Woodward Was Told of Plame More Than Two Years Ago

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by dissention

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?

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by macfan 57

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]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

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

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]

Originally Posted by dissention

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]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

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]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

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]

Originally Posted by dissention

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?

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

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

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]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

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.