BREAKING NEWS: Woodward told Armitage about Plame!

[BuyingThyme]

Yes, contrary to what you've been trained to believe, Bob Woodward told Richard Armitage that it was common knowledge that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

That's right, Armitage was not hardly the first to tell Woodward that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. However, Armitage was (evidently) the first to tell Woodward precisely what she did there.

The fact of the matter is that Woodward was not at all surprised when Armitage brought up the fact that Plame worked at the CIA. That was old news to him. He even said so. He asked why it has to be a big secret, being that, "Everyone knows."

Don't believe me? Look at the transcript:

Woodward: But it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency. I mean that's just--

Armitage: His wife works in the agency.

Woodward: --Why doesn't that come out? Why does--

Armitage: Everyone knows it.

Woodward: --that have to be a big secret? Everyone knows.

LOOK:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Audio_of_Armitage_leaking_Wilsons_wife_0212.html

LISTEN:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/02/12/libby.mp3

So, how do you supposed Bob Woodward already knew that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA? And why did he say that "Everyone knows"? And why did every major news agency misreport this story when the tape came out on February 12, 2007?

Well, it seems that the tape was produced solely for the purpose of making people believe that Valerie Plame's classified relationship with the CIA was common knowledge around D.C.

That was Plan A. Remember?

Woodward, who never wrote about Plame, and columnist Robert Novak, who first identified her in print, testified that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage first told them in the summer of 2003 that the wife of prominent Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/12/politics/main2463194.shtml

Woodward said that prior to the interview with Armitage he had not known that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2869230&page=1&cid=0&ei=uBfRReK1NcCYsgHJr8H4Dw

[BuyingThyme]

1. Washington Post (Bob's Rag) Steps Over Incriminating Evidence...!

and Jumps to the WMD:

Defense lawyers won permission to play for the jury a tape of his interview with Armitage. It showed a Woodward interview style that, in contrast to his broad narratives, is equal parts staccato, gossipy and profane.

Armitage: "His wife's a (expletive) analyst at the agency."

Woodward: "It's still weird."

Armitage: It's perfect . . . she is a WMD analyst out there."

Woodward: "Oh, she is."

Armitage: "Yeah.

Woodward: "Oh, I see."

Armitage: "(Expletive) look at it."

Woodward: "Oh I see. I didn't (expletive) . . ."

Armitage: "His wife is in the agency and is a WMD analyst. How about that (expletive)?"

The jurors chuckled as they listened to the scrubbed transcript.

"You redacted some words that were offensive," Woodward observed.

"Expletives? Yes," Jeffress answered.

Woodward seemed disappointed. "In the raw," he said, "it has a little more fire."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201464_pf.html

[BuyingThyme]

2. Another WAPO Article Ignores Incriminating Evidence, Provides Cover

Woodward's testimony would make him the first journalist known to have been told about Plame by a Bush administration official. At the time of his interview with Armitage, Woodward said, he had learned through reporting that Wilson was the former ambassador who was sent to Africa by the CIA, and he was surprised Wilson's name had not yet surfaced publicly.

In a tape recording of the interview played for the jury, Armitage explains that the CIA took the Niger claim out of a presidential speech in October 2002 but it somehow found its way into Bush's State of the Union address months later. Woodward is heard asking about Wilson and how he happened to make the Niger trip. Some expletives in the conversation were redacted for the jury.

Armitage explains that "his wife works at the agency" on "WMD" issues.

"High enough that wife can say, 'Oh, yeah, hubby will go?' " Woodward asks.

Armitage responds that Wilson "knows Africa," and he ends the conversation with "How about that ?" . . ."

Armitage: "His wife is in the agency and is a WMD analyst. How about that ?"

The jurors chuckled as they listened to the scrubbed transcript.

"You redacted some words that were offensive," Woodward observed.

"Expletives? Yes," Jeffress answered.

Woodward seemed disappointed. "In the raw," he said, "it has a little more fire."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021200588_pf.html

In reality, Woodward was pretending to be surprised about the fact that Joe Wilson's wife had not yet been publicly outed as a CIA operative (being that, "Everyone knows," and all).

[Garbo 2004]

3. "Everyone knew" that Joe Wilson was the "anonymous" former ambassador who was sent to Niger &

was a source for Kristov and Pincus. It wasn't much of a secret, although Wilson had yet to go public. Wilson had been trying to get the WH to retract the Niger claims for months and had been a thinly veiled anonymous source for the media. That's what Woodward's "everyone knows" refers to.

[BuyingThyme]

4. I know what you're saying, but if Woodward had learned about

that via news reports (as he claims), why would he ask, "Why doesn't that come out?"?

And if you listen further along, what Woodward actually learns about Plame is that she's a "WMD analyst." That's when he puts the pieces together. Knowing Plame worked for the CIA wasn't enough (supposedly).

The whole purpose of this tape is to make it look like the media knew that Plame worked at the CIA, but didn't know what she did there. This creates a gray area for people who don't want to be busted for outing a CIA agent (who works in WMD).

[BuyingThyme]

5. kcik

[BuyingThyme]

6. kcik

[Cha]

7. This is what Michael Tomasky had

to say about the sludge bobwoodward..

"Scooter Libby-Guilty As Charged"

"...So what does this mean? At least three important things. First, the verdict means that it's now been officially established in a court of law that the administration was engaged in a campaign to discredit an undercover officer and a diplomat, Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. Libby's defense - that he learned about Plame's identity from journalists - paralleled the administration's public arguments that it made no effort to try to expose Plame and Wilson to criticism. The jury didn't buy that.

Second, the verdict vindicates the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald. Mountains of calumny have been heaped on him by the right since he brought the indictment against Libby. Conservatives were waiting for an acquittal to pounce on Fitzgerald, on Wilson, on Plame - and on Democrats and liberals generally for having made a federal case out of nothing. They would have used an acquittal to shut down all the talk about the manipulation of pre-war intelligence, which was Joe Wilson's initial accusation. And not only conservatives - a lot of the paragons of Washington morality (yes, an oxymoron) were waiting, too. Bob Woodward, who used to be a great investigative reporter, once called Fitzgerald a "junkyard dog prosecutor". Can't be said now.

Third and most important, the guilty verdict means that pre-war intelligence manipulation will continue to be a political issue. When it was in Republican hands, the United States Senate summarily shut down an inquiry into the matter. Now that Democrats are in charge, they will pursue it. The trial was focused on Libby, but questions remain about how directly Cheney and chief presidential aide Karl Rove were involved in all this. The verdict gives Democrats, who by dint of their majority control can now subpoena administration officials, added momentum to turn over the rocks. A juror said that Libby, though guilty, was just a "fall guy". Congress now has to look higher than Libby's level, especially at Cheney.

Far from being the sideshow that conservatives and moralists like Woodward described, this trial was always centrally about the Iraq war. The Bush administration built much of its case for invasion on lies. When those lies were exposed, its response was to try to destroy the whistleblowers - even one who was a covert CIA officer.

Here's what one noted American had to say about this kind of behavior: "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." The speaker was George Bush Sr, in 1999. And that's exactly what his son oversaw."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x267011

Mr Disingenous bobwoodward

[BuyingThyme]

8. If anybody's out there, listen to the tape at the 56-second mark.

I hear an edit before Armitage is picked up mid rant:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/02/12/libby.mp3

What do you hear?

[Catherine Vincent]

9. What do you want to happen now?

Fitzgerald can still be contacted in case you didn't know that.

[BuyingThyme]

10. I guess I want people to pay attention enough to force

their representatives (and John Conyers) to pick this thing up.

Fitzgerald told the world that the White House (Cheney) masterminded a scheme to keep him from finding out what actually happened, and I think we should demand that Congress find out for us.

[Catherine Vincent]

11. Well hopefully it will be brought up at the hearing next week.