Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So lets assume that Hadley is Woodward's source

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
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-05 02:09 PM
Original message
So lets assume that Hadley is Woodward's source
Where does this take us?

Was Hadley operating on his own?

Do we stop there?

Does this go further up?

Just trying to think out loud on some possible scenarios :freak::freak::freak::freak::freak::freak::freak::freak:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-05 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why did Woodward say source was "current or former" official?
Was he being coy? It just sounds stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-05 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. Since it's hypothetical, here's a hypothertical answer
Hadley was promoted from Condy's assistance into her position as the most important National Security Official in the administration, after the Sec. of Defense and Sec. of State.

Bush was portrayed as being in a state of righteous indignation about who was discussing Plame's identity when it first broke.

And since then Hadley has been promoted. If Hadley was one of the leakers, that places the administration in a box. Even if Bush didn't know at the time, the revelation would be a firing offense now, based on Bush's own stance. If Hadley stays, it shows that the administratiion really didn't mean it when they said they'd find and deal with whoever was leaking.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-05 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. John Dean told Kieth Olberman that he
Thinks it was Ari Fleischer. That would sccount for the "former" qualification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-05 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
4. Those in the WHIG group know everything and the sequence of
Edited on Fri Nov-18-05 02:57 PM by higher class
revelations.

Did someone in the WHIG group have pre-knowledge?
If yes, how and when did they share with WHIG members?
If not (meaning the WHIG group learned after Wilson made the decision to expose the SOTU lie by sharing his role in the search for truth about yellocake and then shopping the story around - February to June) - then who in the CIA or not in the CIA informed someone in WHIG group?

Then, who was was the first WHIG member or someone who worked for a WHIG member to talk to a journalist?

The purpose of WHIG was to facilitate and grease the path to war.

The answer is within WHIG and employees of WHIG members.

Something like this is not authorized at the level of the employees of WHIG members.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-05 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. my point exactly someone authorized it.
so where does this lead us/Fitz?
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 Sun May 05th 2024, 04:43 PM
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