Woodward-gate?



By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted November 17, 2005.


What did Bob Woodward know about the outing of Valerie Plame and when did he know it? Tools

Has Bob Woodward just become the Washington Post's Judy Miller?

It was bad enough when Woodward shifted in recent years from the tough, no-holds-barred investigative reporter of the Watergate era to his current incarnation as a best-selling author and soft courtier to the powerful.

Things got worse when he consistently withheld stories from the Post (where he is assistant managing editor) and information from his superiors that resulted in the newspaper being scooped -- most notably about the identity of Deep Throat.

Woodward's metamorphosis appeared to have reached its nadir last month when he appeared on the Larry King show to claim that the Plamegate scandal that has rocked the White House started "kind of as gossip, as chatter," and "there's a lot of innocent actions in all this." Woodward then went on to denounce special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald as a "junkyard dog" who "turns over rocks, and rocks under rocks."

Excuse me -- but isn't that precisely the job Fitzgerald was hired to do? Not according to Woodward, who believes "a really thoughtful prosecutor" would instead say, "maybe this is not one to go to the court with." Nevertheless, the day after Woodward's remarks, Fitzgerald announced the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, for perjury, false statements, and obstruction.

Now comes the startling news that a senior Bush administration official told Woodward that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative about a month before her identity was made public. Other than to say it was not Libby, Woodward and other editors at the Post refuse to identify the official.

The revelation that a still-unnamed top White House official (not Karl Rove, according to Rove's spokesman) told Woodward about Plame well before Libby revealed her identity to Judy Miller came in the course of a two-hour deposition Woodward gave on Monday. Fitzgerald interviewed Woodward about the previously undisclosed conversation after the anonymous official contacted the special counsel a week after Libby was indicted.

Woodward's testimony obviously raises questions about Libby's indictment. "Will Mr. Fitzgerald now say he was wrong to say on TV that Scooter Libby was the first official to give this information to a reporter?" one of Libby's lawyers, William Jeffress Jr., asked the Post. "Why did Mr. Fitzgerald indict Mr. Libby before fully investigating what other reporters knew about Wilson's wife?"

As the Post's own article states, "Woodward and Post editors refused to disclose the official's name or provide crucial details about the testimony." Moreover, "Woodward did not share the information with Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. until last month, and the only Post reporter whom Woodward said he remembers telling in the summer of 2003 does not recall the conversation taking place."

As Post reporters Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig delicately reported, Executive Editor Downie "declined to say whether he was upset that Woodward withheld the information from him." Downie also told them "he could not explain why Woodward said he provided a tip about Wilson's wife to Walter Pincus, a Post reporter writing about the subject, but did not pursue the matter when the CIA leak investigation began." Downie added "Woodward has often worked under ground rules while doing research for his books that prevent him from naming sources or even using the information they provide until much later."

Further, although Woodward says "I told Walter Pincus, a reporter at The Post, without naming my source, that I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst," Pincus says he does not recall Woodward telling him that. In fact, Pincus "cannot imagine he would have forgotten such a conversation" around the same time he was writing about Wilson.

"Are you kidding?" Pincus told his own newspaper. "I certainly would have remembered that."

Shades of Little Miss Run Amok! Information too sensitive to share with editors ... co-workers who don't recall conversations you claim to have had with them ... Say it ain't so, Bob! Unfortunately it is so, and Woodward has apparently once again put his newspaper at risk for his own personal profit and aggrandizement. It's been evident for some time that his book-writing career conflicts with his reporting at the Washington Post, and it is well past time for Woodward to choose one or the other, instead of trying to have his cake and eat it too.

As Sydney Schanberg wrote recently in the Village Voice, "Critics in the press have suggested that Woodward is too close to some of his sources to provide readers with an undiluted picture of their activities.

"His remarks about the Fitzgerald investigation convey the attitude of a sometime insider reluctant to offend -- and that is hardly a definition of what a serious, independent reporter is supposed to be. It's a far piece from Watergate."

For example, as Woodward testified in his deposition, he discussed Iraq policy with Libby on June 27, 2003 as part of his research for yet another "insider's" book about the Bush administration. According to the Post, "He said he does not believe Libby said anything about Plame."

But Woodward also told Fitzgerald, based on an 18-page list of questions he planned to ask Libby, (which included the phrases "yellowcake" and "Joe Wilson's wife") that it "is possible he asked Libby about Plame or her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson." Woodward also said, however, that he "had no recollection" of mentioning the pair to Libby.

Let's recap, shall we? Woodward says he "does not believe" Libby said anything about Plame; he has "no recollection" of mentioning Plame or her husband to Libby; but it "is possible" that he asked Libby about both. And although he told Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie nothing, he says he did tell Post reporter Walter Pincus that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst. But Pincus says he recalls nothing of the sort.

Got that? Clear as mud, right?

This much at least is clear: Woodward's testimony changes key elements in the chronology Fitzgerald announced when indicting Libby; Woodward's unnamed official is now revealed to be the first government employee to disclose Plame's CIA employment to a reporter; and Woodward is that reporter ...

Woodward's previously undisclosed involvement in the Plamegate affair must also be viewed in light of his repeated public dismissals of its importance. The Larry King show was but the latest -- as Woodward told National Public Radio this summer, "When I think all of the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great."

Woodward declined to elaborate on the statement he released to The Post late yesterday afternoon and publicly last night, and would not answer any questions. That's too bad, because I have at least two: What did Bob Woodward know about the leak of Valerie Plame's secret identity?

And when did he know it?

This and other articles by Rory O'Connor are available on his blog.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/28372/

========================================================

Questions Bob Woodward has not answered
Sun Nov 27, 2005 17:18

 

Questions Bob Woodward has not answered
By Margie Burns
Online Journal Contributing Writer
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_268.shtml

Nov 25, 2005, 22:21

One ingenious theory about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA operative comes from a spookily alert reader who suggests that former CIA Director George Tenet may have played Vice President Cheney for a sucker.

In this ingenious scenario, Tenet could have told top-security-clearance Cheney that Wilson's wife recommended Wilson for the Niger inquiry, "BUT [in the reader's words] (cough,cough) 'FAILED TO MENTION' she was a clandestine N.O.C. working for the operations' side (not the public CIA analytical side)." In this delicious surmise, to use my reader's words, "Did Tenet anticipate that Cheney couldn't resist using this [item] in a 'black op' to hatchet a critic?"

No proof that that's what happened, of course, but what a reckoning: "No wonder when Powell showed Bush and Cheney (only) the INR memo with Plame's info marked 'SECRET NFE,' Cheney (to quote Powell) 'zeroed in on it!' At that fateful moment on AF1 (ironically over Africa), Cheney knew he had swallowed Tenet's poison pill and his 'kill the messenger' plan, being implemented by Scooter, was 'outing' a secret clandestine CIA operative . . . Surprise, surprise!"

Further delights: as the public knows, after Novak's column came out, "outing a CIA NOC & her front company," it was Tenet himself who "carefully reviewed the facts" and insisted that the DOJ investigate this "treasonous act."

Thus, "-- game, set, match point -- the CIA wins a 10-year bitter feud with Cheney's cabal." Hell hath no fury like "a DCI scorned," or words to that effect.

Many questions arise from the text of Bob Woodward's guarded but revealing statement ("Testifying in the CIA Leak Case," Washington Post Nov.16, 2005). Emailed and telephoned messages for Woodward at the paper have not been answered. Here are some of the questions that come to mind:

* When Mrs. Wilson was mentioned, was the CIA front company Brewster Jennings mentioned as well? Was Brewster Jennings mentioned by any administration officials in the same period?

* Who was the administration official who first told Woodward about Mrs. Wilson?

* Now that that official has gone to the prosecutor himself, why is (only) the public not allowed to know his name? Is that secrecy to protect material for Woodward's upcoming book on Bush's second term?

* The pertinent interview is said to have taken place "in mid-June 2003." What was the date? Could the conversation have been provoked by the June 14, 2003, conference on the Iraq war held at the Capitol, where Wilson gave the keynote speech? Could it have been in response to Wilson's saying, at that conference, that he was about to go public with his Niger information?

* Was the interview on the phone or in person?

* Who initiated the interview, the reporter or the unnamed official?

* In retrospect, doesn't it seem odd that more than one government official mentioned that Wilson's wife was a CIA analyst, and also referred to her only as Wilson's wife rather than by name? Since those mentions were similar in style as in substance, don't they seem concerted, especially in light of later excuses that 'we didn't use her name'?

* Did this official also drop the impression that Wilson's Niger trip had been arranged by Mrs. Wilson? Why doesn't Woodward's statement clarify that point, either way?

* Was any documentation provided with the information, by the unnamed administration official?

* Woodward's statement says that the reference seemed "casual and offhand." An administration official dropped an item about a CIA analyst to Bob Woodward, who has maintained contacts in the CIA for years and has written a book about the CIA, and he took the reference to be "casual and offhand"? Why?

* The statement says Woodward then told Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus about the item. How soon after? Was it before July 13? In other words, was Woodward rather than Novak the first media person to transmit this item?

* Bob Woodward, who has been criticized widely for years for being in bed with the CIA, and who is also management at the Post, idly dropped this item about a CIA analyst to one of his reporters? Why?

* Did Woodward also pass along the item about Brewster Jennings?

* Did he imply or express to Pincus that Mrs. Wilson arranged the trip?

* The statement makes clear that Woodward had at least four conversations pertinent to the Plame inquiry, with at least three administration officials. Who initiated these interviews? Were they all recorded, and in their entirety?

* According to the statement, "Though neither Wilson nor Wilson's wife's name had surfaced publicly at this point, Pincus had published a story the day before, Sunday, June 22, about the Iraq intelligence before the war. I testified that I had read the story, which referred to the CIA mission by "a former senior American diplomat to visit Niger." Although his name was not used in the story, I knew that referred to Wilson." How? From the unnamed official, or from elsewhere?

* According to the statement, "I also testified that I had a conversation with a third person on June 23, 2003. The person was I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and we talked on the phone." Was this in response to the Pincus article the day before?

* According to the statement, "I testified that on June 27, 2003, I met with Libby at 5:10 p.m. in his office adjacent to the White House . . . Libby discussed the October 2002 [NIE] on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, mentioned 'yellowcake'and said there was an 'effort by the Iraqis to get it from Africa. It goes back to February '02.' This was the time of Wilson's trip to Niger." What does this item from Woodward's notes mean? Was it being suggested that the purported attempt to buy yellowcake came from Wilson's trip, rather than the other way around?

Joseph Wilson had replied, in response to emailed questions, that Woodward was not present at the EPIC (Education for Peace in Iraq) conference on June 14, and that he was also not present when Wilson was interviewed by the Post on July 6, 2003, the day his op-ed came out.

As has been pointed out by other writers, many of the same questions arise for Woodward as arose for Judith Miller at the New York Times. Since the story here is obviously that the administration went gunning for Wilson, why didn't Woodward report that? (Time magazine suggested on July 18 that the administration had "declared war" against Wilson.)

Since Woodward was not writing about this story, how is an official who planted items with him a "source"? Woodward's statement does not assert that he in any way solicited information about Mrs. Wilson in these conversations; quite the contrary. Is Woodward claiming blanket confidentiality for all items he hears, whether in journalistic context or not? Wouldn't that be rather like a priest's claiming the confidentiality of the confessional if someone revealed a crime to him while he was sitting at a bus stop?

Obviously it cannot be stated with certainty what difference it would have made, had Woodward published an item at that time, that an administration official had told him about Wilson's wife working for the CIA. We could already see that the White House was attacking its critics, although this would have been a particularly pointed example.

For what it is worth, I have read Woodward's book Plan of Attack, and no senior government official in it comes off as casual or offhand. But then, the book does not include June or July of 2003.
Margie Burns, a freelance writer in the Washington, DC, area, can be reached at margie.burns@verizon.net.

Copyright 1998-2005 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_268.shtml
================================
Woodward-gate?

http://www.apfn.org/LEAK-GATE/woodward.htm

This White House Scandal Finally Tips the Scale!
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/LEAKGATE.HTM

LISTEN: http://1010kxxt.com/shows.php?sid=2
 

<Back to:

 LEAK - GATE:
This White House Scandal Finally Tips the Scale!

American Patriot Friends Network

"....a network of net workers...."

APFN Message Board

APFN Contents Page

E-Mail: apfn@apfn.org

Hit Counter