More Woodward!
Heck, why not, it’s the juiciest story going now…Slate’s Jack Shafer:
What did Bob Woodward know, and when did he know it?
That’s the first question that came to my mind as today’s (Nov. 16) Page One story in the Washington Post, “Woodward Was Told of Plame More Than Two Years Ago,” knocked me off my seat, spilling steaming hot coffee all down my Slate insignia bib.
For the last two years, every reader and reporter in America has been adjusting his Valerie Plame timetable, trying to figure out who in the government leaked her name to whom and in what order. Meanwhile, Woodward was sitting mum in the catbird seat, the scoop trapped in his bill. The information would still be there if Woodward’s source—unnamed in the Post account and unnamed by Woodward in his “statement”—hadn’t told Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about the conversation on Nov. 3. Fitzgerald deposed Woodward for more than two hours yesterday.
Jason Zengerle:
…[W]ho was Woodward’s source? Presumably, the source is sympathetic to Libby and came forward–approaching Fitzgerald a week after Libby was indicted–with the hope of bolstering Libby’s defense. (After all, as one of Libby’s lawyers, William Jeffress Jr told the Post, “If what Woodward says is so, 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? The second question I would have is: Why did Mr. Fitzgerald indict Mr. Libby before fully investigating what other reporters knew about Wilson’s wife?”)
Steve Clemons:
Tomorrow, the Post — in an editorial penned by Leonard Downie — better make clear that Bob Woodward gets no “Judy Miller”-like protection or nod of support from the reporting staff of the paper. He has violated the public trust by both withholding information he had in a key investigation, while playing pundit on Larry King, and now upending things late in the process.
For those who think Woodward’s revelations haven’t rained on Fitzgerald’s parade, consider: the leftie bloggers blew a gasket everytime a leak that seemed anti-Rove came out, no matter how far-fetched (remember the talk of dozens of indictments?)…their reaction to this actual event has been largely: (a) ignore it, or (b) go after Woodward like Garfield on lasagna…
Viking Pundit: “The only thing that’s going to bring down Karl Rove now is kryptonite”…
That’s in response to this story in the Washington Post that confirms what all but the densest Kos Kidz have grasped by now – Fitzgerald’s case is in deep – er, poop:
The revelation that The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward may have been the first reporter to learn about CIA operative Valerie Plame could provide a boost to the only person indicted in the leak case: I. Lewis “Scooter” 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.
…”I think it’s a considerable boost to the defendant’s case,” said John Moustakas, a former federal prosecutor who has no role in the case. “It casts doubt about whether Fitzgerald knew everything as he charged someone with very serious offenses.” Other legal experts agreed.
Moustakas said Woodward also has considerable credibility because he has been granted “unprecedented access” to the inner workings of the Bush White House. “When Woodward says this information was disclosed to me in a nonchalant and casual way — not as if it was classified — it helps corroborate Libby’s account about himself and about the administration,” Moustakas said.
Even the Scooter the Left got for Fitzmas is in danger of being taken back…
Wouldn’t it just be easier to keep track of which reporters DIDN’T know Joe Wilson was married to Valerie Plame?
Fatman is right.
We now know hugh sidey(managing editor of Time/Washington) knew and he even stated that it was common knowledge.
General Vallely knew from Wilson by early 2003.
Andrea Mitchell and Russert knew before big red’s conversation with Libby in July.
This whole idea that Libby, the VP’s chief of staff, was never asked about Plame by a reporter who knew her identity, after it was stated by Kristoff in May 03 that a ‘former ambassador was sent to Africa by the VP’ is ludicrous.
Does anyone think that the press didn’t care about who Wilson was? Clearly it was known by press people that Wilson’s wife did work at the CIA, before the Libby phone calls.
These reporters are never going to talk-and by not doing so will end this case.
Fitz has to prove ALL reporters who spoke with Libby, didn’t already know Wilson’s wife’s occupation. To watch this continue in the face of the fact that reports are continually surfacing that the people in the press and public knew prior to any timeline established by Fitz is fantastic news.
The statment by Wells(Libby’s lawyer) is being parsed because it lacks the word ‘known’ is the last straw being grasped. In the face of the obvious-The press knew, and was curious long before June 12, which is even longer before July 10/11 2003, where the perjury/obstruction/false statments about passing along earlier press questions to Cooper and Russert (by Fitz) occurred has become a sinking ship.
Please dems, climb aboard.
What would your reaction be if it is revealed that Dick Cheney was the first one to blow Plame’s cover?
You mean Cheney made it public by going to the press? You lost Rove, you lost Libby, now you wish it was Cheney again? give it up…or please continue. In the former case it is useless, and in the latter you deflect news attention away from things that might prove more successful.
This fitzmas thing has been the greatest boon to the administration, it shows Dems making charges that are proving to be false-in the court of law.
What would your rxn be if Cheney ran for Pres in 08, with Rice on the ticket?
Too old and feeble? He wouldn’t exactly have Dan Quayle as his back-up. The questions surrounding his ability to survive four years, would be pumping up Condi to be the next Pres.
Morris would still watch a HRC/Rice matchup, she would just be in the batter’s circle, picking off independents-while Cheney walks the GOP base over to Condi.
Woodward knows this…is a big civil rights advocate from the 60’s, and realize the opportunity is too important for advancement of a qualifed African-American. He’s on the team, but worries about Condi getting the base and surviving the primary.
If you can keep Bush’s numbers down, it won’t happen, but history shows that the numbers always change. I sincerely doubt Iraq will be an issue the dems will want to discuss for 2007, and if troop withdrawal occurs after election on Dec 15th up to the spring-it will be a dem gambit to call it a failure.
Can’t wait to see how well that is received by the troops returning home. Time is significantly on the administrations side.
peter, actually, Jason Zengerle at the New Republic considered the Cheney theory, but found it highly doubtful…I think it was either someone at State or Defense…
Oh, I see I already linked that story above in the post – sorry. My own reaction would depend, much as it would with any other official, on whether Cheney knew she was covert when he leaked. If so, I would condemn the action – if not, politician/reporter relationship as usual…
But Hardball ran a graphic(actually puzzle pieces falling away) that shows Cheney, so it must be him.
(They’ve turned off the violin’s for their intro…)
I’m not suggesting that Cheney leaked her identity – needless to say, I have no way of knowing. Nor do I want it to be true. However, it is certainly plausible. Woodward seems to have access to anyone in Washington, and the “Libby fell on his sword to protect Cheney” thesis is nothing new. I just think it is an interesting question to ask GOP partisans. In the event that it is proven that Cheney was the first leaker, and revealed her cover, what would your reaction be?
Well, you got my reaction, what would yours be, as a non-GOP partisan?…
Well, I don’t believe in government by impeachment, but I think it would be a serious offense and, if true, he ought to resign. Of course, this is all hypothetical, but let’s suppose that Cheney a) knew she was covert, b) was the first to reveal her identity, and c) did so for partisan reasons. There are some things which are dismissable offenses in any private company: embezzlement, harassment, showing up at work drunk, etc. There are other things which are (or should be) dismissable offenses in government, and I believe that purposely revealing the identity of a covert agent for partisan reasons is one of those things.