<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More Woodward!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://informedspeculation.com/2005/11/16/more-woodward/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2005/11/16/more-woodward/</link>
	<description>Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:53:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2005/11/16/more-woodward/comment-page-1/#comment-8187</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:14:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2005/11/16/more-woodward/#comment-8187</guid>
		<description>Well, I don’t believe in government by impeachment, but I think it would be a serious offense and, if true, he ought to resign.  Of course, this is all hypothetical, but let’s suppose that Cheney a) knew she was covert, b) was the first to reveal her identity, and c) did so for partisan reasons.  There are some things which are dismissable offenses in any private company:  embezzlement, harassment, showing up at work drunk, etc.   There are other things which are (or should be) dismissable offenses in government, and I believe that purposely revealing the identity of a covert agent for partisan reasons is one of those things.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I don’t believe in government by impeachment, but I think it would be a serious offense and, if true, he ought to resign.  Of course, this is all hypothetical, but let’s suppose that Cheney a) knew she was covert, b) was the first to reveal her identity, and c) did so for partisan reasons.  There are some things which are dismissable offenses in any private company:  embezzlement, harassment, showing up at work drunk, etc.   There are other things which are (or should be) dismissable offenses in government, and I believe that purposely revealing the identity of a covert agent for partisan reasons is one of those things.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2005/11/16/more-woodward/comment-page-1/#comment-8186</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:58:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2005/11/16/more-woodward/#comment-8186</guid>
		<description>Well, you got my reaction, what would yours be, as a non-GOP partisan?...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, you got my reaction, what would yours be, as a non-GOP partisan?&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2005/11/16/more-woodward/comment-page-1/#comment-8184</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:48:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2005/11/16/more-woodward/#comment-8184</guid>
		<description>I’m not suggesting that Cheney leaked her identity – needless to say, I have no way of knowing.  Nor do I want it to be true.  However, it is certainly plausible.  Woodward seems to have access to anyone in Washington, and the “Libby fell on his sword to protect Cheney” thesis is nothing new.  I just think it is an interesting question to ask GOP partisans.  In the event that it is proven that Cheney was the first leaker, and revealed her cover, what would your reaction be?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I’m not suggesting that Cheney leaked her identity – needless to say, I have no way of knowing.  Nor do I want it to be true.  However, it is certainly plausible.  Woodward seems to have access to anyone in Washington, and the “Libby fell on his sword to protect Cheney” thesis is nothing new.  I just think it is an interesting question to ask GOP partisans.  In the event that it is proven that Cheney was the first leaker, and revealed her cover, what would your reaction be?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mtl</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2005/11/16/more-woodward/comment-page-1/#comment-8178</link>
		<dc:creator>mtl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:37:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2005/11/16/more-woodward/#comment-8178</guid>
		<description>But Hardball ran a graphic(actually puzzle pieces falling away) that shows Cheney, so it must be him.

(They&#039;ve turned off the violin&#039;s for their intro...)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But Hardball ran a graphic(actually puzzle pieces falling away) that shows Cheney, so it must be him.</p>
<p>(They&#8217;ve turned off the violin&#8217;s for their intro&#8230;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2005/11/16/more-woodward/comment-page-1/#comment-8176</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:13:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2005/11/16/more-woodward/#comment-8176</guid>
		<description>Oh, I see I already linked that story above in the post - sorry.  My own reaction would depend, much as it would with any other official, on whether Cheney knew she was covert when he leaked.  If so, I would condemn the action - if not, politician/reporter relationship as usual...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, I see I already linked that story above in the post &#8211; sorry.  My own reaction would depend, much as it would with any other official, on whether Cheney knew she was covert when he leaked.  If so, I would condemn the action &#8211; if not, politician/reporter relationship as usual&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2005/11/16/more-woodward/comment-page-1/#comment-8175</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:11:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2005/11/16/more-woodward/#comment-8175</guid>
		<description>peter, actually, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=3587&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jason Zengerle at the New Republic&lt;/a&gt; considered the Cheney theory, but found it highly doubtful...I think it was either someone at State or Defense...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>peter, actually, <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=3587" rel="nofollow">Jason Zengerle at the New Republic</a> considered the Cheney theory, but found it highly doubtful&#8230;I think it was either someone at State or Defense&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mtl</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2005/11/16/more-woodward/comment-page-1/#comment-8173</link>
		<dc:creator>mtl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:58:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2005/11/16/more-woodward/#comment-8173</guid>
		<description>You mean Cheney made it public by going to the press?  You lost Rove, you lost Libby, now you wish it was Cheney again?  give it up...or please continue.  In the former case it is useless, and in the latter you deflect news attention away from things that might prove more successful.

This fitzmas thing has been the greatest boon to the administration, it shows Dems making charges that are proving to be false-in the court of law.

What would your rxn be if Cheney ran for Pres in 08, with Rice on the ticket?

Too old and feeble?  He wouldn&#039;t exactly have Dan Quayle as his back-up.  The questions surrounding his ability to survive four years, would be pumping up Condi to be the next Pres.

Morris would still watch a HRC/Rice matchup, she would just be in the batter&#039;s circle, picking off independents-while Cheney walks the GOP base over to Condi.

Woodward knows this...is a big civil rights advocate from the 60&#039;s, and realize the opportunity is too important for advancement of a qualifed African-American.  He&#039;s on the team, but worries about Condi getting the base and surviving the primary.

If you can keep Bush&#039;s numbers down, it won&#039;t happen, but history shows that the numbers always change.  I sincerely doubt Iraq will be an issue the dems will want to discuss for 2007, and if troop withdrawal occurs after election on Dec 15th up to the spring-it will be a dem gambit to call it a failure.

Can&#039;t wait to see how well that is received by the troops returning home.  Time is significantly on the administrations side.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You mean Cheney made it public by going to the press?  You lost Rove, you lost Libby, now you wish it was Cheney again?  give it up&#8230;or please continue.  In the former case it is useless, and in the latter you deflect news attention away from things that might prove more successful.</p>
<p>This fitzmas thing has been the greatest boon to the administration, it shows Dems making charges that are proving to be false-in the court of law.</p>
<p>What would your rxn be if Cheney ran for Pres in 08, with Rice on the ticket?</p>
<p>Too old and feeble?  He wouldn&#8217;t exactly have Dan Quayle as his back-up.  The questions surrounding his ability to survive four years, would be pumping up Condi to be the next Pres.</p>
<p>Morris would still watch a HRC/Rice matchup, she would just be in the batter&#8217;s circle, picking off independents-while Cheney walks the GOP base over to Condi.</p>
<p>Woodward knows this&#8230;is a big civil rights advocate from the 60&#8242;s, and realize the opportunity is too important for advancement of a qualifed African-American.  He&#8217;s on the team, but worries about Condi getting the base and surviving the primary.</p>
<p>If you can keep Bush&#8217;s numbers down, it won&#8217;t happen, but history shows that the numbers always change.  I sincerely doubt Iraq will be an issue the dems will want to discuss for 2007, and if troop withdrawal occurs after election on Dec 15th up to the spring-it will be a dem gambit to call it a failure.</p>
<p>Can&#8217;t wait to see how well that is received by the troops returning home.  Time is significantly on the administrations side.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2005/11/16/more-woodward/comment-page-1/#comment-8171</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:38:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2005/11/16/more-woodward/#comment-8171</guid>
		<description>What would your reaction be if it is revealed that Dick Cheney was the first one to blow Plame&#039;s cover?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What would your reaction be if it is revealed that Dick Cheney was the first one to blow Plame&#8217;s cover?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mtl</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2005/11/16/more-woodward/comment-page-1/#comment-8161</link>
		<dc:creator>mtl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:31:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2005/11/16/more-woodward/#comment-8161</guid>
		<description>Fatman is right.

We now know hugh sidey(managing editor of Time/Washington) knew and he even stated that it was common knowledge.

General Vallely knew from Wilson by early 2003.

Andrea Mitchell and Russert knew before big red&#039;s conversation with Libby in July.

This whole idea that Libby, the VP&#039;s chief of staff, was never asked about Plame by a reporter who knew her identity, after it was stated by Kristoff in May 03 that a &#039;former ambassador was sent to Africa by the VP&#039; is ludicrous.

Does anyone think that the press didn&#039;t care about who Wilson was?  Clearly it was known by press people that Wilson&#039;s wife did work at the CIA, before the Libby phone calls.

These reporters are never going to talk-and by not doing so will end this case.

Fitz has to prove ALL reporters who spoke with Libby, didn&#039;t already know Wilson&#039;s wife&#039;s occupation.  To watch this continue in the face of the fact that reports are continually surfacing that the people in the press and public knew prior to any timeline established by Fitz is fantastic news.

The statment by Wells(Libby&#039;s lawyer) is being parsed because it lacks the word &#039;known&#039; is the last straw being grasped.  In the face of the obvious-The press knew, and was curious long before June 12, which is even longer before July 10/11 2003, where the perjury/obstruction/false statments about passing along earlier press questions to Cooper and Russert (by Fitz) occurred has become a sinking ship.

Please dems, climb aboard.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fatman is right.</p>
<p>We now know hugh sidey(managing editor of Time/Washington) knew and he even stated that it was common knowledge.</p>
<p>General Vallely knew from Wilson by early 2003.</p>
<p>Andrea Mitchell and Russert knew before big red&#8217;s conversation with Libby in July.</p>
<p>This whole idea that Libby, the VP&#8217;s chief of staff, was never asked about Plame by a reporter who knew her identity, after it was stated by Kristoff in May 03 that a &#8216;former ambassador was sent to Africa by the VP&#8217; is ludicrous.</p>
<p>Does anyone think that the press didn&#8217;t care about who Wilson was?  Clearly it was known by press people that Wilson&#8217;s wife did work at the CIA, before the Libby phone calls.</p>
<p>These reporters are never going to talk-and by not doing so will end this case.</p>
<p>Fitz has to prove ALL reporters who spoke with Libby, didn&#8217;t already know Wilson&#8217;s wife&#8217;s occupation.  To watch this continue in the face of the fact that reports are continually surfacing that the people in the press and public knew prior to any timeline established by Fitz is fantastic news.</p>
<p>The statment by Wells(Libby&#8217;s lawyer) is being parsed because it lacks the word &#8216;known&#8217; is the last straw being grasped.  In the face of the obvious-The press knew, and was curious long before June 12, which is even longer before July 10/11 2003, where the perjury/obstruction/false statments about passing along earlier press questions to Cooper and Russert (by Fitz) occurred has become a sinking ship.</p>
<p>Please dems, climb aboard.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fatman</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2005/11/16/more-woodward/comment-page-1/#comment-8157</link>
		<dc:creator>fatman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:39:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2005/11/16/more-woodward/#comment-8157</guid>
		<description>Wouldn&#039;t it just be easier to keep track of which reporters DIDN&#039;T know Joe Wilson was married to Valerie Plame?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wouldn&#8217;t it just be easier to keep track of which reporters DIDN&#8217;T know Joe Wilson was married to Valerie Plame?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

