Woodward Was Told of Plame More Than Two Years Ago

[gldstwmn]

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.

Fitzgerald interviewed Woodward about the previously undisclosed conversation after the official alerted the prosecutor to it on Nov. 3 -- one week after Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted in the investigation.

Citing a confidentiality agreement in which the source freed Woodward to testify but would not allow him to discuss their conversations publicly, Woodward and Post editors refused to disclose the official's name or provide crucial details about the testimony. 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.

Woodward said he also testified that he met with Libby on June 27, 2003, and discussed Iraq policy as part of his research for a book on President Bush's march to war. He said he does not believe Libby said anything about Plame.

He also told Fitzgerald that it is possible he asked Libby about Plame or her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. He based that testimony on an 18-page list of questions he planned to ask Libby in an interview that included the phrases "yellowcake" and "Joe Wilson's wife." Woodward said in his statement, however, that "I had no recollection" of mentioning the pair to Libby. He also said that his original government source did not mention Plame by name, referring to her only as "Wilson's wife."

Woodward's testimony appears to change key elements in the chronology Fitzgerald laid out in his investigation and announced when indicting Libby three weeks ago. It would make the unnamed official -- not Libby -- the first government employee to disclose Plame's CIA employment to a reporter. It would also make Woodward, who has been publicly critical of the investigation, the first reporter known to have learned about Plame from a government source.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501857.html?nav=rss_politics/administration

Click the link for the full article.

[wondergirl9847]

I don't really know anything about this. Can that lady sue them for doing this to her? She lost her job, right?

[gldstwmn]

I don't really know anything about this. Can that lady sue them for doing this to her? She lost her job, right?

Valerie Plame? I'm not sure if she can sue them or not. She still works a desk job at the CIA. She is no longer covert though, so her work in the field of nuclear proliferation and WMD's has been completely marginalized.

[dissention]

Valerie Plame? I'm not sure if she can sue them or not. She still works a desk job at the CIA. She is no longer covert though, so her work in the field of nuclear proliferation and WMD's has been completely marginalized.

The Paula Jones suit opened the door for Plame to sue the administration.

[macfan 57]

I read somewhere that the Wilsons were considering filing a civil suit, maybe after the criminal proceedings are done. I hope they do, although I don't know who they'd specifically sue.

By the way, does anyone know what has happened with Bob Woodward? It seems like he's turned into a shill for the Bush administration, very different from Carl Bernstein.

[gldstwmn]

The Paula Jones suit opened the door for Plame to sue the administration.

Thank you darlin'. :xoxo: I hope she does sue them.

[gldstwmn]

By the way, does anyone know what has happened with Bob Woodward? It seems like he's turned into a shill for the Bush administration, very different from Carl Bernstein.

Woodward has always been a Republican. Before he worked for the Post, he was in the Navy. More specifically, he was naval intelligence. Some theorize that Woodward was still operating in a covert manner to oust Nixon becuase certain elements felt Nixon was too liberal, among other things. :shocked:

[dissention]

Woodward has always been a Republican. Before he worked for the Post, he was in the Navy. More specifically, he was naval intelligence. Some thoerize that Woodward was still operating in a covert manner to oust Nixon becuase certain elements felt Nixon was too liberal, among other things. :shocked:

I believe it. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him. Woodward and Bernstein are such opposites that it's kind of weird to think that they worked together so long ago.

[irishgrl]

Woodward has always been a Republican. Before he worked for the Post, he was in the Navy. More specifically, he was naval intelligence. Some thoerize that Woodward was still operating in a covert manner to oust Nixon becuase certain elements felt Nixon was too liberal, among other things. :shocked:
Ive never heard anyone describe Nixon as Liberal, but some factions thot he was erratic and a loose cannon...............which he was.

[dissention]

Ive never heard anyone describe Nixon as Liberal, but some factions thot he was erratic and a loose cannon...............which he was.

His domestic policies were quite liberal. There's no disputing that. I've been convinced that the neocons were the ones who ousted Nixon from the get-go and there's plenty of evidence out there to suggest it. I don't know if Woodward himself was involved, but it wouldn't be a stretch if he was. He's quite the conservative ass kisser.

[gldstwmn]

I believe it. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him. Woodward and Bernstein are such opposites that it's kind of weird to think that they worked together so long ago.

If I remember correctly from All The Presidents Men, Woodward had the sources and Bernstein was the writer. I don't think they had worked together previously, either.

[DavidMn]

This is all very interesting. I also heard recently the Joe WIlson, Valerie's husband say that she has been the victim of several death threats..

[dissention]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051117/ap_on_go_ot/cia_leak_woodward

Woodward, a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, said he had not told his bosses until last month that he had learned about Valerie Plame's identity and her work at the CIA more than two years ago from a high-level Bush administration official.

When Woodward learned Plame's name, he told The Associated Press Wednesday, he was in the middle of finishing a book about the administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, and didn't want to be subpoenaed to testify.

"The grand jury was going and reporters were being jailed, and I hunkered down more than I usually do," Woodward said, explaining why he waited so long to tell Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. what he knew about the Plame matter.

What a LYING ****wad. He says that he learned her name in June of 2003. Fitzgerald wasn't appointed until December of 2003, no journalist was subpoenaed until May 2004 (Cooper & Miller), AND Miller wasn't sent to jail until July of this year. These excuses don't wash.

[DavidMn]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051117/ap_on_go_ot/cia_leak_woodward

Woodward, a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, said he had not told his bosses until last month that he had learned about Valerie Plame's identity and her work at the CIA more than two years ago from a high-level Bush administration official.

When Woodward learned Plame's name, he told The Associated Press Wednesday, he was in the middle of finishing a book about the administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, and didn't want to be subpoenaed to testify.

"The grand jury was going and reporters were being jailed, and I hunkered down more than I usually do," Woodward said, explaining why he waited so long to tell Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. what he knew about the Plame matter.

What a LYING ****wad. He says that he learned her name in June of 2003. Fitzgerald wasn't appointed until December of 2003, no journalist was subpoenaed until May 2004 (Cooper & Miller), AND Miller wasn't sent to jail until July of this year. These excuses don't wash.I heard now that he's really put a black mark on his name within Journalism circles around Washington. I mean, how could he sit on this for 2 years and let everyone twist in the wind?

[dissention]

I heard now that he's really put a black mark on his name within Journalism circles around Washington. I mean, how could he sit on this for 2 years and let everyone twist in the wind?

He's a ****wad. A grand jury hadn't even been commissioned yet in June of 2003. Joe Wilson hadn't even written his New York Times op-ed until July of 2003, and Bob Novak hadn't yet published his hit piece until July of 2003, either. Woodward is lying through his teeth when he says that he was afraid of being subpoenaed and possibly being jailed; a grand jury had not been commissioned, a special prosecutor had not been appointed, no journalist had been subpoenaed, and no one had been jailed. What prevented him from disclosing this between June 2003 and December 2003?

What I find interesting is that he admits to learning about Plame a month before the **** really hit the fan.

[DavidMn]

He's a ****wad. A grand jury hadn't even been commissioned yet in June of 2003. Joe Wilson hadn't even written his New York Times op-ed until July of 2003, and Bob Novak hadn't yet published his hit piece until July of 2003, either. Woodward is lying through his teeth when he says that he was afraid of being subpoenaed and possibly being jailed; a grand jury had not been commissioned, a special prosecutor had not been appointed, no journalist had been subpoenaed, and no one had been jailed. What prevented him from disclosing this between June 2003 and December 2003?

What I find interesting is that he admits to learning about Plame a month before the **** really hit the fan.Hmm, very good point. What do you think the deal is with Woodward doing this then? I mean, whats he trying to prove?:confused:

[Jyqm]

By the way, does anyone know what has happened with Bob Woodward? It seems like he's turned into a shill for the Bush administration

How do you mean? He wrote a book just last year called Plan of Attack about the Iraq War. It's not exactly a stinging indictment of the administration, but it's apparently quite critical of how the invasion was carried out.

[dissention]

Hmm, very good point. What do you think the deal is with Woodward doing this then? I mean, whats he trying to prove?:confused:

He's trying to help Libby. Fitzgerald has said that Libby was the first to disclose Plame's identity. Now here comes Bob Woodward to say that he had learned it from someone else during this time (mid-June of '03). Libby's notes indicate that he was told about Plame on June 12 by Cheney, and then Libby told Judith Miller on June 23. Woodward's trying to throw a wrench into the assertion that Libby was the first to blab, which would help his defense.

[DavidMn]

He's trying to help Libby. Fitzgerald has said that Libby was the first to disclose Plame's identity. Now here comes Bob Woodward to say that he had learned it from someone else during this time (mid-June of '03). Libby's notes indicate that he was told about Plame on June 12 by Cheney, and then Libby told Judith Miller on June 23. Woodward's trying to throw a wrench into the assertion that Libby was the first to blab, which would help his defense.Right, but then arent there going to be questions as to who his source is? Meaning that if he wont reveal it, he could wind up behind bars, and then if he's lying, well.

[dissention]

How do you mean? He wrote a book just last year called Plan of Attack about the Iraq War. It's not exactly a stinging indictment of the administration, but it's apparently quite critical of how the invasion was carried out.

It isn't that critical. There's quite a lot of shilling in that book.

He's a neocon. You should hear the things he's been saying ever since the Plame thing broke.

[dissention]

Right, but then arent there going to be questions as to who his source is? Meaning that if he wont reveal it, he could wind up behind bars, and then if he's lying, well.

Can't really say. Judith Miller was given permission from Libby to disclose his name as her source a full year before she went to prison. Woodward is claiming that his source will not give him permission to disclose his name. Though I got quite a kick out of his saying "The whole story will be told someday." Yeah, in another one of your books, Bob?

[DavidMn]

Can't really say. Judith Miller was given permission from Libby to disclose his name as her source a full year before she went to prison. Woodward is claiming that his source will not give him permission to disclose his name. Though I got quite a kick out of his saying "The whole story will be told someday." Yeah, in another one of your books, Bob?Like Pink Floyd sings "$$$$$MONEY$$$$$$" Thats what it all comes down to right?:mad:

[SuzeQuze]

Like Pink Floyd sings "$$$$$MONEY$$$$$$" Thats what it all comes down to right?:mad:

Yes, usually when things are confusing and don't seem to make sense. Good call. How did Woodward seek to gain financially in withholding this information until now?

[DavidMn]

Yes, usually when things are confusing and don't seem to make sense. Good call. How did Woodward seek to gain financially in withholding this information until now?I think Diss might have been onto something when he talked about another book.

[dissention]

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/2/mccollam-plame.asp

March/April 2005

Not everyone is clanging the alarm. Jack Shafer, the media critic for Slate, thinks the current run of cases are significant but have received inflated coverage because they involve a lot of prominent Washington reporters. “There is a little bit of hysterical nonsense going on here,” says Shafer. “The fact is, prosecutors demand sources all the time.” Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, says that by not testifying about an illegal leak Miller and Cooper are trying to put themselves beyond the reach of the law. “There is no legitimate interest in shielding criminal conduct,” says Stone. “It’s an awkward case to be asserting a privilege on.” Bob Woodward, perhaps the preeminent investigative reporter of his time, believes in supporting journalists who are protecting sources. Yet he sees the use of confidentiality in this case — to hide the sources who identified Valerie Plame — as a weak reed to lean on. “I use confidential sources more than most anyone,” Woodward concedes, “but it has to be worth the risk involved. I don’t think outing Plame was worth the risk.”

[dissention]

July 11, 2005 on Larry King:

WOODWARD: No. Clearly, we're not above the law. But frequently, people disobey the law. And when you do so, you have to be willing to accept the consequences. And in this case, the consequences, I guess, are a four-month jail sentence, and Judy Miller's willing to do that, to stand on this principle of trust. You know, I...

KING: You said you would have done it, too?

WOODWARD: I would have done it, too. And in fact, you know, maybe I shouldn't say this, but I will ...

KING: Go ahead.

WOODWARD: ... because it came to mind. If the judge would permit it, I would go serve some of her jail time, because I think the principle is that important, and it should be underscored. It's not a casual idea that we have confidential sources. It is absolutely vital. And I'll bet there are all kinds of reporters out there, if we could divvy up this four-month jail sentence -- I suspect the judge would not permit that, but if he would, I'll be first in line.

Bob Woodward today:

When Woodward learned Plame's name, he told The Associated Press Wednesday, he was in the middle of finishing a book about the administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, and didn't want to be subpoenaed to testify.

"The grand jury was going and reporters were being jailed, and I hunkered down more than I usually do," Woodward said, explaining why he waited so long to tell Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. what he knew about the Plame matter.