Playing Devil's Advocate - Woodward could be telling truth...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

Got most of this idea from Fineman - but it makes sense to me...

First of all, for a second, open mind and entertain the possibility that everyone in the WH is not totally evil.

Woodward said he was told about Plame, but it was 'no big deal' and he kept quiet because he 'didn't want to get subpoenaed.'

Ok, here's how these statements could ring true. First, assume that Armitage is Woodward's source. They were working on Woodward's book. WP has said that Woodward spent a lot of time with this source, on the book. So that would mean that maybe they had grown candid with each other and the source (let's say Armitage) trusts Woodward.

The information comes out about Wilson and Plame. The WH is buzzing. This is a very juicy piece of gossip for all. Armitage mentions it to Woodward, but in a casual way, not with criminal intent - but that EVERYONE was talking about it. Mentioned not with the intent to smear her or Joe, just as an aside that the WH was abuzz. He even warned Woodward not to repeat it. This would explain Woodward's characterization 'no big deal.' Because, to Armitage, it wasn't, because he was not thinking criminally.

It also explains why Woodward would not want to testify. Because, he knew that the disclosure was innocent.

IMO, This scenario is possible. And, it could exist separate from the other scenario - that another group (i.e. Cheney, WHIG, et al) took this information and used it to smear and commit crimes.

[napi21]

1. How does that explain that Woodward heard about it before

Miller, Novak and the rest? I can accept the rest of the story, but why would the WH be abuzz if the info hadn't been made public yet?

[hwmnbn]

2. details, details....

let someone else worry about the details! :rofl:

[Laura PourMeADrink]

3. Well, didn't the WH find out about Plame before it was leaked?

Her job and a possible connection with Joe's trip, was probably out there for a while. Woodward was interviewing during this period, June '03.

It took Cheney and Rove and WHIG a couple weeks to hatch their plot to actively smear and leak to Novak and Miller.

[Norquist Nemesis]

14. After watching the King interview with Woodward

last night, I'm in a boat along side Laura...except I'm thinking his source is Powell. He told King the context of the discloure.

A few points from the interview:
(transcripts here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/21/lkl.01.html)
1) It is definitely a "him".
2) His account of the source's reaction when he called him was: "I then went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode and called the source the beginning of the next week and said "Do you realize when we talked about this and exactly what was said?"

And the source in this case at this moment, it's a very interesting moment in all of this, said "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."

3) It came toward the end of a long (several hours) interview discussing in detail the run up to the war (giving the impression of specifics on presenting evidence as in Powell's presentation to the UN)
"KING: OK. Your source, did the source indicate whether Mrs. Plame was an undercover agent or a desk analyst?

WOODWARD: Good question. And specifically said that -- the source did -- that she was a WMD, weapons of mass destruction, analyst. Now, I've been covering the CIA for over three decades, and analysts, except -- in fact, I don't even know of a case. Maybe there are cases. But they're not undercover. They are people who take other information and analyze it.

And so -- and if you were there at this moment in mid-June when this was said, there was no suggestion that it was sensitive, that it was secret.

KING: How did it even come up?

WOODWARD: Came up because I asked about Joe Wilson, because a few days before, my colleague at the "Washington Post," Walter Pincus, had a front-page story, saying there was an unnamed envoy -- there was no name given -- who had gone to Niger the year before to investigate for the CIA if there was some Niger-Iraq uranium deal or yellow cake deal.

I learned that that ambassador's name was Joe Wilson, which was, you know, Wilson eventually surfaced...

KING: I see.

WOODWARD: ... I guess a few weeks later. So I said to this source, long substantive interview about the road to war. You know, at the end of an interview like this, after you're doing an interview on television, you might just shoot the breeze for a little while. And so, I asked about Wilson, and he said this.

KING: I see.

WOODWARD: Most kind of off-hand.

KING: All right.

WOODWARD: One of those things. And so I -- I didn't think much of it."
4) He talks/references quite a lot about 'Powell's position' more than once. I haven't read Plan of Attack, but IIRC, some of the reviews I've read from others is that Powell tried to be more cautionary and was put outside of the loop for doing so. The "You break it, you own it" phrase from Powell came from Woodward's book.

Anyway, from these little snippets, I can envision a conversation with Powell that was open and confidential. I can imagine Powell relating that "Cheney's cabal thinks it was Joe Wilson's wife that's involved with the 16 words fiasco. They're paranoid of the CIA and his wife works at the CIA as a WMD analyst. Personally, I don't think there's anything to it."

JMVHO. :)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. Wow, very interesting. Wish I had seen that last night. Thanks

for the transcripts. You could be right. It is more likely that Woodward would get more from Powell for the book than Armitage. (WP said it was someone who he interviewed in length).

[Jane Austin]

4. I think your scenario is completely possible - - even likely.

It doesn't make Woodward any less of an administration shill than we know, and it doesn't take anything away from the coordinated attack from the White House.

Too bad the press can't keep two thoughts in its head at the same time.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

7. You are right. It doesn't make Woodward out to be any less of

a WH shill. It also shows he is really out for himself too.

[Spazito]

5. Woodward's 'version' of the events don't hold up

Why was he 'afraid of being subpoenaed' a whole year before there was any investigation?

If it was an 'off-hand' comment, why would he immediately even think of the possibility of being subpoenaed?

Is he a liar or merely grossly incompetent? The uproar of the CIA leak IMMEDIATELY after the Novak article didn't resonate with him at all, he was incapable of connecting the dots re the 'off-hand comments' on Joe Wilson's wife being CIA? If he is, as he and some believe, the great investigative reporter, would one not think alarm bells would have gone off immediately on the publishing of Novak's article, if not before?

Supposedly, Woodward is a smart man so, would not a smart man who has had his sources in the upper reaches of the powerful not recognize immediately that nothing, especially nothing that includes the mention of a CIA agent, would be 'off-hand'?

Sorry, he is simply lying and covering up for the bush admin as he has been doing for a very long time, imo.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. When did he say he first thought I am "afraid to be subpoenaed"?

Can you point me to a source on that?

Based on this time line, a call for a criminal investigation came in July 2003. This was only maybe a month after Woodward heard about Plame from maybe Armitage. Woodward was told by Libby on June 23.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/5/212837/3714

Late July, 2003 - The CIA files a "crime report" with the Department of Justice (DOJ), suggesting the leak of Wilson's wife's name and covert status might entail criminal acts.

So certainly by August, maybe sooner, Woodward would have realized that there was a potential for him to be subpoenaed. Did he say that he thought about being called before that?

Well, I think I was naive to think that the information about Plame would only be known by a few people. I now think, in the WH, it is probably like any office I am familiar with. Very sensitive information is available and discussed, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are going to do anything nefarious with that information. It wasn't right for anyone to tell Woodward, but it wasn't illegal for those with clearance to talk about it all day long.

Maybe Woodward was being extraordinarily selfish. All he cared about was his book. That took precedence over any altruistic motives. He knew the whole thing was a hot potato, that would play out in the court one day. It also explains why he left the subject out of Plan of Attack.

Trust me, I am no Woodward lover. I think he is a weak, boring, opportunistic man and a repig at heart.

[Spazito]

17. He doesn't specify when he was worried but it seems it is tied to

his 'laser focus' on writing his book so a time-line related to that may be in order.

"Washington Post managing editor Bob Woodward apologized for not telling his boss, Post's executive editor Leonard Downie Jr., about his being among the journalists who were told about CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, even as the investigation morphed into a national scandal.

Woodward held back the information because he wanted to protect his sources and because he was worried about being subpoenaed in the inquiry, according to the newspaper's Web site.

"I hunkered down. I'm in the habit of keeping secrets," Woodward said. "I didn't want anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed."

http://cbs5.com/nationalpolitics/politicsnational_story_320105020.html


Woodward was/in intelligence, he would recognize immediately any mention of CIA agent could be a breach of national security, imo. The most telling point about this, imo, was his despicable attempts to smear Fitzgerald while, all the while, being part of the story. That, alone, makes me cynical of anything he says or does.

[JDPriestly]

6. Accepting your hypothesis, Armitage or whoever disobeyed

security regulations and law. That's all there is to it. If Armitage had the clearance to know Plame's status, Woodward did not. And Armitage's betraying classified information to Woodward, however nonchalantly, for whatever reason, was a violation of Armitage's agreement to protect such information.

If Armitage did not have the clearance to know that fact, and it was being bantered about the White House without respect for security regulations, then the violations of our securities law and regulations were widespread. That would suggest that this White House is generally lax about security and protecting state secrets.

If the White House staff was gossiping with certain favored reporters about Plame's top secret work and discussing that classified information with a number of favored members of the press, what else were they discussing? What other secrets were divulged? As articles about Judith Miller have suggested, it appears that the line between certain elements in the press and White House staff with regard to the sharing of classified information was so uncertain that some members of the press just thought they had quasi-secured clearance. Woodward's confessions make things worse for the White House, not better.

The White House was selling a commodity (a controlled substance no less?) -- information -- classified information -- to selected members of the press in exchange for favorable coverage. It's simply wrong of them to have done that.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. I agree with every thing you just said. WP said that Woodward

heard a lot of classified information during his interviews. And, if it is Armitage and he told Woodward, and that breaks one of the pertinent laws, he is guilty. It might be hard to prove criminal any criminal intent. I haven't read as much as I should about the laws involved.

Yes, definitely, shows a WH who takes protection of classified information lightly. But hell, you are dealing with people who invent wars and rig our sacred right to vote, what do you expect.

[occuserpens]

8. The next phase of Plamegate

In the next phase of the Plamegate scandal, major WPost reporter Bob Woodward enters the scene. The question is, what is the meaning of this development? Mr.Cockburn seems to have found a right way to describe the current situation. The theory is, Woodward's role is not really different from that of NYT Judith Miller. Well, this makes something clear: multiple layers of PR smokescreens aside, both journalists are nothing like objective investigators in search of truth about Iraqi WMD and origins of the Iraqi war. In fact, both were instrumental in the neocon designs in one way or another. From this prospective, Woodward's recent apology for God knows what can be quite useful to help Libby's defense.

Ever since the administration has suffered a blow and Cheney's aid Libby (one of many IWMD crooks) has been indicted for purgery, they counter-attack. The goal is to show that everything was just fine about IWMD, nothing was found simply because they were not there, no fabrication at all.

So, let us wait and see whether recent Woodward's testimony will work for this end. All that matters is whether IWMD magic still works. If this is the case, Libby will get off the hook and nobody will get punished for the criminal outing of the CIA agent Valery Plame.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/11/woodward-and-insider-trading-bob.html

ALEXANDER COCKBURN, JEFFREY ST.CLAIR. The Long, Long Fall of Bob Woodward: http://counterpunch.com/cockburn11172005.html

Woodward's apology

Usually, people are responsible for what they do, not for what they <b>don't</b> do. In particular, journalist has absolutely no obligation to pursue every single political scandal he comes across in his work! By this logic, Woodward's book was not a good thing because it is heavily confusing on the Iraqi WMD scam.
As for his role in Plamegate, we have no proof that it was anyhow important. So, why this apology? The answer is - Woodwardgate is part of the current GOP counter-attack, it can be useful to get Libby and others off the hook. That's typical IWMD smokescreen #10,001.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/11/woodward-and-insider-trading-bob.html

1. Howard Kurtz. Woodward Apologizes to Post For Silence on Role in Leak Case: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111601286.html
Bob Woodward apologized to The Washington Post yesterday for failing to reveal for more than two years that a senior Bush administration official had told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame, even as an investigation of who disclosed her identity mushroomed into a national scandal.
Woodward, an assistant managing editor and best-selling author, said he told Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. that he held back the information because he was worried about being subpoenaed by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel leading the investigation.

2. Amazon. Bob Woodward. Plan of Attack: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BT3GEM/103-4848304-2540646

[longship]

9. If it wasn't a big deal...

Why did they stonewall it?
Why did they cover it up?
Why did they call up all those reporters about it?

The whole WH was abuzz because there was intent to use this against Wilson. That makes it criminal in spite of what Woodward and Armitage might think.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

13. Oh, I agree with you totally. I am just saying that it is possible that

Armitage and Woodward were not in the 'smear/leak' campaign.

[Hamlette]

12. why did he warn Woodward not to repeat it if it was no big deal?

If everyone was talking about it, why did his source say "this is secret"? That's the part of Woodward's story that makes no sense to me.

BTW, Armitage is not evil. He's been a stand up guy over the years. Maybe he was being set up by the admin.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. good question. They don't go together, do they. Maybe it was

just one of those "gossipy" moments. Like Armitage saying, "Oh, Bob, you wouldn't believe this place. The neo-cons just found out that Joe Wilson's wife works at CIA and they are frothing at the mouth. You mark my words, Bob, they are going to let this out and there's going to be a shitload of trouble. Leaking a name of a CIA agent is a crime you know, so don't even repeat that I ever told you about this..."

haha