Audacity of Truth
Rahmbo:
"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn. He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."
-Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) on Obama's COS, 3/7/10
Velvet Lair- Legends March 18, 2010
- Some things are just not cute March 18, 2010
- The adventures of the lady spider killer continue March 11, 2010
- Intermission February 19, 2010
- People who allow their dogs to poop in other people’s yards February 16, 2010
Former WaPo exec. editor Ben Bradlee: Woodward’s source may be Armitage
The speculation over the ‘leaker’ of Valerie Plame’s name continues, this time with former Washington Post executive editor Bill Bradlee saying it’s a “fair assumption” that former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage was Bob Woodward’s source on Valerie Plame:
Vanity Fair is reporting that former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee says it is reasonable to assume former State Department official Richard L. Armitage is likely the source who revealed CIA operative Valerie Plame’s name to Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward.
In an article to be published in the magazine today, Bradlee is quoted as saying: “That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption.” Armitage was deputy secretary of state in President Bush’s first term.
In an interview yesterday, Bradlee said he does know the identity of Woodward’s source and does not recall making that precise statement to a Vanity Fair reporter. He said he has no interest in unmasking the official who first told Woodward about Plame in June 2003.
“I don’t think I said it,” Bradlee said. “I know who his source is, and I don’t want to get into it. . . . I have not told a soul who it is.”
The identity of Woodward’s source emerged as one of the big mysteries of the CIA case after he disclosed last year that a government official with no ax to grind had told him about Plame, an undercover operative, a month before her name was revealed by columnist Robert D. Novak. Since then, guessing Woodward’s source has been a Washington parlor game.
Back in November, Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff from Newsweek speculated much the same. Reposting from that article with emphasis added by me:
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.
If Armitage was the original leaker, that undercuts the argument that outing Plame was a plot by the hard-liners in the veep’s office to “out” Plame. Armitage was, if anything, a foe of the neocons who did not want to go to war in Iraq. He had no motive to discredit Wilson. On “Larry King Live” last month, Woodward was dismissive of the special prosecutor’s investigation, suggesting that the original leak was not the result of a “smear campaign” but rather a “kind of gossip, as chatter … I don’t see an underlying crime here.”
As always, the go-to-guys for analysis and perspective on the latest in the pLamegate ‘controversy’ are Tom Maguire and AJ Strata. Captain Ed and Macsmind each give their .02 as well.
The usual suspects will still keep pushing this issue as though it is a scandal, but almost weekly now we get more information that suggests that this was, as have so many of the ’scandals’ that have been alleged under this adminstration, mostly sound and fury, signifying … well, you know the rest.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
19 Responses to “Former WaPo exec. editor Ben Bradlee: Woodward’s source may be Armitage”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Makes sense. The outing was not only to discredit Wilson, it was also to stop Plame’s intelligence gathering on Iran’s nuclear program. That way they let a few years go by and replay the Iraq game- plan using Iran as the “evil-doer”, this time. And the USA is just the country to help the world out given our sucess in Iraq. Only Iraq isn’t a sucess and nobody wants to attack Iran. Seems as if “the best laid plans of mice and men”, went into the crapper. Peace
Ignoring the mental instability of the previous post, MY position is that the Bush Haters in the CIA decided to out one of their less effective and expendable compadres. Plame was too stupid to “watch her six” when it came to keeping her cover when she met Wilson. She’s too quick to be photographed and too happy to be in the press.
The Bush Hating press was only too happy to show their disdain for the law as they went on a jihad to get any “Bushie” they could and maybe pull down Bush himself.
I think Armitage is the current red herring to keep the internal investigators waay from the true leakers and to keep in the press the issue, but not truthfully so. It gives the far left moonbats and jackasses something to make noise with, the useful idiots.
hmm crapper seems right where you pulled your information steve.
Libby whom everyone seems to say leaked the information, that wasn’t a leak, since the special prosecutor isn’t charging him with that. The only thing that libby is charged with is lying about it.
As much as you want to say it, doesn’t mean it is true. In fact I did post about her supposed status HERE
See, that is what we do here steve, we debate, talk about things and back it up with PROOF.
We don’t come in and constantly give lil’ tired one-liners and expect people to take us seriously.
Man, Fitzmas is turning out to really suck isn’t it?
I just want Democrats and the MSM to decide – are leaks good or bad? Could it be that those who wear the Scarlet “R” are automatically guilty of a crime-to-be-named-after-indictment-trial-and-public-hanging?
While we’re at it, I’d also like to get their definition between a leaker and a whistleblower![:-\](http://sistertoldjah.com/smilies/yahoo_question.gif ":-\")
hehe. No, that would require parity. What are you thinking?
Excellent question ST!
You must know by now that a leaker is a conservative and a whistleblower is a liberal.
Did you ever wonder why liberals stand by their convictions but conservatives are considered close-minded?
And why do conservatives conduct witch-hunts while liberals investigate official misconduct?
Did you ever wonder why liberals seek support from the religious “community” but conservatives impose their religion on others?
Isn’t it odd that liberals enact laws for the good of the people and then accuse conservatives of imposing their morality on others?
A “leaker” can be seen by their sludge trail. If the information you provide is meant to be destructive of legal activity, it is a “leak” and the person providing it is a “leaker”. If the information provided helps to uncover wrong doing or illegal activity it is “whistleblowing”, and the provider is a “whistlebloeer”. The Plame “leak” was done to discredit Wilson. The NSA “whistleblower” was pointing out illegal activity being conducted by the bush administration. Peace
- Nice way to circumvent the laws Steve-oh, trying to “protect” your “get Bush” leakers, lawbreakers that knew exactly what they were doing when they deliberately sidestepped the very lawful way they are given to take steps to expose “wrong-doing” when they think its needed. Every gov. employee signs a pledge not to do exactly that, break the law. Theres a perfectly legal means provided for them, with full job protection covering them in every way.
- Sooooo. when people choose to go outside the law its obvious they have some ideolog driven agenda. Theres no other excuse, including your weak attemps to cover their butts, and try to explain away what they’ve done.
- Might be nice if the hard left gave a damn about the peoples lives they ruin in their mad rush to “get Bush”. But from the nature of everything else they do, it would be asking way too much for a moonbat to show that sort of compassion. “THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS!!! (no matter who it hurts)
- Characterless losers. Period!
- Bang’s Fangs
“get bush”, you mean like get Clinton and get Kerry and get so many others? “You live by the sword, you die by the sword”…that means everybody who uses violence, even bush. “mad rush to get bush”, bush got himself by being arrogant and stupid. Peace
Is that what you call a response Steve-oh… Focus. The subject was “leakers” and your limp wristed attempts to defend the indefensible. Remember now….
- See….its easy…. even for you….
- Bang
Is that what you call a response Bang? Using pejorative terms? (look it up,dipshit). Why can’t you stay on focus?
And yes, this is what I call a response to your light in the loafers changing of the subject.
Ohhhh …. Leetle Stevie needs a protector….Except he sent a boy to do a mans job. Guess you need reminding to “jac”….The subject is how you sacrifice your own people by instigating them into breaking the law. “Leakers”.
- But your attention span doesn’t appear to be any better than your chum Steve. The typical adhominem refuge of the Liberal with a battleship mouth, and a rowboat ass. Bring it on Sparky….
- Bang
jac, Bang was on topic. Please stop making the posters here the topic matter, rather than the actual topic being discussed. I left your insult to Bang up only because he’d responded to it in kind before I got saw it.
- Continuing the thread…. Back when this whole kerfluffle started I asked two simple questions, wondering if anyone on the left was honest enough to just come out with a straight answer(s). The first was why the “leakers” just had to go to8 a known Liberal rag with the information, instead of any number of Democratic Senators on the hill, or for that matter the lawfull way, using the “whistle blowers” process they knew intimately and had a greed too.
Nada. Never got an answer, other than one guy who said, “What, and have the whole scandal buried”… which led natuarlly to my second qiestion.
“Is your side so cynical, paranoid, and basically unstable that you don’t even trust your own Congressman?”
- Again I never got an straight answer. But I guess thats what you do when you’ve lost everything in sight and all you have left is disembling, evasions, or personal attacks like we just witnessed.
- Bang
Bang that is how dhimmicrats debate, here is proof from Senator Russ Feingold (D – Wisconsin) 30 minute whine about his resolution to censure President Bush, he immediately left the floor and denied debate to Senator Arlen Specter (R – PA).
from Expose the Left
Debate? What debate?
He makes his statements, and refuses debate and walks out of the room.
Is this is such an important issue why not stick around, DEBATE, talk about it, get it out in the open.
Same as here, don’t spout off and not have any proof, because you will be called on it.
- Sometimes its simply unbelievable, watching the leaders on the left. they want back in power, scramble and lie and try every ploy they can think of to regain power. They want to lead but they act like a bunch of sour grapes losers and petulant children that lost their lollipop. Amazing. Who do they imagine will back them for positions of leadership when thats the manner they comport themselves in when in a tough situation. It sends a very strong message they’d do exactly the same thing when faced with the dangers of the WOT, or any other crisus America had to deal with. We saw what the excellance of Democratic leadership can do in Katrina. Thanks, but no thanks.
- Bang