Posted on 03/13/2006 8:02:26 AM PST by blogblogginaway
I read an article over the weekend, don't specifically recall where, but I suspect FR, that discussed a repporter that very recently subscribed to an on-line data service and surfaced 100's of CIA employees.
Not that I know of but then I'm not in any orchestra. I think a lot broke over the weekend in the Chi Tribune and at YARGB and Just One Minute on one side and on the other Vanity Fair got a juicy tidbit from Bradlee that underscored it .
Armitage (and the State Dept) was against going to war in Iraq. He would have a strong desire to bad mouth the CIA and the their intelligence. The CIA, while saying Wilson's trip to Niger did not provide anything new, they believed the trip actually supported the claim that Iraq pursued yellow cake in Niger. So while the Niger thing and Wilson's trip was in the news Armitage was mostly likely questioned about it by reporters (probably Woodward and Novak and others) he probably said to ignore Wilson's CIA Niger trip because Joe is a hack and his wife was the one who actually sent him.
I believe that Armitage was not trying to "get Joe", he was trying to "get the CIA" and discredit their intelligence claims.
I have no idea why Fitzgerald is ignoring Armitage's role in this whole Plame thing...especially since he was probably the first person to mention her to reporters.
"I have no idea why Fitzgerald is ignoring Armitage's role in this whole Plame thing...especially since he was probably the first person to mention her to reporters."
There is also the "how does novak fit in" question.
BUMP!
Armitage appears to have been the source for BOTH Novak and Woodward. Moreover, it appears that when he was interviewd by the SP he never disclosed this--either becuse he wasn't asked or because he "forgot".
Which is why the Chicago Tribune reported that no true "undercover" agent would ever be assigned to headquarters or an embassy.
"Which is why the Chicago Tribune reported that no true "undercover" agent would ever be assigned to headquarters or an embassy."
They might not drive their own car...
I've been posting for months that the leak had to come from STATE, probably Powell or Armitage. Here are the reasons:
1.Ex-Ambassador writes critical Op-Ed about Bush Administration and his trip to Africa. If you're a reporter, where do you go to find out about an ex-ambassador? the Agriculture department?
2. There were reports that the story got around on the President's plane on a trip to Europe that week. Libby and Rove weren't on the plane. State dept. personnel were.
The reason the MSM hasn't pursued this is because they LOVE Armitage and Powell. They woulnd't want to hurt their friends--and the leak couldn't be a political strategy by Rove if those two guys were responsible. They wouldn't pee on Rove or Libby if they were on fire.
I wonder what colin powell's role was in all of this.
R-U-S-S-E-R-T
That hideous, odious Armitage!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Colin's right hand slug....IT MUST BE CHRISTMAS!!
Oh. please...Armitage was a Bush-basher.....this is GREAT news!!
BTTT!
Ahhh - Libby has been vilified, career ruined - threat of jail over his head for months - all on false and frivolous charges...all in a phony attempt to get Chaney and smear Bush.
Now that he's finally being given some vindication - he shouldn't get his day in the courts of MSM that worked with so hard with the libs to sink him?
Do you also not care about the news that the judge in Texas threw out the mass of subpoenas brought against him - well, here,,,"A state appeals court Monday gave U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay a legal and public relations victory by throwing out more than 30 subpoenas..." and the rest of the story is 'news" also -
When people have been viciously and wrongly vilified, threatened and charged - dragged for months through the media - don't they have the right to the expectation that when things are ruled in their favor that that also gets media play?
exactly right.
there ARE no leakers - she was not "covert" - it was hatched up to try to get Chaney/Rove and embarrass Bush - that has been clear from the get go.
geeeeze, folks
I said this where, exactly?
Get off your high horse. I don't care. That is a statement about the insistent play of the story in the media as compared to its importance. Spare me your self-congratulatory concern for Libby. Your need to preen causes you to simply INVENT a position for me-- "don't they have the right to the expectation that when things are ruled in their favor that that also gets media play?" Yeah--when, precisely, did I say they didn't?
I'm sick of this useless, pointless story; I never suggested Libby shouldn't be vindicated, so your entire post is completely worthless--simply making my point about the silliness of all that swirls around this story.
Other than that, nice talking with you.
both him and Delay and many other pubs who have been maliciously and with malice aforethought maligned and had their careers and reputations ruined.
If these attack dogs continue to get away with these tactics scot free -they will continue to take down pubs one by one.
They know they are lying in their teeth, but it works for them - and without consequences - no reason not to charge on
the only truth I've ever heard in regards to this whole evil plot
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.