Archive for the 'Bob Woodward' Category
Nov 23, 2005 at 7:08 AM by Political Chase
Arianna is in a huff over Bob Woodward’s appearance on Larry King’s show Monday night.
Bob Woodward’s patronizing haughtiness was everywhere last night on Larry King. I haven’t been talked down to that much since I was introduced to Shaquille O’Neal. I get it now: we all just don’t get it. The heroic Woodward wasn’t trying to hide anything or maintain his access, he was just too busy doing “incredibly aggressive reporting” on “immense questions” about Iraq to be distracted by “a casual, off-hand remark” that, even on the eve of the Libby indictment, as Plamegate threatened to paralyze the White House, didn’t strike the legendary reporter as even “a firecracker” of a story.
I agree with Arianna to an extent…It’s rather hard to rip someone up, when you don’t have all the facts. Very few people know the facts. That doesn’t mean we sit around like a lap dog waiting for the facts to come in either.
I think Arianna needs to lighten up a bit on this:
Woodward’s performance was, to borrow a phrase, “laughable” — particularly the way he kept tossing in references to Watergate, strapping on those glory days like a protective armor. Over the course of “the full hour,” he mentioned Watergate four times, Ben Bradlee three times, Deep Throat twice, Carl Bernstein twice, and Richard Nixon and Katharine Graham once each. Memo to Bob: we get this, too. Your reporting once brought down a president. But that only makes your “journalistic sins” on Plamegate all the more appalling and disappointing.
I watched the interview and there is a bit of hyperbole in Arianna’s critique. Second, and more importantly, referring to Watergate is appropriate simply because we really do not have any real precedent to serve as a reference. If we don’t draw on historical experience, then we’re a bit lost. Trying to argue against that is like saying you know everything as a teenager. There have been other scandals, but using them as a gold standard would be pure stupidity.
And, as for this, Arianna has just gone too far.
I also found it really interesting that King’s interview with Woodward, like his recent interview with Judy Miller, was pre-taped — making it impossible for either of them to have to interact directly with the public and deal with viewer calls and questions. Could it really be a coincidence that these two star reporters both took no viewer calls on a show famous for them?
If King is not a strong interviewer, then don’t watch the show. Who is responsible for and will most likely ask the tough questions, the redneck from Norwich, CT or KIng? How many Sunday news magazine shows are taped?
And, this could have been left out completely.
Which raised the question: who had the scheduling conflict, Woodward or King? I doubted it was Larry’s since I had been at the party at the Mondrian Hotel’s Skybar to celebrate the release of his wife Shawn’s new CD, “In My Own Backyard”.
Okay, everyone knows now that Arianna was being a social butterfly; pinky raised appropriately. This is not a salient point.
Arianna does great reporting and is a ball of fire, but a little more objectiveness and little less “see my party invitation” would have been a better approach.
Nov 21, 2005 at 3:25 AM by Political Chase
A Newsweek article by Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff suggests that Bob Woodward and Bob Novak’s source are one in the same – Richard Armitage.
He was one of a handful of top officials who had access to the information. He is an old source and friend of Woodward’s, and he fits Novak’s description of his source as “not a partisan gunslinger.” Woodward has indicated that he knows the identity of Novak’s source, which further suggests his source and Novak’s were one and the same.
Nov 20, 2005 at 11:42 PM by Political Chase
First, let me say I think Fitzgerald has done an outstanding job. That said, I have to agree with John Dean (former Special Counsel to Richard Nixon). On Friday, Dean wrote a scathing letter to Fitzgerald admonishing him for not employing his plenary powers. Dean questions why Fitzgerald has not cast a broader net in his investigation and cites sufficient precedent for Fitzgerald to do so.
On October 28 of this year, your office released a press statement in which you stated that “A major focus of the grand jury investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003, information concerning Valerie Wilson’s CIA affiliation, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official made such a disclosure knowing that Valerie Wilson’s employment by the CIA was classified information.”
If, indeed, that is the major focus of your investigation, then your investigation is strikingly limited, given your plenary powers. To be a bit more blunt, in historical context, it is certainly less vigorous an investigation than those of your predecessors who have served as special counsel — men appointed to undertake sensitive high-level investigations when the Attorney General of the United States had a conflict of interest. (Here, it was, of course, the conflict of Attorney General John Ashcroft that led to the chain of events that resulted in your appointment.)
Dean takes issue with a question I have had since this investigation started. Why has Fitzgerald not taken action against the many individuals that broke the law or at minimum breached their contract allowing them to hold a classified status - specifically, form SF-312 and Title 18 Section 793 of the United States Criminal Code? Previously, I wrote about the provisions of these statutes and their applicability, but Dean places considerable emphasis on them.
To summarize, in order to receive a security clearance each person is required to sign SF-312, which states that the signer agrees not to violate Title 18 (and other laws). Title 18 specifies that an individual cannot provide classified information to anyone that does not have clearance, and even if they do, information can be conveyed on a need-to-know basis only. Therefore, just because someone has a security clearance, it does not mean they have carte blanche to classified information (at their defined level). Furthermore, it is incumbent upon anyone that signs SF-312 to insure any information they pass to another is not classified, or if classified, is the recipient eligible to receive it. In other words, ignorance does not apply — no cop outs with, “I didn’t know…” There has been an abundance of “I did not know…” stated over the past few months.
Your investigation also relates to the dissipation — if not the irreparable destruction — of a government asset: Valerie Plame Wilson. As you no doubt know, the U.S. Government invested a great deal of money in her special education and training, as well as other aspects of her covert status. Then, either intentionally, or with gross negligence, senior Bush administration officials blew Valerie Wilson’s cover. (Prior to the disclosure, her status was not, as some have claimed, an “open secret”: Rather, as you yourself have said, the fact that she was a CIA asset was not previously well-known outside the intelligence community.)
Yet there is no evidence that you have made any effort whatsoever to undertake any civil remedies dealing with this either intentional or grossly careless destruction of a government asset. As acting Attorney General for this matter, you have even more authority than did Special Counsels Roberts and Pomerene.
Those who leaked the information about Valerie Wilson breached signed contracts they had made with the government. These contracts, moreover, were not to be taken lightly: They enforced profoundly important obligations to national security, on the part of the very people who were supposed to be serving that end.
Dean refers to Watergate and how the Nixon administration knowingly and purposefully tried to limit the scope of those investigating them, which is exactly what the Bush administration is doing today.
Even more troubling, from an historical point of view, is the fact that the narrowness of your investigation, which apparently is focusing on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (making it a crime to uncover the covert status of a CIA agent), plays right into the hands of perpetrators in the Administration.
Indeed, this is exactly the plan that was employed during Watergate by those who sought to conceal the Nixon Administration’s crimes, and keep criminals in office.
The plan was to keep the investigation focused on the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters — and away from the atmosphere in which such an action was undertaken. Toward this end, I was directed by superiors to get the Department of Justice to keep its focus on the break-in, and nothing else.
That was done. And had Congress not undertaken its own investigation (since it was a Democratically-controlled Congress with a Republican President) it is very likely that Watergate would have ended with the conviction of those caught in the bungled burglary and wiretapping attempt at the Democratic headquarters.
Now, with a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican President, you (a Republican appointee) are the last bulwark of protection for the American people.
After pleading his legal position, Dean fires Fitzgerald up. Dean knows enough about Fitzgerald, that if he asserts Ftizgerald has fallen short of perfection, Fitzgerald will come out swinging.
While I have no reason to believe you are easily intimidated, all I can say is that your investigation, thus far, is falling precisely within the narrow confines — the formula procedure — that was relied upon in the first phase of the Watergate cover-up by the Nixon administration.
So narrow was your investigation that it appears that you failed to learn that Bob Woodward had been told of Valerie Wilson’s CIA post until after you had indicted Scooter Libby. While I have no doubt you know your way around the Southern District of New York, and the Northern District of Illinois, Washington DC is a very different place.
With all due respect, Mr. Fitzgerald, I believe you are being had. I believe that you were selected with the expectation that you would conduct the narrowest of investigations, and it seems you have done just that.
In closing, Dean goes for the jugular vein, but does so with all the charm one can muster — he waves the American flag, which he knows will settle at the core of Fitzgerald’s personal beliefs and convictions.
To right-minded Americans, the idea that Administration officials have betrayed their national security obligations, yet remain in their jobs, is nothing short of appalling. Beyond politics is patriotism: Patriotic Americans want to see you not only prosecute those who compromised and endangered Valerie Plame Wilson, but also force the Administration to clean house with respect to those who did this, which you can accomplish through appropriate civil action.
Read the entire letter.
Nov 20, 2005 at 9:45 PM by Political Chase
I missed this yesterday. I read the article, but must have skimmed it too quickly. [Emphasis added.]
Woodward, who was questioned by Fitzgerald on Monday, has refused to reveal the source’s name publicly, but a person familiar with the investigation said the source had testified earlier in the case.
Nov 20, 2005 at 8:29 PM by Political Chase
Asked on “Fox News Sunday” if he ever spoke to Woodward about Plame, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, “No, of course not.”
Nov 18, 2005 at 7:02 AM by Political Chase
Not in the clear yet due to his no comment position, but it seems like Dick Cheney may be a little less likely as the source.
“A person knowledgeable about the investigation being conducted by the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, said Mr. Cheney had not been Mr. Woodward’s source.”
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz may be rising stars.
Nov 18, 2005 at 5:35 AM by Political Chase
According to The New York Times, Washington Post Executive Editor, Leonard Downie, will name Bob Woodward’s source “if the information is found independent of [their] source relationship.” Downie opened the gates to all other WP reporters by making the statement, “Each reporter is bound only by his own promises of confidentiality.”
Someone needs to take Woodward to Happy Hour.
Nov 17, 2005 at 5:15 PM by Political Chase
The first analysis from the Washington Post on Bob Woodward’s capers gives a justified punch in the eye to The New York Times.
Who’s the source? “A senior administration official said that neither Mr. Bush himself, nor his chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., nor his counselor, Dan Bartlett, was Mr. Woodward’s source. So did spokesmen for former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, former C.I.A. Director George J. Tenet and his deputy John E. McLaughlin.”
Oh yeah? What senior administration official, New York Times?
When the whole Judy Miller mess began to unravel, the New York Times’ reporting on the matter was worse than the local paper of the town I grew up in – population 6,000. The Times’ first analysis article on Woodward and the Post, which made some major stabs at both, was considerably better reporting than any Times article published about its own fiasco.
It is the Times responsibility to report the news accurately and without prejudice. Their article on Woodward and the Post was indeed prejudiced. And, how (why) was the Times able to rise to the occasion so quickly, when just a few weeks ago their reporting abilities fell short of the quality of a newspaper published weekly with a circulation of maybe 4,000?
What a mess the Bush administration has caused with its malicious, if not illegal, acts against Joseph Wilson. Washington is spinning uncontrollably, their own party is crumbling, the polarization of the nation deepens, and now the mainstream media has its own fray.
And to top it off, Vice President Dick Cheney has the unmitigated gall to make these remarks last night.
President Bush and Vice President Cheney lashed out again against Democratic senators who have questioned the handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq, with the vice president accusing critics of engaging in “one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.”
Nov 17, 2005 at 4:22 PM by Political Chase
Atrios (Eschaton) poses excellent questions and implications about Bob Woodward. Most of the blogosphere is critiquing Woodward, but Atrios takes that a step further.
Booby’s [sic] story just doesn’t make any sense. Why would you grant confidentiality to something which is “almost gossip” and told to you in an “offhand manner.” What ethical issue prevented you from telling the world that an administration source had given you that information as you could do so without revealing the identity of the source? Why could you not tell the world about this when you felt free to share the information with Pincus (denied by him).
Nov 17, 2005 at 4:24 AM by Political Chase
I don’t think the Bob Woodward revelation is as clear cut as Woodward says it is. Also, I am not convinced it is the “Woodward scheming with the White House, Judy Miller clone and Dick Cheney is the source” mess that many allege. It could be, but that seems too simple.
First, why would Woodward potentially put himself in harms way for Cheney, Libby, or Bush? I know the first reaction to that question is why would/did Libby put himself in harms way. I don’t have a clue about Libby, other than knowingly expose himself to certain crimes, in order to deflect greater crimes. Woodward may have had close connections with the White House, but if he is going to maintain celebrity reporter status, that is his job. And, it is very clear sucking up to the administration is the only way to accomplish that. I think there is a cornucopia of evidence floating around that substantiates what the administration will do if they view someone negatively.
I don’t buy “I was protecting my sources” either.
We can speculate until our generation is long since gone, and like every other scandal or assassination, we will never know the entire story. If Woodward does have some level of improper entanglement, he’s just too slick to allow others to fully open his kimono. Judy Miller had a substantial history to accompany her demise at The New York Times; Woodward does not.
As screwball as my first thoughts may be, here they are. Small stuff first.
Woodward may not be alone
I believe Woodward held this information for reasons other than source protection. Pure assertion on my part; nothing to back that up with. The real question is why, but that’s too far out.
Was Woodward’s secret truly a secret for two years? On or about June 23, 2003, shortly after at least one of Woodward’s meetings, he allegedly told Walter Pincus, “I understood Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst.” If that’s true, he let the cat out of the bag that day. Assume Woodward’s right. If Pincus was given that information, he did not just nod his head and say, “Okay, thanks.” Pincus would have gone into action with possible escalation. Pincus isn’t a subject of interest at this point. He can say yes or no about anything; Woodward previously denied any knowledge on the issue, what’s to stop Pincus from doing that now?
So, Executive Editor Leonard Downie, admonishes Woodward publicly, the public’s interest is served and Woodward (maybe others) carries on with whatever motivates him/them. If there is any truth surrounding what Woodward told Pincus, the Woodward revelation is considerably deeper than currently presented.
The source
Everybody says Cheney. It’s logical and does he ever have the profile to match it. This could be Libby’s legal team in concert with Cheney taking advantage of Woodward. The source has allowed everyone on the inner legal circle know who he/she is, but nobody in America does. Woodward is released for testimony, but not released from revealing the source to the public. Now, who doesn’t know who the source is? All of America. At minimum, Libby’s lawyers are getting the trial by media they say they don’t want. They certainly had a hard time not making any public statements today didn’t they? But, I’m not sold on that theory yet. Woodward being told about Valerie Wilson has absolutely nothing to do with Libby’s intentional and numerous falsehoods. He still gets to do the jail house rock.
I just finished writing a rather long justification for Colin Powell as the source and then I read this.
A senior administration official said that neither President Bush himself, nor his chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., nor his counselor, Dan Bartlett, was Mr. Woodward’s source. So did spokesmen for former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, former C.I.A. Director George J. Tenet and his deputy John E. McLaughlin.
A lawyer for Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff who has acknowledged conversations with reporters about the case and remains under investigation, said Mr. Rove was not Mr. Woodward’s source.
Vice President Cheney did not join the parade of denials. A spokeswoman said he would have no comment on an ongoing investigation. Several other officials could not be reached for comment.
Delete key…
I think that eliminates Secretary Powell. I should add that my theory on Colin Powell was based on good intentions by Powell and Woodward - not based on shenanigans that may be the rule for others in the Bush administration.
The announcements above are a bit telling. The President does not speak for his entire administration. Everybody is doing their own thing - moving far away from Cheney.
Nov 16, 2005 at 8:26 PM by Political Chase
Bob Woodward has apologized to his editor for not advising him of his role in the Plame Wilson matter.
More soon.
Nov 16, 2005 at 8:36 AM by Political Chase
The Post has big news; Bob Woodward, assistant managing editor of The Washington Post, notable reporter and author, has been involved in the Valerie Plame Wilson matter from the beginning (as known today). Actually it appears that Woodward may have been the first reporter involved in discussions about Plame Wilson with senior White House officials.
Woodward has been publicly critical of Fitzgerald’s investigation, saying basically it was much a do about nothing. But this gets a bit cloudy and the article in today’s Post does very little to clear things up. In fact, it raises more questions than answers.
Woodward testified under oath Monday, that a senior White House official told him about Valerie Plame Wilson and her position a month before her her identity was disclosed, which puts him first in line for comminiques with the White House leaks. Furthermore:
- The unnamed senior Bush administration official that conveyed the information to Woodward is not Libby or Rove.
- Woodward did not tell his editors at the Post about the conversations until a month ago and did so only after the unnamed senior administration official told prosecutor Fitzgerald about the conversation(s), which raised flags with Fitzgerald and he ultimately subpoenaed Woodward.
Another twist in this revelation is Woodward claims he told Walter Pincus, a Post reporter, about Wilson’s wife and her role at the CIA. Pincus, who broke the story after Nickolas Kristoff’s Op-Ed in the NY Times questioning the WMDs, vehemently denies Woodward’s claim.
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.”
Pincus said Woodward may be confused about the timing and the exact nature of the conversation. He said he remembers Woodward making a vague mention to him in October 2003. That month, Pincus had written a story explaining how an administration source had contacted him about Wilson. He recalled Woodward telling him that Pincus was not the only person who had been contacted.
As you might imagine, Libby’s lawyers are coming up with everything under the sun, which will discredit Fitzgerald, hoping to exonerate Libby. I would consider that to be just lawyer talk and put it aside for now.
This is a bit puzzling, therefore more thought needs to be put into this. This is uncharacteristic behavior on Woodward’s part - criticizing Fitzgerald and especially keeping his editors in the dark until he had no choice to talk about it.
Also, if you remove Libby and Rove as senior administration officials, those eligible for “unnamed senior administration officials” makes for a very short list.
Suffice it to say, there’s more we don’t know and the tentacles of this matter cover more territory than initially perceived.
More later…
