Re: (off topic) Woodward of the Post tangled in the Plame Gate saga ...

"Tchiowa" showed his arse...
> ian wrote:
> > Tchiowa expectorated:
> > > orang37 wrote:
> >
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/11/16/BL20051116011
83.html?referrer=email
> > >>Proving once again : "it ain't over until the fat lady sings."
> > >>~o:37;

> > > Yup. In this article and a couple of others he has said that he got
Plame's name a month or so before the Novak column and that neither Libby
nor Cheney was the source. (He won't name the source at this point.)

> > > Libby's lawyer thinks this might put an end to his trial.

> > Libby's been charged with perjury, not with revealing Plame's name.
> > Libby's lawyer has, unsurprisingly, a stake in misleading the public
about what this development means.
>
> Did you read the latest statement from Woodward? Says he didn't come
forward at first because he didn't want to have to testify.

That's one admission of self-serving intentions, if true--even Tchiowa could
figure that out.

>But he decided to come forward after Libby was indicted for perjury because
he didn't want an innocent man convicted.

Perjury means lying under oath.
Woodward somehow is qualified to rule on this, according to Tchiowa.
Does Tchiowa care not what Woodward's true motives behind this 'cry for
justice' might be?

> Ooops.
<varous Tchiowan feces flinging flushed>

Guess not.

.