Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

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?
Advertisement

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.


Digg!

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

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Raw Story says Hadley was his source
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Nov 17, 2005 12:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know they are not always right either. I do not see how Libby's perjury, obstruction and lying to the Grand Jury charges depends on Libby being first one to talk to a reporter. You know this seems slimy and dirty to me. The crap he said about the case and Fitzgerald was uncalled for, when he knew he was involved. He is supposed to be this great truth finding reporter, who seems even worse than Judy Miller right now. She wrote a few story about WMD and he wrote 3 books about Bush. He did not want to have to testify as it would interrupt writing his book about the corrupt Bush and CO. What do you want to bet Bush is not the liar, cheater and war monger that he really is?

He had two sources according to the Post, one unnamed. He was this great guy in the 70s and now he is Bush shill. Did he take notes from Judy since the stories are a lot alike, as this article points out? The Post should show him the door, as they do not need him. I am sure this best selling author made enough money off Bush&CO friends and supporters to retire. Sad day, there are not any newspapers you can trust sometimes. But then they are all own by big corporations who are invested in the right slant on their stories. At least there not as bad as TV reporters, no matter what station the work for unless it is the BBC.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

shut the whole thing down
Posted by: rockpicker on Nov 17, 2005 2:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you can't trust the newspapers to do their jobs, then don't buy the newspapers. Simple as that. Kill your television. Listen to what NPR does NOT cover. Squeeze the corporate media til they whince and beg to be forgiven. Write letters. Let them know what you're doing and why. Re-elect NO ONE! Cheer Cheney's imminent resignation. Impeach Bush. Tell Hilary and Joe Biden to sit the fuck down and shut the hell up! Ask Bernie Sanders to SPEAK! Give Patrick a big round of applause!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What NPR does not cover Posted by: the islander
» I concur Posted by: qrswave
» And, let's start by... Posted by: qrswave
» RE: shut the whole thing down Posted by: covalentbonded
Smoke & Mirrors
Posted by: navistic50 on Nov 17, 2005 3:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bob Woodward is full of it.. another deception to try to wallow through. The Bush administration will go to any lengths to CYA.

I don't believe Mr. Woodward or his former associate Mr. Bernstein are being honest. I went through Watergate like many of our generation and came to appreicate and even revere the work they accomplished to expose former President Nixon and compamy.

This "admission" by Mr Woodward sure seems to come at a very fortunate time, at least fortunate to someone attempting to cloud the water and get their reflection angled right in the mirror.

I am throughly convinced now that Bush and Company are so corrupt that they touch everything within their realm with the belief of entitlement and the sense that they are above the law.


Sorry, Mr. Woodward, Watergate was bad enough, but this administration makes Watergate look like a walk in the park.
Since you have decided to align yourself with the Bush administration, and the use of your position to further assist a evil empire, you have failed the people and this country of ours. More so, you have failed yourself and have sold out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Smoke & Mirrors Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Smoke & Mirrors Posted by: bogey11
» RE: Smoke & Mirrors Posted by: cyclone
Ken Cohen
Posted by: kencohen on Nov 17, 2005 3:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder why Mr. Woodward waited until after the Grand Jury was dismissed to divulge this information. One would think if he was so concerned about Mr Libby's innocence, Mr. Woodward could have stepped forward much sooner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ken Cohen Posted by: Basenjis
Forget the rabble
Posted by: rabblerowzer on Nov 17, 2005 4:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Old Bob Woodward is a victim of his own success. He walks and talks to demigods now, forget the rabble, he’s a made man and above the law. Funny how integrity shrinks for many when their incomes soar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Time for Bob to be shown the door at the WAP
Posted by: jjjhein on Nov 17, 2005 4:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This man is no longer a journalist. He should do like his lookalike Judy Miller and retire from the newspaper he has shamed. It is hard to believe this is the same man who reported on the Nixon corruption. Just to show you what thirty years of hobnobbing with the politically powerful will do to rot your soul. Clearly he has been too close to the toxic cesspool of corruption that is Bush and Co.

Shame on you Bob !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Woodward was an inspiration to me...
Posted by: sgtmartin1 on Nov 17, 2005 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I came of age when he was bringing down the Nixon cabal.

Went through J-school at a time when his work was considered the best-in-class.

Now I can only hope that my integrity is modeled after the Woodward of 30 years ago, not the sycophant weasel he's become today.

New parody on EWM: Pentagon Caught Torturing Prisoners with Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Applications

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No matter what,...
Posted by: hotar on Nov 17, 2005 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Woodward's sudden forthrightness does nothing to mitigate Libby's crimes:

"[O]ne 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?'"

He indicted him because Mr. Libby lied to the grand jury, plain and simple. No amount of bullshit can obscure that fact.

The Woodward revelation is nothing more than a transparent attempt to cloud the issues, by an administration that is scared stiff about what Fitzgerald may pull out of the hat next. Go get 'em, Patrick!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tick-a-tick-a-tick-a-timing
Posted by: 42Years on Nov 17, 2005 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another fine example that "power deceives and all governments lie."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cephalis
Posted by: cephalis on Nov 17, 2005 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a television interview Woodward did some time back, regarding the deteriorated state of investigative reporting, he confessed that he had been co-opted by his closeness to the administration. He said he didn't believe that he was any longer an unbiased and conscientious searcher for facts, as he had been during the Watergate era. With such a statement from his own mouth, why is anyone surprised at his current behavior?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The establishment.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Nov 17, 2005 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a case of a reformer being swallowed up by the establishment. The military industrial complex that Eisenhower cited as a threat to our form of government has become the military/corporate/industrial/media complex under the watchful eyes of both our political parties. This puts both parties squarely on the side of the establishment, and against the people. It is time that voters face the fact that the only time their vote has power is immediately before the election. Once your vote has been cast you have lost your power until immediately before the next election. In the meantime politicians work for the establishment that has the power to keep them in office. It is time that voters not put their faith in the political parties nor the candidates they nominate. Voters must decide which issue is most important to them and only support a candidate that comes down on their side of the issue. There are many issues and if each voter decides which is his most important issue both parties will have to take a stand on the issues most important to the majority of voters. I don't care which party or which candidate doesn't support my view I won't vote for them.
For more details of a non-partisan grass roots effort click on do it before 2006

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The establishment. Posted by: krose
» RE: The establishment. Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: The establishment. Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: The establishment. Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: The establishment. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The establishment. Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: The establishment. Posted by: Lincoln fan
NOT TO WORRY
Posted by: krose on Nov 17, 2005 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FITZGERALD ALLOWED FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS when he stated in his indictment of Libby that he was the "first KNOWN" administration official to give information to a reporter regarding the Plame case. This was spoken about with great detail on the WONDERFUL Keith Olbermann program last night. The charges of perjury, making false statements, and obstruction of justice are all charges which Woodward's interference cannot destroy. We now know, however, that Woodward is the sleaziest of the sleazy, and he, like all of his Right-Wing ilk will stop at nothing to achieve his own selfish aims, including the betrayal of his country!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NOT TO WORRY Posted by: Bozwell
Marta
Posted by: cuja1 on Nov 17, 2005 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iwonder how much pressure or money was given to Woodward to say he was the first to tell, in order to get Libby off the hook?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Marta Posted by: cyclone
It Makes No Difference
Posted by: bogey11 on Nov 17, 2005 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Woodward has said and become will make no difference in Libby's case. Fitzgerald said "Libby was the first known source" not the "first source." None of it has anything to do with the charge itself, PERJURY. It is all nothing but nonsense, and has shown Woodward to be the coward that he has become. If Libby is counting on this "Woodward Bombshell," as his lawyer put it, to keep him out of prison, he had better start packing his toothbrush!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It Makes No Difference Posted by: stoney13
» RE: It Makes No Difference Posted by: cyclone
woodward&bernstein
Posted by: colonist on Nov 17, 2005 9:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After seeing Woodward and Bernstein together recently on TV, it became obvious that Bernstein was the brains of the outfit. He and Woodward were in stark contrast on a lot of issues. I am not surprised at Woodward's actions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Woodward is highly spurious of being Embedded with Rove
Posted by: BlueFlorida on Nov 17, 2005 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I follow the news closely.
I use logic and common sense.
And here are my conclusions:

At a time when the White House is most secretive White House of all time, when journalist can't ask the hard questions, Woodward is given unrestricted access to all top government officials for his book about the Road to the Iraq War. The White House front page linked to the book, promoting sells of the book.

So do you really believe Woodward who was behind breaking open the Watergate Scandal is a crusader for the people, the man who is going take down corrupt government officials?

Or have you realized Woodward is still the same person he was; only you had the wrong impression about him the first time. He was an opportunist then, he's an opportunist now. He takes advantage of whatever angle furthers his career.

And the most damning proof Woodard is embedded with the White House propaganda machine?

He's the one who gives the "Slam Dunk" quote by George Tenant, and thus protect the President and his men from charges of deliberately lying to America. Using that quote, they can say that is was the intelligent that was at fault. The CIA was wrong.

Lies.

The CIA debunked the yellowcake from Niger myth over and over again. The weapons inspectors were right; there are no weapons of mass destruction. After invading, the first thing the military did was secure the oil fields. Only after 2 months of not bothering to look for the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and the pressure from the media and generals on the ground, did the military attempt the search for WMDs.

Why didn't they look for WMDs as soon as they landed, since that was the mission?

Because they, and the White House, already knew there was no WMDs.

They lied.

And Woodward is yet another Rove Whore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Yeah, BOB, say it ain't so. . ."
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 17, 2005 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe Bob Woodward, being so close to the seat of power (and when I say Bush administration, I really mean "seat"...), is being sent out as a red herring, reluctant Bush "superhero" "Captain Confusion," to muddy up the waters and defuse Fitzgerald's investigation. It certainly is suspicious that with all the bruhaha surrounding this case circulating in Washington FOR MONTHS, he waits until now to make his revelation. Yeah, right, Bob.

Man, have we ever wandered lost a long way from Watergate. . .and has its investigative wunderkind fallen so far from grace. . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

3 simple words: Office of Naval Intelligence
Posted by: Che on Nov 17, 2005 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Woodward is O.N.I. from way back--a deep cover "made" National Security operative/asset, posing as a crusading journo. He was a briefer for the pentagon, for god's sake, prior to showing up at the Wash Post. He was paired with Bernstein, the true journo, to allow certain sectors of the elite to control the dismantling of the criminal Nixon administration without letting too much see the light of day. I smell a rat. Woodward is part of the coverup and effort to destroy Fitz's investigation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hello press
Posted by: saywhat? on Nov 17, 2005 2:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
woodword's very cagey behavior leading up to this shows how irresponsible the mainstream media has been. the ties the news media has to corporate interests have made the reporters glam queens. i believe if americans were presented the truth we wouldn't be in this quagmire. the press is responsible for keeping otherwise smart people in the dark. now what to do with all the well off admirers of woodward on the ( dead) left?
i doubt the administration will get what they want from this. their constant lies of late will either drive us into a more extreme facist state, (right now they aren't the most popular boys on the block - except maybe jeff gannon), or bush will be impeached in 06. i move to impeach.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Woodward may be an elitist, but...
Posted by: Rod in 83706 on Nov 17, 2005 5:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Hadley (or Cheney) told Woodward that Plame was a CIA employee, then Hadley (or Cheney) violated the letter of the law. Woodward did nothing with that information, so he has done nothing wrong. No harm, no foul.

Whoever told Novak also violated the letter of the law, but it was Novak who violated the letter and the spirit of the law by blowing Plame's cover by publishing that fact in a newspaper for all to read (and some of those readers may theoretically have tried to harm Plame). Providing the information to Novak is the equivalent of gossiping. Novak, by publishing the information in the paper, caused some real harm. Novak is the villain, maybe the only villain in this whole episode. He belongs in jail, or under one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bob Woodward's Secrets
Posted by: jane 2000 on Nov 17, 2005 7:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I started the first of Woodward's Bush books but could not finish it; it was bland and curiously incurious. Now I cannot remember the title. This latest development raises the question of the value of any future writings of his. He's not a very good writer. His strengths seemed to be reproducing dialogue and exposing shady characters. I can imagine all the books he's written in the past ten years will be consigned to the remaindered section until they are eventually thrown on the heap of history's rejects. He won't even be able to write convincing fiction. I watched that Larry King show, too, and could not for the life of me understand why he was on it. He had nothing but praise for this president's men. I doubt he's ashamed, but he should be. His "oeuvre" is worthless. His bad judgment renders him useless in his position on the Post.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gdp
Posted by: gdp on Nov 17, 2005 11:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From his days of being a "double-wallet" guy, recruited right out of ROTC training in the 60's into Navy intelligence aboard the U.S.S. Wright (which carried CIA personnel); he still is temperamentally secretive and never "volunteers" information. One cannot trust what Woodward says as fact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Laura
Posted by: lasap on Nov 18, 2005 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aamzing how in just a few years Woodward has changed. May I remind him that he was the one who "overturned rock under rock" to get to the Watergate scandal.....
Besides, I don't think it matters one way or another....IF Woodward knew before, he didn't out Plame....that's a very important matter on this subject.....
Libby outed her, and should be punished for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Laura Posted by: stoney13
» RE: Laura Posted by: stoney13
» RE: Laura Posted by: stoney13
Woodward's World
Posted by: sallysommer on Nov 18, 2005 3:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe Woodward lied to maintain his seat at the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Believeable Testimony?
Posted by: Jimi on Nov 19, 2005 12:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its simple:

Woodward takes a hit for the team.

Woodward's story is thus:

It has to be before Libby said anything (backs up what Libby said, that it was common knowledge and scuttlebut). He has to have proof he was told (the Pinkus alibi). He can't have told his editors. Libby can't have said anything to him (Libby didn't use Woodward as an example of a reporter who knew), but maybe he said something to Libby! Otherwise, it seems fantastic he didn't bring it up with Libby at all.

Fantastic: thats a word that springs to mind when reading his testimony.

Gee, the Woodward's testimony doesn't sound concocted or anything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Woodward-Gate
Posted by: dagumpster on Nov 19, 2005 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Woodward first came on the scene I thought he was blessed with luck and I also thought he was totally irresponsible. This latest about Woodward still shows him as irresponsible. I could never understand the popularity of Woodward other than he has great sources and confidence of his sources. With that said, he has always acted as if he above all others in the media and he can make his own rules. I have read some of his books (even bought a couple) and in his recent books he falls into the trap of sounding like his sources and not as a reporter. His writings always seemed chopped and is poor literature. It was hard to finish any of his books and some I didn't. When he criticized Fitzgerald earlier in this story now seems to be completely irresponsible as he had information that was crucial at the time. Now he is in a pickle because there has been someone indicted (Libby) and he will muddy the waters with convenient sayings of confusion as Libby will use in his defense. His comments about what he said to Pincus and the latter not recalling is just a beginning. The Post should release him and let him get picked up by Fox where he will fit right in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]