Sponsors

Holy Toledo: Bob Woodward in the CIA Leak Case Email Print

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.

So, as Josh and Atrios both point out, not only is this incredibly important new data for Plameologists, but it also makes Woodward's seemingly innocent commentary during the whole affair seem, well, at the very, very most charitable disingenuous.

Atrios already has Woodward's comments of just several weeks back in which he oh so innocently carries water for the Busheviki discusses the possible upcoming indictments.

As Josh says, this all needs to be digested, particularly its ramifications for the case:  clearly the publication of those details that "the official" allowed Woodward and WaPo to publish is meant entirely to put the whole affair within the official administration spin that it was all just "gossip" and "chatter," and that, as Woodward wants to claim, the "official" explicitly did not think that Plame was undercover.  To which we all, of course, can give a loud and simultaneous HA! -- or at least a chin stroking hmmm, how convenient ...

Especially in light of this:

William Jeffress Jr., one of Libby's lawyers, said yesterday that Woodward's testimony undermines Fitzgerald's public claims about his client and raises questions about what else the prosecutor may not know.

[We should note that the WaPo article adds

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Rove, said that Rove is not the unnamed official who told Woodward about Plame and that he did not discuss Plame with Woodward.
]

SO what does this all mean?  A lot of brand new unanswered questions certainly now appear on the horizon.

As to Booby Woodward, well, ya gotta shake your head sadly and sigh, "How the mighty have fallen ..."

-- Stu


KEYWORDS: , , , , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Sen. Hagel Excoriates Bush | I Break PJ Media's EULA >
 Display:
And yes, as you say, it's going to take time to figure out the logical ramifications.

But God, I'm sick sick sick over Woodward pontificating on news shows about this, as if he were an objective elder statesman commentator.

Sick at heart, I am. He's one of the main reasons I grew up wanting to be a journalist. Sad times.

by SusanG on 11/16/2005 12:38:49 AM EST

There's more from the WaPo story that I didn't quote above, including a rather noticeable disagreement with Pincus:

Woodward's statement said he testified: "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 said he does not recall Woodward telling him that. In an interview, Pincus said he cannot imagine he would have forgotten such a conversation around the same time he was writing about Wilson.

"Are you kidding?" Pincus said. "I certainly would have remembered that."

Oy.  Not just a "we seem to remember it differently," but an "are you kidding?"  Sounds like Woodward may be loved around the WaPo newsroom just about as much as Judy was at the Times ...

-- Stu

by sdf on 11/16/2005 01:04:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That was the most honest response I've seen in a while. Like a reporter would "forget" that an editor told him a source's wife as a CIA agent.

Woodward's really blown it. Really blown it.

Can you imagine the atmosphere in that newsroom tomorrow?

by SusanG on 11/16/2005 01:14:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Bob Woodward seems cursed to lose all the respect he once earned in bringing down one maniacal, would-be emperor through his attachment to another.

Bush figured out the perfect way to defang the tiger.  He let Woodward become an insder.  Made him a friend.  Part of the team.  Robbed of objectivity, poor Bob blunders around like Scott McClelan's assistant, shuffling along to Rove's pipes.

It's sad.

by Devilstower on 11/16/2005 01:06:49 AM EST

Ugh. Housebroke him through guaranteeing access.

I can't wait for someone to get a quote from Bernstein about his thoughts on this.

by SusanG on 11/16/2005 01:12:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Woodward Is Disgraced, front-paged over @ BooMan places Woodward's statement in context of the l'affair Plame timeline.

Definitely worth the click.  Very clear and well-written.

[Apologies for what may be a breach of protocol].

by rba on 11/16/2005 09:34:00 AM EST

now between Woodword and Armstrong Williams?

Jeff Gannon? (OK, Woodward's not a hooker. Er, um, oh whatever.)

Maybe this is why the news media continues to be seen as less and less credible. And certainly this is why we need blogs, to provide a check and balance for the all-to-willing-to-shill news media.

Dissent Protects Democracy

by cscs on 11/16/2005 10:20:12 AM EST

 Display: