What to do with Bob Woodward?

That must be the question running through the minds of administration members as they recall their well-documented praise of Woodward not so long ago. As NBC Nightly News reported, It's "a delicate balance for a White House that trumpeted the accuracy of Woodward's reporting, notably his 2004 bestseller, 'Plan of Attack.'

But, 'accuracy' apparently exists only when the text is fawning.

Bob Woodward's latest, "State of Denial" -- the 'not-so-fawning' installment to Woodward's 'Bush at War' series -- continues to shake the foundation at 1600 PA Ave. This time around, however, White House aides are seeking to undercut the book's central claims. Of course this episode will necessarily take... uhhhh... modified tactical maneuvering. The Bush Administration's usual bout of character assassination and messenger annihilation will not work. They've simply invested themselves too deeply in Woodward's character and integrity.

From the Urban Dictionary:

tool     

One who lacks the mental capacity to know he is being used. A fool. A cretin. Characterized by low intelligence and/or self-esteem.

That tool doesn't even know she's just using him.

Ron Suskind's latest book, The One Percent Doctrine, sets forth, in embarrassing, painful detail the extent to which Bob Woodward was used as a propaganda tool by the Bush Administration.

The subject: Woodward's quickly crumbling claim that George Tenet told Bush and Cheney that the case for Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk."

There are still many unsolved mysteries in Plamegate. The biggest? We still do not know the identity of the original leaker who disclosed Valerie Plame's status as a CIA agent to Robert Novak (Reporters have referred to this person as the mysterious "Mr. X").

Despite all that has been written about the story, and despite the fact that we have now learned much about Scooter Libby's unlawful leaking and subsequent perjury, as well as about Karl Rove's similar conduct (which remains under investigation), the identity of the Senior Administration Official who set this whole debacle in motion remains unknown.

Well, in the Libby Court hearing before Judge Walton  yesterday, we learned a little bit more.

First, The Washington Post mistakenly thinks itself a member of a sanctified priesthood.

Second, The Post blew smoke out its journalistic ass to confuse readers throughout the Nov. 20 "mea culpa" self-examination article by ombudsman Deborah Howell - and assumed we wouldn't notice.

Third, despite the confessional, breathless language employed in Howell's faux contrition piece, there is no recognition that there truly is a serious institutional, systemic problem that needs to be addressed, either at the Washington Post specifically or by mainstream media generally.

The Language and Sanctimony of the Priestly Caste

Let's take a look at some of the language Howell used to explain Bob Woodward's withholding of vital information from Patrick Fitzgerald, Post editors and (oh, yeah, the afterthought) the public.

Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Andrew Card, Dan Bartlett, Colin Powel, George Tenet, former deputy CIA director John McLaughlin, I. Lewis Libby. They've all denied being Woodward's source.

Richard Armitage won't comment and Stephen Hadley can only cite others' claims that he was not the source.

Huh?

It's true. Bush's National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, couldn't find it within himself to deny that he was Woodward's "Mystery" source, yet he freely noted that other members of the Administration said he wasn't the source. So why the weirdness?

Bob Woodward committed a "deeply serious sin" by not telling his editor at the WaPo that a top Bush administration official had told him the name of a CIA officer, the newspaper's ombudsman said.

Hmmm.  I wonder if Larry King will ask Woodward about this tonight?

Deborah Howell, the ombudsman in question had some pointed other barbs at Woody:

"He has to operate under the rules that govern the rest of the staff - even if he's rich and famous," wrote Deborah Howell in The Post's Sunday editions. She said Woodward made another mistake by publicly commenting on the case on CNN's "Larry King Live" and on National Public Radio without disclosing his knowledge of the CIA leak case.

Howell wrote that Woodward's decision to keep the information from Downie "is a deeply serious sin ... the kind that can get even a very good reporter in the doghouse for a very long time."

And while Woodward is listed as an assistant managing editor, Howell said he has no management duties. "He comes and goes as he pleases, mostly writing his best-selling books on what happens behind the doors of power and he reports only to ... Downie," she wrote. "He is allowed to keep juicy stories to himself until his latest book is unveiled on the front page of The Post. He is a master of the anonymous source."

She said Downie should either work more closely with Woodward or assign him another editor at the paper. "The Post needs to exercise more oversight," she wrote.

Let's see if anything changes, including whether or not Woody acknowledges this.

Bob Woodward's upcoming appearance on Larry King tonight is not likely to produce any earth-shatteirng revelations.  King is hardly known as a hard hitting interviewer (what he is known for, other than eight marriages, I've never quite been able to figure out), and Woodward is hardly likely to offer a confession.  However, given the arrogance with which Booby has approached things thus far, he may inadvertently let slip a new piece of information.

Thus, perhaps a very quick roundup of analysis and what we do know (or think we know) might be in order.  I'll give a few items for starters, and other folks can add to this in the comments:

* As spiderleaf noted here, and John Aravosis has noted several times (and I'm sure other folks have as well), Woodward's insistence that he did not tell Downie originally because he was afraid of being subpoenaed by Fitzgerald is chronologically untenable.  That is, since Woodward's conversation occurred several months before there was an independent prosecutor.  And John A. also notes they weren't subpoeaning reporters until May 2004, meaning Booby had almost a full year to fess up before the fear factor could have possibly entered in.

* For a thorough review of exactly what may have caused Woodward to "come forward" in the first place, see emptywheel's encyclopedic piece.

Cross-posted at DailyKos

There's an editorial in today's Washington Post on the brouhaha surrounding Bob Woodward.

And as with the NYT did with Judy Miller, they just don't get it.  

Excuse me, but nobody is vilifying Bob Woodward for protecting the identity of his source.  They are vilifying him for being a part of the story, and using his 'vaulted' experience to undermine the investigation.

More.....

Raw Story is reporting that Stephen Hadley is Woodward's Mystery Source!

"Sources who identified Hadley as Woodward's source dismiss denials"

Attorneys close to the CIA leak investigation reasserted late Thursday that Hadley approached Fitzgerald after Libby's indictment and alerted him to the June 2003 conversation he had with Woodward, and that he subsequently told Woodward he could testify.

When pressed further, the sources told RAW STORY there is a record at the National Security Council of Hadley's meeting with Woodward.

I've been following all the excellent analysis and commentary surrounding Bob "I didn't want to get subpoenaed" Woodward and yet I kept thinking things weren't adding up. So a parsing I went...

And what I found leads me to believe these two "masters of the universe" really think we're stupid. And Woodward is no journalist. And Downie is no editor.

Libby was indicted for lying to investigators. Now it looks like he might have a bunk buddy behind bars:

Woodward's statement claimed that, "I testified that after the mid-June 2003 interview, 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."

When approached with this claim, Pincus responded, "Are you kidding? I certainly would have remembered that."

The Post story noted that Pincus had already been questioned in the investigation, though it did not specify whether or not he was under oath or before the grand jury.

Most likely, Pincus' testimony to the investigators was consistent with his public proclamations -- that he had NOT been told of Plame's identity at the time.

Woodward on the other hand, testified that Pincus DID know of Plame's identity at that time.

Given the circumstances that were unfolding, it was highly unlikely, as Pincus attested, that such a conversation could possibly be forgotten.

Someone lied to the investigators and that someone should be indicted.

So we can follow the timeline:

1.  Late Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning the news comes out that Woodward had, in fact, heard about Valerie Plame's working for the CIA from a Non-Scooter Admininstration Official (for which I would love to coin the acronym NSAO, but it now appears that it was Stephen Hadley, which consigns my not so clever acronym immediately to the dustbin of bloggery).

2. In the original WaPo story from Wednesday morning Libby's lawyer is quoted already trying to use this to discredit the prosecutor, saying that Fitzgerald had claimed in his press conference on indictment day that Scooter was the first administration official to talk to reporters.

3. Said talking point makes its way quickly into the SCLM Day 2 round of stories on the new development. Tony Locy and Pete Yost of the AP declare 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.

The WaPo itself, in an article by Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei, explains that Woodward Could Be a Boon to Libby:

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.

And USA Today chimes in a similar Reporter's account could help Libby's defense.

There's only one problem with all this wonderful stenography.  

Ron Brynaert at his blog, Why Are We Back in Iraq, has a spot-on analysis comparing Bob Woodward's role in the Plame outing to Judith Miller's role. But what makes the read most intriguing is Brynaert's observations that it appears Woodward's original notes weren't consulted. First, Brynaert quotes Woodward:

I testified that on June 27, 2003, I met with Libby at 5:10 p.m. in his office adjacent to the White House. I took the 18-page list of questions with the Page-5 reference to ``yellowcake'' to this interview and I believe I also had the other question list from June 20, which had the ``Joe Wilson's wife'' reference.

I have four pages of typed notes from this interview, and I testified that there is no reference in them to Wilson or his wife. A portion of the typed notes shows that Libby discussed the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate 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.

When asked by Fitzgerald if it was possible I told Libby I knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and was involved in his assignment, I testified that it was possible I asked a question about Wilson or his wife, but that I had no recollection of doing so. My notes do not include all the questions I asked, but I testified that if Libby had said anything on the subject, I would have recorded it in my notes.

Via Josh Marshall, a stunner from tomorrow's Washington Post:

Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case that a senior administration official told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency nearly a month before her identity was disclosed.

In a more than two-hour deposition, Woodward told Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald that the official casually told him in mid-June 2003 that Plame worked as a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction, and that he did not believe the information to be classified or sensitive, according to a statement Woodward released yesterday.

Woodward's Statement is here (pdf file).

Further, in the main Post article:

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.