Israel’s Apartheid Wall

Israel’s Apartheid Wall (8 m high, projected to be more than 800 km in length)

Israel was founded based on the premise, especially in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust, that Jewish people needed a national homeland in which they were a powerful majority in order to feel safe and protected. Zionists justified their claim to the Holy Land in particular based on a narrow interpretation of ancient Biblical prophecy.

According to Israeli statesman Abba Eban, who presented the Jewish people’s claim for statehood before the United Nations in 1947:

“We based our claim on the exceptionality of Israel, in terms of the affliction suffered by its people, and in terms of our historical and spiritual lineage. We knew we were basically appealing to a Christian world for whom the biblical story was familiar and attractive, and we played it to the hilt… We chose to emphasize at the beginning of our statehood that Israel would represent the ancient Jewish morality.â€?

In 1947 the United Nations agreed to cede 55% of the British mandate of Palestine to Jewish control. Most of the Jews on this piece of land, whose borders were torturously drawn to ensure a slim Jewish majority, were recent immigrants from Europe and Eastern Europe.

The surrounding Arab countries, and Palestine itself, rejected what they viewed as a racist, colonialist European land grab. But the Jews, desperate for a state and heavily armed by international donors, conquered 78% of historic Palestine. Concurrently with the conquest, the Zionists ethnically cleansed the conquered land by expelling more than 700,000 Palestinians from their homes and villages in order to ensure a strong and lasting Jewish majority.

“Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.�

~ David Ben Gurion, first Prime Minister of Israel, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, 1978.

In 1967 Israel conquered the rest of historic Palestine, now known as the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in a pre-emptive war. Israel’s power was so overwhelming that its armies conquered land from three Arab countries in only six days.

The West Bank and Gaza Strip were the only regions in the world left for a Palestinian homeland. But Israel, based again on their own interpretations of Biblical prophecy and residual feelings of insecurity despite their military hegemony, and generously backed by the United States, wanted all of historic Palestine – what they called Greater Israel.

“The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country.”

~ former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.

“It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously… that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.”

~ Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

But how to rid the Palestinian territories of their Palestinian inhabitants without too much public scrutiny in these days of human rights laws? Simply denying they existed and suppressing their political rights didn’t work, as the first popular uprising in 1989 proved. Engaging in decades-long “peace processes� while simultaneously building more illegal settlements and checkpoints continuously, thus making peace impossible, didn’t work, as evidenced by the second popular uprising.

The second uprising, the Al-Aqsa Intifada, began on September 28, 2000. On this day, Ariel Sharon, a man convicted by an Israeli tribunal of personal responsibility in war crimes against Palestinian civilians in 1983, visited the Al-Aqsa mosque along with a heavily-armed armed garrison. It was a move guaranteed to insult and threaten Palestinians and Arabs all over the world. Palestinians protested, and the protests were put down brutally and out of all proportion.

In the first two weeks of protests and clashes, 72 Palestinians were killed, including 54 civilians and 15 children. In the same period, two Israeli civilians and 5 Israeli soldiers were killed. Ariel Sharon was presently election Prime Minister of Israel largely because of his supposedly “tough� stance on Israeli security. But the crushing violence of the Israeli army didn’t solve the problems in Israel.

Despite Israel’s ongoing illegal and disproportionate aggression, in 2002, at the height of Israeli brutality in the Occupied Territories, the Arab League met and agreed to recognize and normalize relations with Israel if Israel complied with international law and withdrew from the Occupied Territories—which Israel still refused to do, seeming to prefer real estate over peace and security.

Even more worrying for the Jewish state, Palestinians were having children faster than Israelis were. If this kept up, despite the “law of return,� which allows only Jews to come from all over the world and settle in the historic Palestinian homeland, non-Jews would outnumber Jews by the year 2010 between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. Thus any pretense of democracy in the Only Democracy in the Middle East would be destroyed; either that or the absolute Jewish control of the state would be undermined.

What was to be done? Discourse didn’t work; Palestinians were not and never would be willing to leave their homeland, lives, history, culture, and property peacefully for the sake of enlarging the Jewish state. Laws didn’t work, because international humanitarian law was heavily in favor of the dispossessed Palestinians.

So a handful of hardcore ideologues in the Israeli government, including Ariel Sharon, decided to collectively imprison the entire Palestinian population with a Wall, whose route would unilaterally decide the future borders between Israel and the Palestinian territories and illegally annex vast areas of private Palestinian land and property, under the pretense of managing the security threat their own policies created.

Annexation Wall in the Occupied W.Bank (click on image for full size of map)

Occupied East Jerusalem area – note the ghettoes created in Jib and Bir Nabala, and the separation of Palestinian neighborhoods from each other in Ar-Ram and East Jerusalem.

East German propaganda called their Wall an “anti-fascist wall of protection.�

Israeli propaganda calls the Apartheid Wall an “anti-terrorist wall of security.�

Israeli propaganda also calls the Apartheid Wall a “temporary security measure,� but the structure, at a cost of over $1 million per kilometer, is looking less and less temporary. Another “temporary security measure,� the settlements, have been expanding steadily for the past 37 years. A majority of West Bank settlements are set to be annexed permanently to Israel by the Apartheid Wall. Whether the Wall is torn down or not, the political reality it is creating will be difficult if not impossible to reverse once its damage is done.

“[The] formula for the parameters of a unilateral solution are: To maximize the number of Jews; to minimize the number of Palestinians; not to withdraw to the 1967 border and not to divide Jerusalem.�

~ Ehud Olmert, Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister, in an interview with Haaretz, Dec. 2003. His position and actions are in flagrant violation of international law.[ 2]

The outcome of such a brazen move remains uncertain, although increased poverty, hunger, desperation, humiliation, disconnection from friends, family, land, livelihood, education, and medical facilities has already been the devastating result for the overwhelmingly innocent Palestinian civilian population. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian families are or will soon be trapped in the world’s largest open-air prison—unless they escape to a neighboring country. Life for Palestinians in Palestine, difficult as it is, is slowly being made impossible.

The village of Jayyous, for example, has lost 75% of its farmland – 5% destroyed for the building of the Wall and 70% trapped between the Wall and Israel – and all of its seven water wells. About half of the villagers have lost their livelihoods due to the Wall, and formerly-prosperous families are struggling to secure enough clean water to drink.

Villages like Al-Daba’a [3], trapped between the Wall and the Green Line – an absurd situation if Israel were really interested in security – are being forced to consider abandoning their villages. If they do, it will be a clear case of ethnic cleansing happening in full view of the world.

“That is what ‘Transfer’ is: a crime against humanity. It is what Hitler espoused; what Milosevic urged. It is the getting rid of people of the wrong kind… of the wrong race, the wrong ethnicity, the wrong religion… the wrong people. It is, by its very nature, violent, racist, cruel. It is the uprooting of human beings from their land, their homes, their heredity, their lives; a ripping out, by the very roots, of an entire culture.â€?

~ Alison Weir, “An Old Evil Renames Itself as ‘Transfer,’� CounterPunch.org

Still other towns and villages are surrounded on all sides by the Wall, whose gates are controlled by Israelis—a collective imprisonment that directly violates the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The Annexation Barrier, in short, is being built to prop up an untenable political situation, which is based on ideology rather than common sense, democracy, or respect for human rights.

We’re Democracy Bringers!

from Truthout: A News Revolution Has Begun

A News Revolution Has Begun
By John Pilger
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Friday 25 November 2005

The Indian writer Vandana Shiva has called for an “insurrection of subjugated knowledge.” The insurrection is well under way. In trying to make sense of a dangerous world, millions of people are turning away from the traditional sources of news and information and toward the world wide web, convinced that mainstream journalism is the voice of rampant power. The great scandal of Iraq has accelerated this. In the United States, several senior broadcasters have confessed that had they challenged and exposed the lies told about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, instead of amplifying and justifying them, the invasion might not have happened.

Such honesty has yet to cross the Atlantic. Since it was founded in 1922, the BBC has served to protect every British establishment during war and civil unrest. “We” never traduce and never commit great crimes. So the omission of shocking events in Iraq – the destruction of cities, the slaughter of innocent people and the farce of a puppet government – is routinely applied. A study by the Cardiff School of Journalism found that 90 per cent of the BBC’s references to Saddam Hussein’s WMDs suggested he possessed them and that “spin from the British and US governments was successful in framing the coverage.” The same “spin” has ensured, until now, that the use of banned weapons by the Americans and British in Iraq has been suppressed as news.

An admission by the US State Department on 10 November that its forces had used white phosphorus in Fallujah followed “rumours on the internet,” according to the BBC’s Newsnight. There were no rumours. There was first-class investigative work that ought to shame well-paid journalists. Mark Kraft of insomnia.livejournal.com found the evidence in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine and other sources. He was supported by the work of film-maker Gabriele Zamparini, founder of the excellent site, thecatsdream.com.

Last May, David Edwards and David Cromwell of medialens.org posted a revealing correspondence with Helen Boaden, the BBC’s director of news. They had asked her why the BBC had remained silent on known atrocities committed by the Americans in Fallujah. She replied, “Our correspondent in Fallujah at the time [of the US attack], Paul Wood, did not report any of these things because he did not see any of these things.” It is a statement to savour. Wood was “embedded” with the Americans. He interviewed none of the victims of American atrocities nor un-embedded journalists. He not only missed the Americans’ use of white phosphorus, which they now admit, he reported nothing of the use of another banned weapon, napalm. Thus, BBC viewers were unaware of the fine words of Colonel James Alles, commander of the US Marine Air Group II. “We napalmed both those bridge approaches,” he said. “Unfortunately, there were people there … you could see them in the cockpit video … It’s no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect.”

Once the unacknowledged work of Mark Kraft and Gabriele Zamparini had appeared in the Guardian and Independent and forced the Americans to come clean about white phosphorous, Wood was on Newsnight describing their admission as “a public relations disaster for the US.” This echoed Menzies Campbell of the Liberal-Democrats, perhaps the most quoted politician since Gladstone, who said, “The use of this weapon may technically have been legal, but its effects are such that it will hand a propaganda victory to the insurgency.”

The BBC and most of the British political and media establishment invariably cast such a horror as a public relations problem while minimizing the crushing of a city the size of Leeds, the killing and maiming of countless men, women and children, the expulsion of thousands and the denial of medical supplies, food and water – a major war crime.

The evidence is voluminous, provided by refugees, doctors, human rights groups and a few courageous foreigners whose work appears only on the internet. In April last year, Jo Wilding, a young British law student, filed a series of extraordinary eye-witness reports from inside the city. So fine are they that I have included one of her pieces in an anthology of the best investigative journalism.* Her film, “A Letter to the Prime Minister,” made inside Fallujah with Julia Guest, has not been shown on British television. In addition, Dahr Jamail, an independent Lebanese-American journalist who has produced some of the best frontline reporting I have read, described all the “things” the BBC failed to “see.” His interviews with doctors, local officials and families are on the internet, together with the work of those who have exposed the widespread use of uranium-tipped shells, another banned weapon, and cluster bombs, which Campbell would say are “technically legal.” Try these web sites: dahrjamail.com, zmag.org, antiwar.com, truthout.org, indymedia.org.uk, internationalclearinghouse.info, counterpunch.org, voicesuk.org. There are many more.

Taking some time off for the Holidays

I’m just chilling and watching movies . I hope everyone is having a great holiday. I’ll be back next week.

Exclusive: Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon

Exclusive: Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon’

To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren’t technically “chemical weapons.�

The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are “incendiary muntions� that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons.�

But the distinction is a minor one, and arguably political in nature. A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled “Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical� describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:

IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […]

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.

In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they’re used by our enemies.

The real point here goes beyond the Pentagon’s legalistic parsings. The use of white phosphorus against enemy fighters is a “terribly ill-conceived method,� demonstrating an Army interested “only in the immediate tactical gain and its felicitous shake and bake fun.� And the dishonest efforts by Bush administration officials to deny and downplay that use only further undermines U.S. credibility abroad.

To paraphrase President Bush, this isn’t a question about what is legal, it’s about what is right.

Think Progress » Exclusive: Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon’

Humor quiz

the Cutting Edge (57% dark, 42% spontaneous, 26% vulgar)

your humor style: CLEAN | SPONTANEOUS | DARK Your humor’s mostly innocent and off-the-cuff, but somehow there’s something slightly menacing about you. Part of  your humor is making people a little uncomfortable, even if the things you say aren’t themselves confrontational. You probably have a very dry delivery, or are seriously over-the-top. Your type is the most  likely to appreciate a good insult and/or broken bone and/or very very fat person dancing. PEOPLE LIKE YOU: David Letterman – John Belushi The 3-Variable Funny Test! – it rules – If you’re interested, try my latest: The Terrorism  Test

My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 76% on darkness You scored higher than 51% on spontaneity You scored higher than 31% on vulgarity

Link: The 3 Variable Funny Test written by jason_bateman on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

Batgirl

Batgirl

Originally uploaded by MercuryJones.

Who doesn’t love batgirl, eh?

Sarah Silverman is magic

If you don’t know about her, she’s the sickest, smartest, weirdest female comic out there right now. And she’s hot!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0422528/

http://www.jesusismagicthemovie.com/

A few of her more contraversial bits:

>If black people were in germany during Worl War 2, the holocaust would have never happened. At least not to Jews.

>I love how Palestinians and jews hate each other. It’s cute. Honestly, what’s the diffeence? They’re brown. They have an odor. It’s like sweet potatoes hating yams. It’s like when coyotes eat dogs—they are dogs! And they eat them. There’s no joke there, but it’s a good point. It’s like how birds eat egss. You can’t blame them, because eggs are awesome, but they’re all-” she pantomimess eating an egg-”Yum,mmmm, this came out of my pussy”

>When God gives you AIDS, make lemonAIDS.

>The writers of Sanford and Son were so brave in bringing their program to television. I mean, working with all those black people.

>If you take a shower with your boyfriend,I guarantee by the time you step out of the shower, your breasts will be sparkling clean.

Comedian Sarah Silverman is known for delivering closely observed social commentary in a disarmingly politically incorrect style. Her new movie, Jesus Is Magic, is based on an act she polished in New York and Los Angeles.

The film, a series of vignettes, bits of standup routines and bittersweet songs, was directed by Liam Lynch, who has worked extensively with Tenacious D, the band fronted by Jack Black.

Silverman’s comedy is marked by a willingness to offend. And while some of her remarks have led to criticism, her fans embrace the wit and honesty of her commentary. From detailed sex talk to minority groups and sensitive issues like the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, there seems to be little she views as sacrosanct in her act.

Jesus Is Magic also stars comedians Bob Odenkirk and Brian Posehn, friends of Silverman’s from the 1990s HBO comedy series Mr. Show, on which she often appeared. Silverman’s previous films include School of Rock and There’s Something About Mary.

http://2005.sxsw.com/video/movie_window.big.php?dir=2005_trailers&id=469&speed=hi

Media Matters reports:

Media repeated Libby lawyer’s falsehood that Woodward revelations contradict Fitzgerald

In response to Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward’s recent disclosure that he testified under oath on November 14 that he had learned from a senior administration official in mid-June 2003 about CIA operative Valerie Plame, lawyers for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby claimed that this revelation undermined one of special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald’s key allegations against Libby. Attorney Ted Wells stated that, in his announcemenvt of Libby’s indictment for perjury, obstruction of justice, and false statements, Fitzgerald asserted that Libby “was the first government official to tell a reporter” about Plame — a statement now proven to be “totally inaccurate,” according to Wells. But Wells has misrepresented what Fitzgerald actually said: that Libby “was the first official known to have told a reporter” this information [emphasis added].

Later in the press conference, Fitzgerald repeated that Libby was the first official to disclose Plame’s identity to a reporter — this time without the qualifier. But by making it clear at the outset that Libby was only the first official known to have disclosed the information, as MSNBC host Keith Olbermann noted in a weblog post, “Fitzgerald was clearly and meticulously leaving his case open in case an earlier leaker later turned up — as evidently he just did.”

Despite Fitzgerald’s use of this crucial qualifier, numerous news outlets and media figures have repeated Wells’s claim — that Woodward’s disclosure contradicted what Fitzgerald said — as fact. They include the Associated Press, The Washington Post, NBC News correspondent David Shuster, Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle, ABC News correspondent Elizabeth Vargas, and others.

On November 16, Wells declared in a written statement that Fitzgerald’s assertion was “totally inaccurate”:

First, the disclosure [by Woodward] shows that Mr. Fitzgerald’s statement at his press conference of Oct. 28, 2005, that Mr. Libby was the first government official to tell a reporter about Mr. Wilson’s wife was totally inaccurate.

Here is what Fitzgerald actually said in the opening statement of his October 28 press conference:

FITZGERALD: Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when [syndicated columnist] Mr. [Robert] Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson’s wife, Valerie [Plame] Wilson, Ambassador Wilson’s wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

In putting forth the claim that Woodward’s revelation “contradicted” Fitzgerald’s stated version of events, several media figures highlighted Fitzgerald’s subsequent statement, made during the question-and-answer portion of the press conference:

FITZGERALD: At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby’s story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true.

It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.

But in citing or referring only to this later statement, numerous news outlets and media figures have presented a distorted and incomplete version of what Fitzgerald said.

From the November 16 Associated Press article headlined “Woodward Claim on CIA Leak Disputes Charge”:

Bob Woodward’s version of when and where he learned the identity of a CIA operative contradicts a special prosecutor’s contention that Vice President Dick Cheney’s top aide was the first to make the disclosure to reporters.

From the November 17 Washington Post article headlined “Woodward Could Be A Boon To Libby”:

Legal experts said Woodward provided two pieces of new information that cast at least a shadow of doubt on the public case against Libby, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff, who has been indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

Woodward testified Monday that contrary to Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald’s public statements, a senior government official — not Libby — was the first Bush administration official to tell a reporter about Plame and her role at the CIA. Woodward also said that Libby never mentioned Plame in conversations they had on June 23 and June 27, 2003, about the Iraq war, a time when the indictment alleges Libby was eagerly passing information about Plame to reporters and colleagues.

From the November 16 edition of CNN’s Live From …:

KELLI ARENA (CNN correspondent): There are some lawyers who say that this at least raises reasonable doubt, and that’s because Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, came out and said that Lewis Libby was the first person who had spoken to reporters about Valerie Plame. And if Woodward’s timetable is correct, then he was not the first official to speak to the press about Valerie Plame.

From the November 16 broadcast of ABC’s World News Tonight:

VARGAS: Here in Washington, a lot of people are talking about a surprising new development in the CIA leak investigation. Renowned Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward says he found out about the CIA agent’s identity a month before it was revealed in a newspaper column. This is significant because the special prosecutor in the case has accused the vice president’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, of being the first person to leak the name. Now, that claim is very much in question because The Washington Post said Mr. Woodward learned about the name from someone else.

From the November 16 edition of Fox News’ Special Report with Brit Hume:

ANGLE: A surprising development in the CIA leak case today as Bob Woodward said he told prosecutors he’d been told that Joe Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA a month before Scooter Libby is accused of telling reporters, undercutting one of the key assertions of the prosecutor, that Libby was the original source.

[...]

ANGLE: When special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald announced the indictment of Libby, one of the key assertions in the charges was that no one really knew Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA until Libby disclosed it, that in effect, he started the whole thing.

FITZGERALD [video clip]: He was at the beginning of the chain of the phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter, and that he lied about it afterwards, under oath, and repeatedly.

[...]

ANGLE: One of Libby’s lawyers, Ted Wells, told Fox “Woodward’s disclosures are a bombshell to Mr. Fitzgerald’s case,” that the assertion Libby was the original source “was totally inaccurate.”

From the November 16 edition of MSNBC’s Hardball:

SHUSTER: Woodward’s conversation with the unnamed senior official came before Libby spoke about the Wilsons to reporters, and therefore Woodward’s conversation could help Libby’s defense team show that at least one claim about Libby was wrong.

FITZGERALD [video clip]: He was at the beginning of the chain of the phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter.

SHUSTER: Libby, though, who was at the courthouse today examining pretrial documents, is charged with obstructing the investigation, and legal experts say a change in the prosecution leak chronology may not matter very much in the Libby case.

Several other media figures attributed to Wells the claim that Fitzgerald’s statement had been proven “totally inaccurate,” but failed to correct it.

From the November 16 edition of Fox News’ DaySide:

JULIET HUDDY (co-host): There was a Washington Post story this morning that says Bob Woodward, the famous journalist, learned about Valerie Plame, you remember her — she is the former CIA worker. He learned about her the month before Bob Novak’s column was published. So this obviously takes a little bit of oomph out of Patrick Fitzgerald’s case — the special prosecutor’s case.

MIKE JERRICK (co-host): And Woodward says he knew who she was. So let’s talk a little more about that. Mr. Libby was the first government — I mean, statements that Mr. Libby was the first government official to tell about a reporter about Mr. Wilson’s wife’s employment at the CIA was totally inaccurate then, according to Ted Wells, Libby’s attorney.

From the November 17 edition of NBC’s Today:

RUSSERT: Well, the Libby lawyers have called it a bombshell, because they’re saying that Mr. Fitzgerald, the special counsel, said that the first public official to talk to a reporter about Joseph Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was Scooter Libby and now Mr. Woodward seems to contradict that. The Libby lawyers will then suggest, well, you see that shows the investigation was not as comprehensive as it should have been.

From the November 17 edition of MSNBC’s Connected Coast to Coast:

O’DONNELL: Scooter Libby’s attorney, Ted Wells, says it is a bombshell. He says that it tears apart special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s case that Libby was the first person to reveal this to a reporter and that Libby was involved in some kind of scheme. Wells says that the revelation by Bob Woodward that he, in fact, was the first reporter to learn this information shows that the special prosecutor’s case is baseless. The Washington Times today, in an editorial, is calling on special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to drop the charges against Scooter Libby. Still, Scooter Libby was charged on five counts, an indictment accusing him of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements.

— J.K.