Post editor says paper will consider naming Woodward source (NYT)

[kpete]

Post Editor Foresees Possibility of Naming Leak Source


By SCOTT SHANE and KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: November 18, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - The executive editor of The Washington Post said on Thursday that if other reporters at the newspaper independently discovered the identity of Bob Woodward's confidential source in the C.I.A. leak case, the newspaper might decide to publish the source's name.

Capital Is Riveted Over Mr. Woodward's Source Mr. Woodward, an assistant managing editor at the newspaper and best-selling author, apologized on Wednesday for failing for two years to tell his Post bosses that he had learned from a government official about the C.I.A. officer Valerie Wilson. He testified under oath on Monday in the leak case after receiving permission to do so from his source, but the source has so far refused to permit Mr. Woodward to name him publicly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/18/politics/18media.html

[DU9598]

1. Is it just me?

Or does anyone else think that Woodward's source is GWB?

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. I can't imagine the WaPo being willing to spill the beans on Dubya

[SoFlaJet]

4. not me

I think it's Cheney.Woodward was doing interviews for his(latest propaganda)book at the time line when he was supposedly given this information.The guy who he was working with at the time was Cheney.Maybe that's why Libby's defense team is "ecstatic" it kinda goes one rung higher than him-why else would they be glad?It means it either went higher or right into Bush's office-Card and W?

[...of J.Temperance]

9. Cheney's the FIRST one that leaked Plame's name

Which is why he's out of his bunker and on the defensive...all subsequent roads lead back to Cheney.

However Woodward's protecting Cheney...so they'll probably say that the source was John Hannah or that Fred fellow that worked for John Bolton.

[mmonk]

17. I'll admit it crossed my mind.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Well that's proof-positive that the NY Times has been taken over

by Bush&co!! All those "if's" and "mights" sound just like some of the defenders of our invasion of Iraq: Saddam 'could', 'might' or 'if' .....

[janx]

5. Thanks for pointing that out. The media and government

are to intertwined that they even talk the same way now. Speculation is rampant. It's horrible--neither one can be trusted.

[SharonRB]

8. NYT?

Aren't we talking about the WaPo here?

[sinkingfeeling]

16. You're correct. The article is in the NYT about WaPo!

[cassiepriam]

6. A newspaper might print the truth on a big story? What a concept.

[...of J.Temperance]

7. The Woodward source will be someone minor and

All but totally obscure to the public...you watch if it's not. I cannot imagine the whoring Post even THINKING of naming Woodward's source IF his source is one of the big fish.

I don't like Woodward, never have never will, and I certainly don't trust him. He's trying to help his Masters out, like he's always done.

[BuyingThyme]

11. You're right.

This is a set-up.

[...of J.Temperance]

13. Well you know, I know I'm right, and I know you're right as well...but

I wish we were both wrong. The actual source IS Cheney or Rove, OR Cheney AND Rove...but it's a set-up and thus it'll be someone not even that important.

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. But wouldn't it have to be someone high enough up to have security

clearance and access to classified info? If someone who didn't have security clearance had that info then whoever gave the info to the peon, broke the law.

[...of J.Temperance]

15. Not with this bunch of criminals

We must remember, they're Sociopathic Monsters, and as such they have no conscience. Therefore, it doesn't matter if who they offer up had no security clearance...they will still throw that person overboard in order to save their own skin.

And Bob Woodward is and always HAS been a BFEE team-player. His story, his so-called revelation has been designed for one purpose, to create a complex smokescreen with which to protect Cheney.

The source will be someone like John Hannah or Fred Fleitz, someone of that nature, an all-but obscure name that is considered disposable that they can throw overboard.

[wiggs]

14. Pattern we've seen over and over

i.e. Estimate 10,000 dead from Katrina....so that "only" 2000 dead seems minor.

If they know the source is a minor player, floating rumours of a big fish makes sense. They may not be able to control Fitzgerald, but they certainly know how to work the media and public.

This is why the focus of dem discussion in the media should be on the big picture: it is obvious that many in the administration were talking about discrediting a whistleblower who was helping the public see one aspect of DSM. We know that Libby, Rove, Cheney, Hadley and everyone on Airforce One was talking about Plame. The American public should be disgusted by this, regardless of indictments.

We should all be asking why the administration source doesn't come forward on his own, too. His name is going to be leaked sooner or later anyway. Legal entanglements?

I think WP is certainly going to spill the beans...otherwise they wouldn't have announced that they are thinking about it. The must know already if other reporters know the name of the source. They are greasing the wheels to reconstitute their image and sell more newspapers at the same time. And they have to do it soon, before the source is named elsewhere. This weekend.

[kansasblue]

10. So John Dean is the good guy now, Woodward has gone to the dark side.

[Tennessee Gal]

18. Woodward IS the dark side.

This whole thing is incredibly slimey.

Woodward should just tell the truth.

He should have done that long ago.