weren't even married until '98 or so. I assume you mean '04. So now you're saying she WAS covert? Oh, no. Of course not, that would contradict many of your other points. So she wasn't covert. Therefore, why would a picture where her face is concealed cause much harm? Her career was already ruined at that point.
12. He did not claim the White House sent him on the mission. The decision to send him was not made based on his wifes recommendation, but on the fact that he had experience in Africa and his ties to Iraq from the first gulf war. He DID give an oral briefing when he came back and DID NOT file a formal report.
13. Not only hard to prove, but irrelevant.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 6:38 pm PT...
Larry Silverstein on PBS documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, plainly said: "'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
That was WT7.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 6:52 pm PT...
Woodward could be a herring in a red dress.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 7:51 pm PT...
You all get upset at Castro for being a Bushit shill!
The American public is no longer putting up with the crap coming out of the mouths of these neo CONS any more... even Republicans (the good ones, I mean) are screaming at Bush.
I suggest just to ignore idiot trolls like Castro... their worst fear is being realized... they are irrelevant now.
2006 - a new government, a new and shining day
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 11/16/2005 @ 8:36 pm PT...
Big Dan #23... I don't know if Steve F. was really gay or not (he did advertise himself as gay on a Rep. gay site), but he was definitely not "an accountant." The Illinois licensing board has no record of him. So, he misrepresented himself on that, at the very least.
I still believe he was a shill.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2005 @ 1:13 am PT...
RLM #25, Kira #28
Woodward indicates he heard about Plame from an administrative official (evidently Hadley) before Novak heard about it from Libby.
The MSM is making this out to be huge because it is said to show Fitzgerald was mistaken. Fitz is said to have indicated that Libby was the first to release the Plame info to reporters. The indictment does not say that does it?
I can't find in the indictment (link here) where it is alleged that Libby was the first to tell Plame's name to reporters or that it even matters who was first.
Anyone notice that?
The MSM seems to want to free itself from a lot of guilt and they want the Iraq story to be like they said it was.
Hopefully we can help keep the stories straight.
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2005 @ 1:18 am PT...
Guys, Castro needs a bit of credit for actually reading posts and responding on topic. At least he does not just scream and leave like real trolls do. So act like grownups and spare us for the whole asshole/idiot thing
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2005 @ 1:26 am PT...
My statement "before Novak heard about it from Libby" should read "before Novak heard about it from Rove".
Has anyone noticed that the congress is not going to clean up the "Patriot Act" (link here).
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2005 @ 2:11 am PT...
You have not answered Brad's challenge to be forthright by providing backup for your many assertions. I have been here a long time and I counsel you to change course. It costs money to run a blog, and space is therefore valuable.Your garbage deposits here will not be tolerated ad nauseum.
The purpose of the blog is to enlighten each other, not put each other's lights out with garbage.
You mention rants about "controlled demolition of the WTC" when the fact is that several college professors have published books pointing out that the 9/11 commission never solved nor fully addressed the issues involved in the collapse (e.g. this link).
Notice I said college professors who are scientists (e.g. link here). These people know so much more than you or I about such matters that they are able to make a good living using their minds.
This matter is so controversial not because of science or the lack thereof, but because people are not capable of believing that it could have happened that way. Try telling a child that its parent is a mass murderer. Forget it, they are not capable of handling it.
Just like most people can not handle the fact that the Pentagon has planned as far back as forty years ago to shoot down jet airliners full of college students, kill innocent americans with snipers, etc., and blame it on Cuba. Yet the secret document is in the national archives (link here).
Yes it is a matter of national history yet few people can believe it because it does not fit their world view. Fine, we know then, that some topics are just a waste of time. Not because they are not true, but because people do not want to disrupt their comfort zone.
That is the WTC scenario. It is clear that the 9/11 commission failed miserably to explain the events of 9/11 and many of the families that lost loved ones that day know this. Most do not. Most can't handle it so it is a waste of time to make it a significant part of the discourse here.
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2005 @ 2:30 am PT...
I found this Woodward quote in the Raw Story article to be telling:
'The Post editor (Woodward) added that he was surprised by Bushís frankness.
"Certainly Richard Nixon would not have allowed reporters to question him like that,Ē he said. ďBush's father wouldn't allow it. Clinton wouldn't allow it.Ē'
Woodward gets what he considers unprecedented inside information from this extraordinarily closed administration and, to keep that channel open, he does everything he can to tip-toe around anything that might harm his special relationship with these people.
What all this says to me is that Woodward is no longer a truly credible and unbiased source for information and analyses of the inner workings of this Administration. He has obviously achieved a unique access to this Administration but it is quite apparent that this access has come at too great a cost- that is, the cost of his credibility. As with Judith Miller, if maintaining your unique access to the centers of powers forces you, in any way, to compromise your objectivity or even (intentionally or unintentionally) to become a kind of mouthpiece for the Administration, your usefulness as a source of information to the public has been fatally compromised. Unfortunately, the reporters (Woodward and Miller) and the newspapers they work for will be the last to recognize or admit this, since, in the corporatized media world we now live in, their overriding mission is to sell newspapers and make money rather than act as the fourth estate they sanctimoniously still pretend to be.
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 11/17/2005 @ 6:00 am PT...
Woodward is quoted as saying his first obligation was always to his source(s), and his unwillingness to reveal them prompted his 2-1/2-year silence on a matter that President Bush said was of paramount importance, and for which a special prosecutor had been appointed.
False, false, false. In the first place, Woodward's first duty as a reporter is to the public, not to his sources. Only within the reeking cesspool of Washington, given its obsession with money, power, and A-list connections, would any reporter think that way. Secondly, Woodward is being disingenuous to use the protection of sources as an excuse...because he could have told Downie right away, and Downie would have protected the source for him. But he didn't.
We have to come up with a phrase to describe reporters like Miller and Woodward, who become so intimate with people in power, people they should be exposing as abusers of power, as to call them "sources" instead. Let's have a contest for the best phrase. Winner gets a "Bush Cheated" bumper-sticker and a hate letter from Dick Cheney.
My entry: SEPTIC SCRIBES
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 11/17/2005 @ 6:31 am PT...
Steve #35, RLM #36
Very well said indeed.
One of the real stories, which Chris Matthews pointed out yesterday on Hardball, is how much washington exposure can change a person over the years. Woodward was a classic hero of the people who has become a classic lackey against the people.
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is not limited to any form of social power. We all have to be careful to make sure we shake off any of the toxins within power when we are exposed to it.