16
Nov
Woodward: Mr. Run Amok?
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?
Rory: I agree Woodward deserves scrutiny, but it is not true that he said his source was a “top White House official.” He refers to “current or former Bush Administration officials.” That could include officials from the CIA. So if the source was someone from the CIA, who told Woodward that information about Mrs. Wilson was not sensitive or classified, then why did the CIA ask for a Justice Department probe of the Novak column naming her?
November 16th, 2005 at 4:05 pmObviously, the “former” Bush official is Libby. But I disagree with the general assessment that Woodward has discredited Fitzgerald’s indictment of Libby. Instead, it only re-affirms the fact that more people are involved in disclosing Plame’s identity. This could be more fuel for Fitzgerald to open up the investigations even wider. I’m certainly not a defender of Woodward. I feel he should resign from the Post, since it is clear that he has a conflict of interests in writing books for his own gain vs. working as an editor/reporter for the Post.
November 16th, 2005 at 4:55 pmIf Woodward was initially given information about Plame ‘in confidence”, and now is advised he can be relieved of that confidentiality, is this not a Miller de ja vu ? all over again, as Yogi would say. Why did he not decline to answer Pat Fitzgerald, and threaten himself with jail time?
November 16th, 2005 at 6:01 pmThis sounds like another administrative manipulation.
Seems very strange that Woodward would choose CNN to reveal all (or some of it)
Maximum publicity for yet another book ??
Richard Donaldson-Alves
November 16th, 2005 at 6:17 pmMiller, Woodward, Libby, Rove and now somebody else: It appears to me that all the leaking is really the marionette just moving the strings. Will we ever know the truth, or do we already know it and are hoping for judicial sanction. We have put the pieces together time and again but have never had eyewitnesses to affirm our hunches. Was 9/11 the necessary motivation needed to invade Iraq? Is that the real crime and everything else is just smoke in the eyes?
November 16th, 2005 at 7:36 pmFitzgerald never said Libby was the first. Go back and check what Fitzgerald said.
November 17th, 2005 at 3:38 amWill the Real Bob Woodward Stand Up!
Sadly, Bob Woodward’s name can no longer be associated as a symbol for truth and a beacon for justice or equated with “scoop” or ”I got you journalism” after Woodward finally disclosed that he was aware of Valerie Plame’s name in June of 2003, however, and kept quiet about it because he did not want to become involved, which action has helped to through sand in District Attorney Fitzpatrick’s eyes.
It is ironic that Woodward once known for unearthing the truth no matter how high the price and for brining down a president, has now come full circle as he secretly and deliberately helped to keep buried the truth, thereby aiding and abetting a president to maintain that office.
Woodward once known for fighting corruption and coverup is now known for lying down with corruption and coverup as he becomes entangled in the current administration’s bed of lies and deception.
Woodward a name once synonymous with truth and justice is now synonymous with falsehoods and lies. Woodward is no longer an independent journalist but a talking or non talking advocate for the Bush Regime, the plot thickens.
Oh, What a tangled web we make!
November 17th, 2005 at 6:52 amEver since Woodward claimed to have been the last in (CIA) Casey’s room before he died and reported some of his last words, I have treated Mr. Woodward’s words with much caution. Casey’s wife denied that Woodwards account could be believable. Also reading his works and listening with the third ear, so to speak, I think he is not as objective as he thinks he is in his reporting.Though I confess it is hard for me to entirely erase my bias. If my concerns are in fact valid, it is sad to have these worries about his integrity after such a brilliant job of Watergate reporting.
November 17th, 2005 at 12:07 pmWith reference to comment #6 — this is ENTIRELY correct. What Mr. Fitzgerald said was, “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.” [emphasis added] I think we are losing sight of the fact that he is not being prosecuted because he was “the first.” He is being prosecuted for lying to a grand jury and for obstruction of justice.
Repeat: Mr. Fitgerald does not say that Libby was the first, ever — he said he was this first known. Here is a link to the transcript of his statement: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html
November 17th, 2005 at 1:21 pmPlease stop writing what Libby’s lawyer said. If you’re going to quote what Libby’s lawyer says Fitzgerald said, at least follow it with what Fitzgerald actually said. The general media keeps doing this disservice - you don’t have to.
November 17th, 2005 at 1:27 pmLast night, Keith Olberman did his best to correct it. You could too.
Hi Rory O’Connor,
Teriffic work!! Thank you.
Am I correct regarding…
[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?”]
…did not Pat Fitzgerald say…Libby is the first official “known” to have given this information to a reporter.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:32 pmWoodward’s information IS a ‘bombshell’ to this investigation, no one can deny that at this point. So how does a person fearing the possibility that Fitzgerald might be mistaken - or fooled - react? By hamstringing Woodward. Now that’s class.
I see a reporter who has never followed the rules and never revealed his sources still not following the rules or revealing his sources. And I believe that he honestly considers this case to be a farce. That’s his right.
In your zeal to bring down King Bush, don’t delude yourself into believing that the only good people are the ones saying what you want to hear. The fact that Woodward is being slandered now by the same people who grew up idolizing him - who now consider him a traitor to their political ’cause’ as they scramble to discredit him - is shameful.
November 18th, 2005 at 5:03 amIn my opinion Woodward’s fall from his pedistal lends credence to my conviction that Watergate was a Left-wing media campaign to overthrow the U.S.Government and usurp the peoples right to govern themselves through the pinciple of free elections . They succeeded then but have failed this time because of the overwhelming power of greed– Too many people wanting all the glory for themselvs .
November 18th, 2005 at 6:53 pmWhatever Woodward’s revelation says about his personal integrity, it calls into question the integrity of the Washington Post. Woodward’s ties to the Bush administration leave me feeling whatever the Post says about the Bush administration passes through the filter of a management which endorses a Bush sycophant on it’s editorial staff. That leaves us with Pincus. First the NY Times, now the Post. Is there no end to the corruption of ethics in journalism? Shame on the Post for not firing him poste haste.
November 18th, 2005 at 8:00 pmFor over a year, Woodward repressed the news, that someone had revealed Plame’s ID weeks before the Novak article. He easily cold have written the story without revealing his source.
Woodward ceased to be a journalist a long time ago.
November 19th, 2005 at 1:20 ama correction and comment:
Correction: The “18 page list of questions” did not include the phrase “Joe Wilson’s wife.” That was on another piece of paper that Woodward thinks was on his desk at the time. (it had been prepared for a talk with Andy Card.)
Comment: The disclosure in Time magazine that Woodward asked his source twice (in 2004 and in 2005) for a waiver before getting one just recently puts Woodward firmly in the center of a conspiracy to obstruct justice. The fact that he did not tell his editor (a disclosure that was required and that would not require a waiver) cements that position.
The key component in Woodward’s “testimony” is not that he was told before anyone else, it is his claim that Pincus knew about “Wilson’s wife” before Pincus talked to any administration officials. It is highly likely that immediately after Woodward told Downie, Downie notified the Post’s lawyers, who in turn notified the Special Prosecutor’s office.
(The Post was involved in the negotiations concerning Pincus’s deposition in the Plame case, and both Downie and the lawyers were doubtless aware of what Pincus would testify to. Since Pincus did not recall any such conversation with Woodward, je would have testified that when his source discussed “Wilson’s wife” it was the first time he heard about it.)
The disclosure to Fitzgerald would have come within days of the expiration of the grand jury, when it was too late to do anything about it. With the testimony of a key witness thrown into serious question, Fitzgerald would have had to rethink who got indicted, and for what.
Woodward is, in other words, not an observer, but a major participant in this drama right now. It comes as no surprise that Woodward minimized the investigation the night before the indictment was handed down — he no doubt thought that he’d managed to throw a spanner into the entire works.
And Woodward’s story does not add up. Woodward knows that reporters are supposed to disclose everything of relevance to their editors, especially in controversial cases such as this when the lawyers get involved.
That means that Woodward, if he truly believed that Pincus knew about “Wilson’s wife” from him, also knew that information would have been disclosed to Downie.
So there was nothing stopping Woodward from telling Downie what Downie ALREADY should have known, if Woodward is telling the truth about telling Pincus. Yet, Woodward did not tell Downie.
November 19th, 2005 at 5:56 pmHello
Looks good! Very useful, good stuff. Good resources here. Thanks much!
Bye
July 4th, 2007 at 8:24 pmHi. Me very much to like here. I shall advise this site to the friends.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:14 pmI am sorry for my English. I only learn this language.
Britney Jean Spears (born December 2, 1981) is an American pop music singer, songwriter, and dancer.http://britneyshow.theanswerman.org Spears has sold over seventy-six million albums worldwide according to Time magazine.The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) ranks her as the eighth best-selling female artist in American music history, having sold thirty-one million albums in the U.S.
September 8th, 2007 at 5:39 pm