Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Was Armitage the original leaker? Michael Isikoff/Newsweek

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 » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 11:05 AM
Original message
Was Armitage the original leaker? Michael Isikoff/Newsweek
Edited on Sun Nov-20-05 11:06 AM by kpete
Newsweek
By Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff
Sources of Confusion
The Plame drama thickens, as Washington once again tries to guess who Bob Woodward's been talking to

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."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10117465/site/newsweek/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pretzel4gore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. evans and isikoff are mediawhores for a drunken john
who's credit cards are maxed out....armitage is a stone blooded killer from regan era; he looks like a central casting version of a child molestor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
2. No, it was W in the Oval Office
with the secret memmo.

What is this crap, a game of Clue?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
3. Evans and Isikoff - doing their part for the right wing.
They are manipulatoars of the word and agenda of the right wing.

They partner with GE-NBC - they share a role in the right wing family.

My point is - I don't believe anything Newsweek says. I don't care if it is Armitage or not. More likely, they are using Armitage to deflect something.

I do enjoy imagining what it must be like for all of them to try to figure out what the other ones have said to Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury and what all of them will say in the GJ to come.

Do you think their lawyers are talking to each other?

Think Isikoff is ticked that he wasn't contacted? Or was he? How about Evans? It's a wide open game that they all got caught in.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. I hope it wasn't Armitage - he's one of the good guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. he can only be considered a "good guy" - in relativity to the neocons
Edited on Sun Nov-20-05 01:16 PM by salin
in the admin. In the bigger grander scale... not too easy to call him a 'good guy'. Not a clear white hat on that man.

on edit - link - and reminder - armitage was part of the iran-contra fiasco.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Armitage
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. 3 P.o.S(s): WOODWARD, THOMAS, ISIKOFF
So why didn't OTHER p.o.s. ISIKOFF challenge WOODWARD on Larry KING Alive, sitting right across the table from him when WOODWARD denied having the "bombshell" ISIKOFF had said he was sitting on.

On yesterday's FauxWatch, the Faux ripoff of Reliable Sources, token Lib Neil GABLER said, "WOODWARD sat on a story for two years when it helped the White HOuse, then came forward with the story when it helped the White House. He's a LACKEY for the White House."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
7. I just don't believe anything from these Bush licker's any more n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
8. I Think Armitage Talked All Right
To FitzG. Isikoff is correct in that A. despised the neos but his logic is faulty from there and I'm not forgetting that Isikoff and Woodward do not indulge in love fest, Woodward once calling I. a junkyard dog, the same term he used for FitzG. I think Armitage gave some of the leads that led to Rove and Libby for beginners. He was well aware that the neos & WH were trying to set Powell up as the leaker and he wasn't going to let that happen 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 08th 2024, 04:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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