Proof that Woodward's a spook

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Bob Woodward

Postby starroute » Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:09 pm

Adm. Thomas H. Moorer was an epitomal figure from the World War II generation of crazy, anti-communist, extreme right-wing generals. I'm not saying Woodward played any part in the nuttiness listed below -- after his one initial stint under Moorer, he appears to have taken a very different path. But first impressions are lasting impressions, and it's important to know that Moorer was not merely a respectable military man who inexplicably happened to get his subordinates caught up in snooping on the White House. <br><br>Moorer was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Richard Nixon. According to my notes, while in that position, he had Naval Intelligence agents tap Henry Kissinger's phone and remove documents from Nixon's desk.<br><br>In the 1970's, Moorer became a member of Team B, the group consisting of Neocons and military-industrial complex types which was put together by then-CIA director George H.W. Bush to develop arguments why the Soviet Union really was a threat even if the CIA didn't think so. <br><br>Moorer also had many ties with the extreme right-wing. He was on the advisory board of the Western Goals Foundation, a private spy agency created in 1979 by former Congressman Larry MacDonald to collect dirt on the left. (Western Goals was strongly associated with both the John Birch Society, of which MacDonald became president in 1983, and the Council for National Policy.) Moorer was also on the advisory board of Reed Irvine's Accuracy in Media and was a vice-president of the American Security Council.<br><br>In 1998, Moorer testified in the "Tailwind" suit, involving CIA use of poison gas to kill defectors in Laos in 1970: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/pandora/sarin_gas_confirmed.html">www.fromthewilderness.com...irmed.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>In 2001, Moorer and General Singlaub (old OSS hand and former head of the World Anti-Communist League) were proclaiming the necessity of war on Iraq, Iran, and Syria -- while simultaneously warning that this could leave an opening for China to take over Taiwan or North Korea to invade South Korea: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/2/222750.shtml">www.newsmax.com/archives/...2750.shtml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>At least one right-wing conspiracy site was willing to interpret them as Illuminati trying to bring about the Anti-Christ: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.cuttingedge.org/NEWS/n1555.cfm">www.cuttingedge.org/NEWS/n1555.cfm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <p></p><i></i>
starroute
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:01 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

larry met larry

Postby dbeach » Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:43 pm

"Congressman Larry MacDonald <br><br>Anyways, in the early '80s publisher Larry Flynt's Hustler magazine began sporting hard hitting and serious investigative anti-conspiracy journalism in its pages. Larry Flynt came into orbit with researcher Mae Brussell after she contacted him and explained who the personnel involved in the failed assassination attempt against him were which put Flynt permanently in a wheelchair. He was so impressed that this widowed housewife living in Carmel, California could know all this when his own security team were apparently stumped. Brussell and Flynt thus became closely associated and Mae began writing articles that Larry Flynt published in Hustler. (See www.maebrussell.com.) <br><br>As time progressed well into 1983, Flynt offered Brussell her own magazine so she could get exposure outside of Hustler. Flynt said, "Your stuff is so important and so great, Mae, I can give you a serious magazine with no nude pictures that'll go up against Time and Newsweek and you can be at the helm as editor and we'll pursue these gangsters ruining our country relentlessly. You pick who you want to write for it, I'll put up whatever money needed." Mae said: "Thanks, Larry, I'll write for your new magazine, but I don't want to be the editor." <br><br>Flynt's Rebel magazine ran a brief couple months as an all news alternative to Newsweek and Time; debuting Nov 22/83, created so that top-down researchers like Mae Brussell would have a voice in exposing the Kennedy assassination and the Fourth Reich in America, not to mention so many other ongoing related and active conspiracies that Flynt personally and patriotically, maybe foolishly, was determined to reveal to all of America. Larry Flynt was spearheading a serious revolution. He was essentially exposing the Iran Contra players three years before such a phrase existed and the ties of the present White House to the global fascist cartels and the victors and plotters of the Kennedy assassination. This every week for the American public. The Reagan-Bush Whitehouse team sized Flynt up as a real threat and so trusty assets G Gordon Liddy and Gordon Novel dispatched themselves upon Larry's empire. Being Larry Flynt meant that this stuff would be displayed in all major outlets like 7-11, Lawsons, etc. For the unfamiliar, G. Gordon Liddy went to jail for the Watergate burglary rather than testifying against Nixon or any of the team. <br><br>Mae made a case far before Washington Post's Bernstien/Woodward about the Watergate burglary and how it linked back to the teams involved in the Kennedy murder and the massive ball of militaryindustrialfeudal wax that encompasses. That article appeared in The Realist magazine along with another hard hitting article linking the Symbionese Liberation Army to government/private mind control operations/MK Ultra. Lyndon Larouche's researchers also published alot of frightening stuff in this early '70s period about these synthetic radical groups that very much coincides with Mae's research. Imagine who put up the significant amount of money for these articles to be researched and written by Mae and published in The Realist? John Lennon. <br><br>Frank Zappa knew and liked Larry Flynt and did a spot for an issue of Hustler, where he got to direct the models how he'd like them to pose. Frank also was really taken by Mae, who helped him with his case about labelling of records with parental guidance stickers, showing how it was a smokescreen for a blank recording tax. Mr. Zappa goes to Washington. Frank gave Mae a computer as a gift. John Lennon thought Frank Zappa was great and wished he could be him since Frank could make uncommercial music or whatever he felt like doing, still make a decent living and go out on the streets without being harassed unduly. <br><br>Gorden Novel, like Liddy, has a deep politics resume. Put his name on the web and you find few links, including directly to the CIA itself with files dating back to the Warren Commission and Kennedy assassination. Go to these government sites at your own risk, I'd imagine, since inquiries about Gordon Novel are far and few between and might garner attention and interest in the person inquiring; best to do that stuff at internet cafes if in doubt. New Orleans DA Jim Garrison was unable to successfully supoena Novel to testify as a key witness in the Kennedy plot, something Novel denies being part of. Novel, though, warned publically at the time that if anyone tried to kill him in the event he might legally be forced to speak in court, he had a letter in a safe outlining everything he knows and who he's worked for that would be released to a number of major media outlets in the event of his untimely death and would shake the foundations of the power structure. Garrison couldn't extradite Novel to New Orleans for the Kennedy assassination trial and Novel continued to appear now and again at pivotal events, like getting an in with Flynt. After Liddy and Novel departed, Larry Flynt was almost vegetable, his wife dead from AIDS, and Hustler purged of its investigative articles and writing team and Rebel eliminated from existence altogether. <br><br>By early '84, Rebel was no more. Mae said they'd given Flynt painkillers that fucked his judgement up and made him want to jump from an airplane to his death to protest the New York Times' refusal to let him buy a full page carrying his view of the KAL 007 disaster. Advertisers naturally wouldn't touch Rebel, except for a few obscure companies; it was remarkable to witness information as a real threat. You won't hear about this in the Larry Flynt movie, I imagine, so this is actually significant history not in the books. As Ed Mirvish says: "You lucky people!" <br><br>Now, back to Gordon Novel and G Gordon Liddy. Could you imagine that Flynt has these two hanging out with him at his house and eating with him while working with Mae Brussell who had been exposing Liddy and Novel for years as dangerous operatives on behalf of the military industrial complex she and Flynt were hoping to resist? Mae repeatedly warned Flynt to "get these people out of your house." Flynt, a self-made man, thought he could handle them. After it was all over he admitted: "Mae, you were right, I never should have let these guys in." <br><br>How did Novel get an in with Flynt? Allegedly by supplying him with covertly taken photographs of Republican congressman Larry MacDonald, an extreme right, bible thumping figure, and a return-to-Christian values programmer, having sex with a woman other than his wife. Flynt published them in Hustler along with a lewd variation on "Old MacDonald Had A Farm." <br><br>No matter; Larry was as good as dead anyways. When congressman Larry MacDonald was on his way to the World Anti-Communist League meeting in South Korea, Senator Jesse Helms and 34 others in the delegation took one flight to the meeting, Larry was placed all alone on another flight: KAL 007, which was blown up in mid air when it intentionally entered Soviet airspace for two and a half hours as the pilot was instructed to do and was subsequently blown up. The pilot's wife doubled his life insurance policy just before the flight after he warned her that he was doing a risky flight. "<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.wavelengthtoronto.com/regulars/matrix/02_01.html">www.wavelengthtoronto.com...02_01.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Last week when Warren was hanging around...

Postby banned » Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:26 am

...our Dear Goobernator I found myself thinking about "The Parallax View", especially the ending, and wondering why in the hell Warren after doing a film that showed what happens to someone who tried to expose what was really going on would have any interest in getting into politics. <br><br>Maybe he thought it was 'just a movie', like "Bulworth."<br><br>Or maybe he's just another shill in the shell game. Whenever one of their boys is going down, the PTB always have another sock puppet in the wings to ensure that in their discontent the people don't actually turn to someone who hasn't already sold their soul, who might actually save them. <br><br>Us.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
banned
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:18 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Proof that Woodward's a spook

Postby rocco322 » Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:36 am

American President Breaks Back of Massive Israeli Mossad Operation in United States, Horrific Retribution Feared<br><br>By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Russian Subscribers<br><br>In what Russian Intelligence Analysts are describing as one of the most successful and sophisticated Intelligence Operations ever conducted, and which has effectively ‘broken the back’ of the renegade Israeli Mossad penetration into the highest regions of the American Government, the United States today under the orders of President Bush have indicted the known head of Mossad Operations in North America, Conrad Black, and as we can read as reported by the Bloomberg News Service in their article titled "Conrad Black, Ex-Hollinger Chief, Indicted for Fraud", and which says:<br><br>"Conrad Black, the onetime press magnate who built Hollinger International Inc. into the world´s third-largest publisher of English-language newspapers, was charged with helping steal $51.8 million from the company.<br><br>The 61-year-old former chairman and chief executive officer of Hollinger International, along with three former company executives, was accused of wire fraud and mail fraud in an 11- count indictment unsealed in Chicago today. Prosecutors issued a warrant for the arrest of Black, who´s been a British lord since 2001. He faces as much as 40 years in jail and $2 million in fines if convicted on all charges."<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Simultaneous actions by United States Intelligence Agencies have also ‘neutralized’ the former United States Naval Intelligence Officer, and President Nixon nemesis, Bob Woodward, and as we can read as reported by the Boston Globe</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> News Service in their article titled "Post urged to probe Woodward´s role in CIA case" and which says:<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>"Joseph Wilson, the husband of outed CIA operative Valerie Plame, called on Thursday for an inquiry by The Washington Post into the conduct of journalist Bob Woodward, who repeatedly criticized th.stigation without disclosing his own involvement</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. "It certainly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. He was taking an advocacy position when he was a party to it," said Wilson, joining media critics in questioning the role of one of the best-known investigative reporters in the United States.<br><br>Woodward disclosed that he testified under oath on Monday to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that a senior Bush administration official casually told him in mid-June 2003 about Plame´s position at the CIA."<br><br>The late former American President, Richard Nixon, was the last United States Leader to attempt the destruction of renegade Israeli Mossad penetration into their government’s higher echelons, and to whose efforts led to his having to resign his Presidency due to impeachment proceedings begun against him in the United States Congress. President Nixon had led the United States efforts to prevent the penetration by Israeli socialist and communist elements into the American government during his terms as a United States Legislator and Vice President during the 1940’s and 1950’s.<br><br>Upon his ascendancy to the American President Leadership role in the 1960’s, President Nixon began to attack the Israeli Mossad infiltration of the United States Government and the Media, but to which he was ultimately turned out of office for doing so.<br><br>President Nixon’s anger at the previous American administrations response to the attack by Israeli Military Forces upon a US Naval Warship, the USS Liberty, in 1967, coupled with his fears of Israel’s attempts to acquire nuclear weapons led his efforts, and as we can read as reported by the Guardian Unlimited News Service in their article titled "Nixon Papers Show Worry Over Israel Nukes" <br><br><...><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index852.htm">www.whatdoesitmean.com/index852.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rocco322>rocco322</A> at: 11/18/05 3:43 am<br></i>
rocco322
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 9:18 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Proof that Woodward's a spook

Postby Qutb » Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:30 am

Sorcha Faal/Whatdoesitmean just makes things up, I think. She tells the most incredible stories that never pan out. <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Proof that Woodward's a spook

Postby Dreams End » Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:46 am

like that matters... <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Proof that Woodward's a spook

Postby dbeach » Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:49 am

QUTB<br><br>Sorcha is a fraud she may have bits of truth but she is a he and he is a fear monger sorcha has been debinked all over and jeff rense called him out some DU guy debunked her with facts its all still in google KGB agent is my bet RI keeps giving her life ?? <br><br>Iam still reeling from Indira Singh<br><br>NOW that is real stuff<br> <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

WaPo newsroom: intranet abuzz

Postby banned » Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:41 pm

Thursday, Nov 17<br>A Leaky Post Newsroom<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/newspapers">www.mediabistro.com/fishb...newspapers</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>/a_leaky_post_newsroom_28379.asp#more<br><br>The Post's internal critiques are proving to be a real opportunity for internal discussion -- and the critiques in the wake of the Bob Woodward controversy of this week are no exception.<br><br>Now in the wake of more revelations and debates over leaked information, the internal message boards are humming with a debate over, well, leaks from the message boards.<br><br>Today they're debating the propriety of the critiques, given that the more interesting ones often end up leaking outside the newsroom--and being posted on blogs, running in Washingtonian magazine, and even--horror of horrors--being quoted by Howard Kurtz in the paper itself.<br><br>"I hardly see any point in having critiques and comments if they are to be publicized outside the paper. How can we write candidly when candor merely invites violations of confidentiality? Many readers say they distrust us. Well, now I find myself wondering if we can trust each other," the Post's Jonathan Yardley writes.<br><br>Full debate after the jump.<br><br>Charles Babington: I feel like we're ignoring the 800-pound elephant on our front page: Bob Woodward. Every day, scores of Post reporters press, cajole, badger, demand, implore people to tell us things they might not want to. When they demur, we try to convince them they should talk to the Washington Post even if they talk to no one else. Today we report that our assistant managing editor, and surely our most famous staffer, "declined to elaborate on the statement he released to The Post late yesterday afternoon and publicly last night. He would not answer any questions, including those not governed by his confidentiality agreement with sources." I admire the hell out of Bob, but this looks awful.<br><br>Charles Lane: Babington, I second that emotion. If I could interview Bob, my question would be: I teach an ethics in journalism course at Georgetown U. every Thursday. How should I explain all of this to the class when, inevitably, they ask about it tomorrow night?<br><br>Robert E. Pierre: Chuck is right. It does look awful and it impacts on the credibility that each of us individually, and collectively, have as we make our case to people about why they should trust us. I certainly understand that national security and the presidency and the Supreme Court are murky topics that sometimes will require us to make deals with people to get information. But I think this whole affair of journalists and politicians using anonymity to trade information and then cast themselves as protectors of the common good stinks. These tradeoffs that we make--arguably to tell what we believe are revelatory stories--are often well beyond the understanding of our readers who go about their lives in worlds in which comments, good and bad, are attached to the names of real people they can go back and question. They can decide a person's credibility for themselves, examine their motives and make an informed decision. When we do that for them, and promise that we will tell them as much as we know, we must, absolutely must, not waiver from that promise. When we do, we all pay the price, not just those people whose names are splashed in the headlines.<br><br>Jonathan Yardley: To the matter rightly raised by Chuck Babington: This is the logical and perhaps inevitable outcome when an institution permits an individual to become larger than the institution itself. However able and accomplished the individual -- and I agree that Woodward is both -- the institution pays the cost when he or she is permitted to operate within its purview yet under a different set of rules. There are a few others on the paper about whom the same could be said. Perhaps the current embarrassment (for embarrassment it most certainly is) will provide the occasion for re-examining the star system and its attendant risks. This is a big, influential newspaper, one of perhaps the half-dozen best in the world, but it will never be fully mature until it understands that the institution's interests take priority over any employee's, and until it puts that understanding into practice. Judy Miller was granted star status, and look what happened to her -- and to the Times.<br><br>Valerie Strauss: Couldn't have said the above any better, so I won't try. Query: When did Bob Woodward tell Len Downie about this, and was it before or after Bart Gellman's 10/30 reconstruction of the Libby case?<br><br>Jonathan Yardley: The comment of mine two paragraphs above has been leaked, presumably by someone in the newsroom, to the New York Times. Katharine Seelye called me an hour ago pressing for further comment. I declined, stressing that this is a confidential internal critique written solely for the news staff of TWP and refusing to authorize her to quote from it. She called back half an hour later to say that her editor had told her to go ahead and quote from the comment anyway. I told her I expected her to make plain that this is a confidential internal document and that she is quoting from it over the objections of the person who wrote it. She said she would. We'll see.<br><br>I hardly see any point in having critiques and comments if they are to be publicized outside the paper. How can we write candidly when candor merely invites violations of confidentiality? Many readers say they distrust us. Well, now I find myself wondering if we can trust each other.<br><br>Andy Mosher: That low hum we all hear is James Madison spinning in his grave.<br><br>Jeff Leen: Before we draw and quarter Woodward for making a mistake that he has apologized for, let's take a moment to remember what the man has meant to this institution. Bob would be the first to tell you that he is not bigger than this institution, and I do not think it is fair to claim that he operates off the reservation or by his own set of journalistic rules that do not comport with ours. This is no time to trot out the Judy Miller comparisons. I worked with him on the stories he wrote that won this paper the Pulitzer for national reporting after 9/11. I, for one, would not question his methods. Bob does the hard work and the digging and when he makes a promise to a source, he keeps it, as all of us should. He didn't produce a line of coverage that was flat-out wrong. He didn't mislead his editors, he simply didn't tell them something he should have. That is serious, I grant you. But understandable under the circumstances. He chose not to participate in a story that would have had the end result of unmasking his sources. Now, maybe you make your living with anonymous sources or maybe you don't, but if you do, you know one thing, and that is that you do not reveal your sources when the heat is on or under any other circumstance--when it is politically expedient or when it is economically expedient or when it is journalistically expedient or when it is legally expedient. If your source is the devil, you keep his confidence. Anonymous sources have to be used carefully. They have to be checked and triangulated and buttressed with documents and other sources. Bob Woodward is the most careful person I know in the use of unnamed sources. Over his more than 30-year career there is no Wen Ho Lee or WMD or anything else like that. The man made a mistake. But he has given this institution far more than he has taken from it.<br><br>Peter Baker: Re: Jeff Leen's comment, hear hear. Everyone makes mistakes and pays the price. But Bob has been an exceptionally generous colleague and model of integrity for longer than any of us posting today have been at the paper. He's partly responsible for the fact that we have such a special place to practice our craft in the first place. Let the nattering nabobs on the outside have their pound of flesh. But Bob has more than earned our understanding, forgiveness, support and loyalty.<br><br>Glenn Kessler: I think it is outrageous that someone gave Yardley's comments to the New York Times. If this person had the courage of their convictions, he/she would have allowed themselves to be quoted on the record to The Times (why hide behind Yardley's private comments if you believe them to be correct?) and he/she should have no qualms about revealing themselves as the source.<br><br>I view this chatboard as the written equivalent of conversations around the water cooler. How many people would we quote thirdhand in the newspaper unless we got those quotes confirmed from the source? Granted, in this case, the comments were written, which allowed the Times to decide they had enough confirmation to use the comments even though Yardley refused to talk about them. But that fact gives every one of us an even greater obligation to keep this chatter among ourselves.<br><br>Obviously, we all try to report on what was said behind closed doors. But the extensive use of written electronic communication has created a new world. The Times was very upset when the Post once quoted from a private email from Judy Miller to one of her colleagues. A WSJ reporter in Iraq once got in huge trouble when one of her emails was shared to the world.<br><br>This new world requires all of us to be careful about how we use the electronic information we read or receive. And if you are determined to share private thoughts and comments you have learned by reading this chatboard, you should do it on the record.<br><br>Sara Goo: I hardly find it surprising that comments from this forum would get leaked to the Times or any other news organization. Any issue of Washingtonian magazine shows that journalists leak to other journalists when it comes to the in-love-with-ourselves gossip of the media reporting on the media.<br><br>After all, a few weeks ago I found my own comments from this forum quoted in a Washington Post story about this forum.<br><br>Debbi Wilgoren: Sara rasises an important point. I had assumed that Howie Kurtz checked with the people whose comments he quoted in his article last month, before using what they said. But whether he did or not, I find it troubling that he wrote a piece on this forum and that, this morning, he referred to the comments posted yesterday as part of his Woodward story. Why am I troubled? Because Howie's access to this forum is as a participant, just like all of us. Not as a reporter pursuing a story. I'm a real fan of the dialogue unfolding in this space, and I think that its quality will be jeopardized if participants believe that a) their comments may be passed on to outside journalists without their permission or b) our own outstanding media critic may quote from the critiques without permission, or may characterize the dialogue in general terms in his report.<br><br>Andy Mosher Brevity may be the soul of wit, or however that goes, but it's also ambiguous. So lemme expand on my cryptic quip about Jemmie Madison: It wasn't a swipe at Woodward -- far from it. I endorse everything Jeff and Peter said about him. He's one of a kind, and we're lucky to have had him on our team for more than 30 years. I was merely waxing ironic about how this whole tug of war about the journalistic freedom was call confidentiality has reached the ridiculous point where officials who decide whether or not to invade a nation can work the game in their favor, but God forbid one of us should say something in our on-line cafeteria and expect it to stay in the building. I don't agree with Mr. Yardley, but I never thought his or anyone's comment was fair game for cut-and-paste journalism. And since what's said in the forum is no long just among us, I have nothing further to post here. Ever. See ya.<br><br>Michael Tunison: Though this would be the most distressing incident, it's hardly the first time snatches of the critique have been leaked to outside sources. I've seen a number of postings on blogs of stuff discussed in this forum.<br><br>Marie Arana: Just for the record: When I made my comments about what troubled me about the newsroom in my critique of Sept. 29, I read about them later in Howie's column. In China. A WSJ reporter gave me the heads up. I had no warning whatsoever and Howie made no attempt to clear my comments for publication.<br><br>Jonathan Krim: Alas, leakage of newsroom critique boards, internal memos, etc.is likely a fact of life. Caveat emptor, though it would be a shame if debate here is stifled as a result. Back to the matter at hand: Not discussed directly in this forum, but effectively used by others to bludgeon us this morning, was the question of a reporter "exempting" himself from the Plame story and then appearing on TV as a pundit -- and washington post representative -- trashing the fitzgerald probe as much ado about gossip.<br><br>Perhaps it's time for some policy clarification in this area.<br>Posted by Patrick | 02:19 PM | Newspapers<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
banned
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:18 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Arianna's 15 questions for Woodward

Postby banned » Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:44 pm

1. If you didn't tell your editor, Len Downie, about the CIA leak because you were so afraid of being subpoenaed, why did you supposedly tell Walter Pincus? Did you trust Pincus but not Downie?<br><br>2. Why were you afraid of being subpoenaed in 2003? Subpoenas of reporters didn't begin until 2004.<br>And how would telling Downie lead to your being subpoenaed?<br><br>3. What are your ground rules for your books? Since Plan of Attack was published, weren't you free to use the material from your source?<br><br>4. Why did you come forward to Len Downie in late October to reveal your source? This was supposedly before your source approached Fitzgerald, so what motivated you? Did the source call you or did you have sudden pangs of conscience? Why didn't this occur to you in 2003 or 2004?<br><br>5. On October 27, you were on Larry King saying you had no big scoop. Was that true or a lie?<br><br>6. Why did you criticize Fitzgerald and his investigation without revealing that you had something to hide from him?<br><br>7. You said you got permission in writing from all three of your sources to testify about your conversations with them. Two of these sources, Andrew Card and Scooter Libby, have been identified. Can you release their letters? And did Libby write any poetry to you?<br><br>8. Why did you say categorically that there was no harm done by the outing of Valerie Plame? How do you know this when the CIA has yet to issue an after-action report?<br><br>9. Can you at least tell us some of the atmospherics of your dealings with Fitzgerald?<br><br>10. Did the prosecutor indicate that you might be called back?<br><br>11. Are you now writing about the Plame affair, and if you are is it for one of your books or for the Post?<br><br>12. You've praised Judith Miller's decision to go to jail and offered to do time for her. Still feel that way?<br><br>13. Did you remind your source of the June 2003 conversation and did that prompt him or her to go to Fitzgerald?<br><br>14. Had your source testified previously to Fitzgerald or before the grand jury?<br><br>15. Is there any chance your source was Bill Casey being channeled from the dead?<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
banned
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:18 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

And a response from Judy Woodward...

Postby banned » Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:51 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://judywoodward.blogspot.com/">judywoodward.blogspot.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
banned
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:18 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: And a response from Judy Woodward...

Postby robertdreed » Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:38 am

LOL<br><br>and some people continue to insist that we RI board denizens are wasting our time here...<br><br>Having spent quite a few hours involved in the alternative pursuit of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>watching television</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> over the past few days, I can attest that in general, the blogs are waay funnier. <br><br>Can you imagine being in DC, surrounded by media people taking Bob Woodward seriously as a journalist?<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Joan Didion on Woodward

Postby robertdreed » Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:16 am

Crawling- (and I mean <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>crawling</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, with this ill-fated connection)- through the Internet, I came across this recent blog unearthing of a Joan Didion article on Bob Woodward. <br><br>The blog comments make interesting reading, also. <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/11/16/141416/18">www.tpmcafe.com/story/200.../141416/18</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 12/4/05 10:43 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Joan Didion on Woodward

Postby FourthBase » Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:27 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Sorry. I can't seem to find that story.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Can you paste it here? <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Joan Didion on Woodward

Postby robertdreed » Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:42 am

I think I messed up the link. Here it is, again <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/11/16/141416/18">www.tpmcafe.com/story/200.../141416/18</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Just in case it still doesn't work, here's the part of the Didion story that was re-printed in the blog:<br><br>"...Washington, as rendered by Mr. Woodward, is by definition basically solid, a diorama of decent intentions in which wise if misunderstood and occasionally misled stewards will reliably prevail. Its military chiefs will be pictured, as Colin Powell was in The Commanders, thinking on the eve of war exclusively of their troops, the "kids," the "teenagers": a human story. The clerks of its Supreme Court will be pictured, as the clerks of the Burger court were in The Brethren, offering astute guidance as their justices negotiate the shoals of ideological error: a human story. The more available members of its foreign diplomatic corps will be pictured, as Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan was in The Commanders and in Veil, gaining access to the councils of power not just because they have the oil but because of their "backslapping irreverence," their "directness," their exemplification of "the new breed of ambassador--activist, charming, profane": yet another human story. Its opposing leaders will be pictured, as President Clinton and Senator Dole are in The Choice, finding common ground on the importance of mothers: the ultimate human story.<br>That this crude personalization works to narrow the focus, to circumscribe the range of possible discussion or speculation, is, for the people who find it useful to talk to Mr. Woodward, its point. What they have in Mr. Woodward is a widely trusted reporter, even an American icon, who can be relied upon to present a Washington in which problematic or questionable matters will be definitively resolved by the discovery, or by the demonstration that there has been no discovery, of "the smoking gun," "the evidence." Should such narrowly-defined "evidence" be found, he can then be relied upon to demonstrate, "fairly," that the only fingerprints on the smoking gun are those of the one bad apple in the barrel, the single rogue agent in the tapestry of decent intentions.<br><br>"I kept coming back to the question of personal responsibility, Casey's responsibility," Mr. Woodward reports having mused (apparently for once ready, at the moment when he is about to visit a source on his deathbed, to question the veracity of what he has been told) before his last visit to Room C6316 at Georgetown Hospital. "For a moment, I hoped he would take himself off the hook. The only way was an admission of some kind or an apology to his colleagues or an expression of new understanding. Under the last question on 'Key unanswered questions for Casey,' I wrote: 'Do you see now that it was wrong?"' To commit such Rosebud moments to paper is what it means to tell "the human story" at "the core," and it is also what it means to write political pornography.<br><br>Woodward's peerless solicitousness toward his sources has made him rich and famous. But now that his deceit in attacking the Fitzgerald investigation without revealing his own role in the story has been unveiled, how can the Washington Post continue to assure its readers that they can trust him?" <br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 12/4/05 10:44 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to Plame Investigation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest