Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Hadley was woodward's source

* chavez: ""Now they say I am sending uranium to make atomic bombs from here, from the Venezuelan Amazon to send directly to the Persian Gulf (Iran)" Mr. Chavez said during a meeting at a military club on Tuesday. "This shows they have no limit in their capacity to invent lies.""
they don't even have to dust off the reports to spout new nonsense.

* everyone is remodelling! Rawstory, firedoglake and soon Digby too. parently tis the season. spring-cleaning and all. should i do some fall cleaning? is the site easy to read? when i set up the blog years ago, i just grabbed one of the first templates without ever thinking anyone would read it... (btw - Blogger has been playing up these last couple of days - apologies for light posting)

* larisa says that the Armitage/Woodward stuff is nonsense - and she sticks to her guns that Hadley was woodward's source. (and she joins in the trashing of the chigtrib)

* btw - Rawstory is having a donation drive - donate if you can

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

The layout is excellent Lukery. The one color background is easy to read. Extra columns etc can only distract.The white text on blue is also a pleasant alternative to the usual coloring.

You might consider putting one link (archives) to replace the multiple listings on the right, but this is a minor point. Basically, keep going as you are. Cheers.

Anonymous said...

Well, if Larisa's right, then add one Patrick Fitzgerald to the list of people who don't know who Woodward's source is.

There is no way that Hadley, Stephen Hadley, Mr. Hadley or any permutation thereof will fit properly in the redacted spaces in Fitz's recent affidavit. Armitage seems to fit pretty darn well. Unless Fitz is playing games by putting a lot of extra spaces in under the redactions, I gotta stick with Armitage no matter how weird it is.

That's not to say that Hadley wasn't a source as well. I'm just guessing that no journalist has owned up to having him as a source, cause if they did, it was probably on deep background and unattributable.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I still like the narrower format (it's easier to scan). But whatever you prefer.