Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Sources of Confusion(Armitage source for Novak & Woodard?)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
RedEarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 01:52 PM
Original message
Sources of Confusion(Armitage source for Novak & Woodard?)
Sources of Confusion

The Plame drama thickens, as Washington once again tries to guess who Bob Woodward's been talking to.

By Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff
Newsweek

Who was Bob Novak's source? It's a parlor game any Washington insider or media junkie can play—and most do. Novak, a conservative columnist sometimes called "the Prince of Darkness," was the journalist who kicked off the whole Valerie Plame imbroglio that has obsessed Washington and so far resulted in the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide, Scooter Libby, for perjury. It was Novak who identified Plame as the CIA operative who helped send her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Africa to check on reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from the country of Niger. Depending on whom you believe, the leak was (1) an insidious smear by the White House to retaliate against a critic of the Iraq war or (2) mildly interesting gossip.



The game became more intriguing last week when the legendary Washington Post investigative reporter Bob Woodward was dragged in. Woodward revealed that he had been told about Plame and her role before Novak had, but that in order to protect his source and avoid a subpoena from the grand jury, he had told no one, not even his editor, Leonard Downie. Woodward's admission, along with an unusual apology, set off a wave of journalistic clucking among news organizations, including his own. Woodward has long been an object of envy and resentment because he has been free to absent himself from The Washington Post newsroom while he reports his megaselling books.

But more than journalistic schadenfreudewas at stake. Though he gave testimony to the special prosecutor, Woodward refused to publicly identify his source. But he has repeatedly emphasized on talk shows and in interviews that when all the facts become known, the Plame affair will be seen as much ado about very little. In private conversations with journalists, Novak has suggested the same.

So who is Novak's source—and Woodward's source—and why will his identity take the wind out of the brewing storm? One by one last week, a parade of current and former senior officials, including the CIA's George Tenet and national-security adviser Stephen Hadley, denied being the source. A conspicuous exception was former deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage, whose office would only say, "We're not commenting." He was one of a handful of top officials who had access to the information. He is an old source and friend of Woodward's, and he fits Novak's description of his source as "not a partisan gunslinger." Woodward has indicated that he knows the identity of Novak's source, which further suggests his source and Novak's were one and the same.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10117465/site/newsweek/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm no expert on Armitage.
But from everything I've ever read about him, he seems a most unlikely source for the leak. IIRC, he's the one who referred to Feith as "the stupidest motherf*cker on the planet."

What in the world would Armitage have to gain? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. and, not that i'm looking to defend him but his loyalty was to Powell
Edited on Sun Nov-20-05 02:23 PM by chimpsrsmarter
from everything that i've read about him so him leaking to Woodward doesn't amke sense to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LizW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. good question
and one you might think Isikoff would have explored. I think this is a set up. Note that all this speculation is based merely on Armitage's refusal to comment in a week when all of Bushco is suddenly speaking up. Funny that they should now start declaring that they aren't the source when McClellan has been dodging questions about WH involvement for months because of the "ongoing investigation". Well, the investigation is clearly still ongoing, but now everyone's all chatty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shrdlu Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I thought General Tommy Franks said that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. It was.
Armitage just happened not to like him either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. You're absolutely right.
As Gen. Franks remarked about Feith in Woodward's Plan of Attack (p. 281), "I have to deal with the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day."

http://realitique.blogspot.com/2005/01/feith-without-works.html

My bad. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RazzleDazzle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. This has gotten embarrassing -- no real journalist ought to
engage in this speculation, IMO. Hadley, Rumsfeld, Armitage. Just wait til there are some real answers, properly sourced. Sheesh.

And they complain about blogs not being "real journalism." This isn't either. It's gossip, nothing more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ret5hd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. i think it's wonderful that this is being kept in the public eye.
Edited on Sun Nov-20-05 02:45 PM by ret5hd
why don't you?

edit:typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
9. I wouldn't believe ANYTHING that Robert Novak or Bob Woodward said,
at this point.

"The Plame affair will be seen as much ado about very little" --Robt Novak

"The Plame affair will be seen as much ado about very little"--Bob Woodward

Or words to that effect.

Patrick Fitzgerald's comment, when the same matter was raised in his press conference--about the substance of Traitorgate:

"That talking point won't fly."

--------------

Novak and Woodward are not journalists; they are, in my opinion, Bush regime operatives, spouting Bushite "talking points," acting as shills for this illegitimate and murderous regime, and seeing to the interests of war profiteers. Their behavior in the Plame matter has been treasonous. They should both be driven out of journalism, if not worse. What an utter disgrace they both are to their profession, and what scumbags they are, compared to the honest and courageous people of this country who are trying to stop the killing in Iraq, and restore democracy here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
10. Hadley dodged the question too
Hadley didn't deny being the source. After reading that ("...national-security adviser Stephen Hadley, denied being the source...") I concluded that the rest of the article wouldn't be reliable either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC