Who Was Woodward's Source?

This week, Bob Woodward didn't break a story. He entered the story. On Wednesday, The Washington Post, Woodward's home base, disclosed that two days earlier the nation's most prominent reporter had given a sworn deposition to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. According to a statement issued by Woodward, the week after Fitzgerald indicted Scooter Libby, Fitzgerald asked Woodward to come in for a chat--under oath. What had happened was that a senior administration official had recently revealed to Fitzgerald that in mid-June 2003--a month before conservative columnist Bob Novak published the administration leak that outed Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA official--this Bush official had told Woodward that Valerie Wilson worked for the CIA as a WMD analyst. (The official apparently has not permitted Woodward to disclose his or her name publicly.) This revelation changes the chronology of the leak case. Previously, Libby's June 23, 2003 conversation with New York Times reporter Judith Miller was the first known instance of a Bush administration official telling a reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife and her employment at the CIA. Now, it turns out, another top administration figure shared this classified information with Woodward a week or so earlier.

Yet another round of Plamegate guessing has exploded. Who was Woodward's source? Was this person Novak's original source? (As of now, only the second of Novak's two sources--Karl Rove--has been fingered.) Why did Woodward sit on this information and not even tell the editor of his paper about this conversation until late last month? (Woodward has apologized to Post executive editor Len Downie Jr.) Did Woodward's possession of this inside information prompt him to criticize the leak investigation repeatedly on talk shows? Was he putting down Fitzgerald to protect or curry favor with one of his insider sources? Will this have any impact on the case against Libby?

As for the big who-is-it question, no sooner had the speculating begun that several obvious suspects denied being Woodward's source. An unnamed administration official quickly told The New York Times that neither Bush, White House chief of staff Andrew Card Jr, nor White House aide Dan Bartlett had spilled this secret to Woodward. Spokespeople for Colin Powell, former CIA chief George Tenet and former CIA director John McLaughlin did the same. (By the way, how can an administration official issue such a denial when the White House position is that it will not comment on the leak case while the investigation remains open?) A lawyer for Rove said that Rove was not the one. (Rove only talked about Wilson's wife with Novak--supposedly as Novak's second source--and Time's Matt Cooper.) As the Times noted--slyly?--"Mr. Cheney did not join the parade of denials." Nor, it seemed, did Richard Armitage, who was deputy secretary of state under Powell.

After these denials came out, a smart columnist called me and asked isn't it now clear the available evidence indicates that Cheney, who was previously interviewed by Fitzgerald, was Woodward's source and that Libby had lied to prevent Cheney from being charged with perjury. Not necessarily, I replied. It's worth noting that, according to the Libby indictment, when Cheney told Libby on June 12, 2003, that Wilson's wife was in the CIA, he said she worked at the Counterproliferation Division, which is part of directorate of operations (aka the DO), the clandestine portion of the CIA. Woodward claims that his source described her as a WMD analyst. The difference in the terminology might be significant. Then again, it might not be. It's also hard to imagine Cheney approaching Fitzgerald and conceding anything, even if he was worried about Libby flipping (and there have been signs of that). But if Cheney--who had been collecting information on Wilson's wife apart from what Libby was doing--did tell a reporter about Valerie Wilson (particularly after finding out she worked in the DO, where most employees are undercover), that would be a rather dramatic shift in the leak saga. [UPDATE: On Thursday night, the Associated Press reported that a "person familiar with the investigation" said that Cheney was not Woodward's source. Richard Armitage, look out. CNN is reporting that a spokesperson for Armitage said "no comment" when asked if Armitage was Woodward's source--which makes Armitage the only person on the Official Speculation List who has not yet denied it.

Comments (51)

1. To Bushrules: Methinks thou doth protest to much. Getting anxious are we? So glad Wrestored honor and integrity to the White House- NOT,

   Posted by peacenow at 11/18/2005 @ 09:15am

2. "even if he was worried about Libby flipping (and there have been signs of that)"

   I'm sorry...but WHY would Libby "flip"....if he knows he can get a "Cap Weinberger" pardon before, during, or certainly after a trial...and then go onto his Board of Directors job at Halliburton a week later at $550K a year?

   Posted by Mask at 11/18/2005 @ 09:18am

3. Furthermore, who in their right mind would leak to Bob Woodward? I mean, seriously, if you had deep government secrets of any kind, in a political culture that hunted for blood, he'd be the last man to tell anything of value to.

   Posted by Megido at 11/18/2005 @ 09:34am

4. Mask,

   You've managed to reduce what's wrong with Washington these days in 50 words or less. I think we'll be seeing a lot more of this pattern in the next few years.

   Posted by Turk33 at 11/18/2005 @ 09:44am

5. TURK, not approving of it...but seems there is a "fantasy" out there among some, that Libby will "go John Dean" on the Bush Admin.

   When I think it's pretty clear he can "go Cap Weinberger", keep his mouth shut, let the trial play-out, and get his pardon two days before Christmas (or before any other major holiday or event) and it's a "two-day story" and that's it.

   and the "Bush will suffer horribly in the polls if he pardons Libby" argument doesn't fly....since....Bush's poll numbers have ALREADY bottemed out!

   So, I'm wondering why Mr Corn included that line in his article???

   Posted by Mask at 11/18/2005 @ 10:09am

6. Fitzgerald spent 2 years investigating and Woodward comes out now? Kind of weakens the whole conspiracy theory of leak to get Wilson by Cheney and furhter dims the get Cheney crowds hopes far a mass surge in demand to hang the Bush people..IMO

   Libby defense team must be smiling...

   Posted by john maasch at 11/18/2005 @ 10:15am

7. There are many implications to Woodward's belated revelations of his firsthand knowledge of the CIA Leak Case, but the exculpatory "blockbuster" portrayed by Scooter Libby's attorney Ted Wells, is not one of them. We will soon find out that Vice-President Cheney played an integral part of the stratagem.

   Posted by Kenroy2 at 11/18/2005 @ 10:18am

8. John - I fail to see how this helps Libby with the specific charges he is facing. Which element for any of Libby's charges do these facts go towards?

   Posted by Hman23 at 11/18/2005 @ 10:59am

9. I have one question:

   How does Joe Wilson, a PROVEN liar, stay clean in all this? Well he cries about his wife being "outed" and what does he do? He gets the cover of Vanity Fair, with him AND his wife in a Jaguar!

   All right maybe that is more than one question

   Everyone is so quick to jump on the intell agencies that "let us down on Iraq pre-war intell." And question their findings.

   Yet it seems the LEFT is quite willing to take Joe Wilson's word at face value.

   Posted by CPT at 11/18/2005 @ 11:03am

10. CPT:

    Agreed that the Vanity Fair spread was a mistake, which Wilson admits to. But, of course, both sides can make the same point you are trying to make. On the flip side, I think it is funny to see defenders of Bush assert without doubt that Wilson lied, yet twist themselves into pretzels to claim that prior words of the adminsitration were truthful and not misleading. Another thing CPT, nobody questioning the administration's use of intel is making this charge out of the blue or jumping on any bandwagon - there is plenty of support for this argument that is now known to the public, which has been brought to everyone's attention (including yours).

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/18/2005 @ 11:19am

11. All roads will lead back to Cheney eventually, and of course, he'll step down for health reasons... But like Katrina's afterbirth, it's what's left over requiring clean up, 'that' will be the much bigger problem. Thanks Dick.

    http://www.itv.com/news/index_1447362.html

    Posted by Bushfools at 11/18/2005 @ 11:37am

12. HMAN23

    I agree to a point, but Wilson initially said that Cheney sent him, the Senate Intell Committee found this to be a falsehood. That was never true, his wife, recommended he go.

    I agree that the adminsitration SHOULD have held to the 16 words in the state of the union speech, they were too quick to repudiate. The British STILL hold to their report, that Saddam was ATTEMPTING to buy yellow cake. Joe Wilson said no way, but, and not even Wilson denies this, Iraqi officials were in contact with Nigerien officials in reference to a trade agreement of some kind. The now captured, former minister of forigen affairs Aziz, admitted this much.

    Now since Niger exports two main products, yellow cake and goats, I find it highly unlikely they were interested in goats.

    Posted by CPT at 11/18/2005 @ 12:03pm

13. Gee, I'm not seeing or hearing a lot of people complaining about "the intell agencies that "let us down on Iraq pre-war intell." The stink comes from the selective way in which the intel, accurate or otherwise, was doled out.

    And when Bush railed that the revisionist democrats all had the same intel, he very carefully did not add the words "as I did".

    Posted by drhammer at 11/18/2005 @ 12:13pm

14. Wilson has said directly that Cheney did not send him. Cheney made inquiries to the agency about the alleged attempts to purchase the yellow cake, and the agency sent Wilson to Niger.

    Posted by drhammer at 11/18/2005 @ 12:17pm

15. CPT:

    Small point - Wilson has NEVER said that Cheney sent him. Here is what he said:

    "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

    So, Wilson has always said that it was officials at the CIA who sent him. The CIA wanted to send Wilson only because Cheney was asking the CIA questions, but Wilson never said that it was Cheney who directly requested Wilson go, or even indirectly did so by requesting the CIA to send Wilson specifically. In short, Wilson has never claimed that Cheney sent him.

    Also, there is plenty more that you have to defend apart from the 16 Words . In any event, the Adminsitration has already admitted that the 16 Words should not have been a part of the speech - obviously b/c they had possession of other intel demonstrating that the statement had little merit.

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/18/2005 @ 12:19pm

16. CPT:

    Here is what Wilson said on August 3, 2003 on CNN:

    "Well, look, it's absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. Rice nor even George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger."

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/18/2005 @ 12:29pm

17. It is a waste of time to argue about he said she said. What are these, anyway, government documents and press accounts issued by a government that routinely lies, and a press that covers for the lying? How reliant are any of those sources? The government committed an act of aggression against a people who had done nothing to this country, the people of Iraq. If it had just been about Hussein, the United States would be out. If it had been about WMD, as we heard non-stop in those days, those weapons would have been used by "the worst tyrant since Adolph Hitler". It wasn't about anything, other than the need of the U.S. elite to broaden its beachhead in the Middle East. In order to do so, it has launched a chaotic campaign of destruction. Republicans did it. Democrats did it. The press covered for them. And now, all they can do is bicker about whose head is going to be tossed to the public.

    Posted by Sweetdaddy at 11/18/2005 @ 12:50pm

18. Why hasn't Fitz brought Wilson in for questioning?

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/18/2005 @ 12:53pm

19. CPT:

    As to Plame's so-called recommendation that Wilson go, this is also open to debate:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR200508 1001918.html

    "Over the past months [written in Aug. 2005], however, the CIA has maintained that Wilson was chosen for the trip by senior officials in the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division (CPD) -- not by his wife -- largely because he had handled a similar agency inquiry in Niger in 1999. On that trip [the one in 1999], Plame, who worked in that division, had suggested him because he was planning to go there, according to Wilson and the Senate committee report."

    The evidence relied on by the Senate Intel. Comm. that Plame suggested Wilson was a memo written by Plame AFTER Wilson was selected, and she was asked to cite Wilson's credentials. The only other "evidence" pointing to Plame suggesting Wilson was a statement of a staffer who was without first-hand knowledge b/c he was not present at any meeting with Plame about Wilson.

    So you have officials at the CIA saying that Plame did not suggest Wilson for the trip. What is the evidence against that - a memo Plame wrote taken out of context and a second hand account by someone without any direct knowledge. Obviously we cannot know for sure - but, objectively, which side is more credible?

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/18/2005 @ 12:53pm

20. HMAN23

    I applaud your attempts to disseminate the facts concerning Joseph Wilson and "Plamegate". And while I have no interest in singling out any of our fellow posters, I'm constantly amazed by the number of people I hear who are content to simply repeat the the winger radio talking points on the subject. It's an apalling testament to the administration's ability to control the flow of information, and it leaves us bickering over the minutiae while overlooking the fact that the folks at the top are such punks that they would compromise our national security in the name of political vengeance.

    Posted by drhammer at 11/18/2005 @ 12:55pm

21. It's a smokescreen. Why argue about what cannot be proven? The creeps who led this country into this stupid war have shredded anything they can lay their hands on, and the democrats allowed them all the time in the world they needed to cover their tracks. Hussein did not have WMD. He didn't have them, and had he had them, he would have used them. Unless, of course, conservatives are now arguing that he had them but he couldn't use them, in which case he wasn't remotely a threat. But it's amazing how the phantom weapons were travelling from point to point, Syria we sometimes hear, Iran on other days, the story keeps changing. The country is now run by a group of ex James Cannonite, neo-stalinite freaks, adept at manipulation of media and other government whores, but unable to completely contain the truth, which is that the war was fought for criminal reasons.

    Posted by Sweetdaddy at 11/18/2005 @ 1:02pm

22. Fitzgerald spent 2 years investigating and Woodward comes out now? Kind of weakens the whole conspiracy theory of leak to get Wilson by Cheney and furhter dims the get Cheney crowds hopes far a mass surge in demand to hang the Bush people..IMO

    Libby defense team must be smiling...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/18/2005 @ 10:15am

    Woodward's admission couldn't be more irrelevant to the crimes that Libby is charged with- mainly, lying under oath and obstructing justice, in a case which concerns America's national security.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/18/2005 @ 1:07pm

23. The reason the debate on this is so mushy - I mean it's literally he-said-she-said - is because everyone is talking about the smoke and not the fire. The fire is at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue and the smoke is coming out of Cheney's window. Three decades of neocons lecturing us about the importance of the military and the intelligence services, and the minute they get a chance they fuck them both over. The level of hypocrisy and incompetence here is staggering. I'm amazed that conservatives don't see the light on this. Fitzgerald is your best friend. The sooner Libby is jailed and Cheney is forced to resign, the sooner you guys can start talking about principle again.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 11/18/2005 @ 1:11pm

24. Thank you DRH & SWEETDADDY. I was happy to see David Corn finally getting off the torturous minutae of this whole Plamegate mess for a few posts, and start talking about other more important and understandable subjects. Unfortunately it seems he's back to beating this already dead subject even further into our heads.

    Posted by LIVE EASY at 11/18/2005 @ 1:13pm

25. To lift a little from John Lennon:

    "Living is easy with eyes closed..."

    (Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

    Posted by drhammer at 11/18/2005 @ 1:23pm

26. Give it up LIBS...your lies are being exposed and your campain of smear will be exposed for what it is...Bullshit

    Posted by at 11/18/2005 @ 1:45pm

27. Woodward should be crucified for sitting on his information.

    Posted by ZERO 11/18/2005 @ 1:16pm

    The really unconscionable part that Woodward played was his continual insistence in public appearances that the Plame investigation was overblown and that it would come to nothing at the same time that he was sitting on undisclosed information that the investigators were seeking. On a matter involving national security.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/18/2005 @ 1:53pm

28. Woodward should be crucified for sitting on his information.

    Posted by ZERO 11/18/2005 @ 1:16pm

    The really unconscionable part that Woodward played was his continual insistence in public appearances that the Plame investigation was overblown and that it would come to nothing at the same time that he was sitting on undisclosed information that the investigators were seeking. On a matter involving national security.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/18/2005 @ 1:55pm

29. To any of those who think Mr Woodward will "suffer" due to his role in this....think again.

    Bob is held up as the journalist who (along with Bernstein) "destroyed the Nixon Infection". Older media-types still love him for that; younger ones grew up wanting to BE Bob or Carl.

    His friends in the MS Media will protect him, even to the extent of hurting the case against Libby, Rove, Cheney et al.

    Posted by Mask at 11/18/2005 @ 2:21pm

30. Dear anonymous poster (macho plankton),

    Be a man and identify yourself. You're about as brave as Uncurious George calling for the insurgents to "Bring it on" from his throne in Crawford, TX...

    Judging by the anger and hostility emanating from some of the comments here day after day, I'd like to suggest a day for doing something unAmerican - putting your money where your mouth is and bringing what you're singing. You should all locate each other and plan a weekend to meet up - East coast, West coast, heartland, south, ect. and just brawl. It would really be a healthy exercise in (psychotic) patriotism and chauvinism, and a chance for all the blowhards to unglue their fat asses from the cold monitor and actually put actions to words and prove their loyalty to their respective party, especially the neocons who claim to be such dedicated pawns and graceful gladiators. Moreover, if we can get some video cameras it would make for an excellent reality program, for who wouldn't want to see political discourse taken from rhetoric to ruckus, keystrokes to body blows? This is what the national "discussion" has come to - smears and invective, baseless accusations and lame denials, lies and slander, faux facts and black math, assertions and propaganda, nothing more. Otherwise, it doesn't really mean shit if you're hollering for war from the comfort of your Lazy Boy like the bathtub kings you really are...

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/18/2005 @ 2:53pm

31. HMAN23/DHAMMER

    The Senate Intelligence Report, page 39, has a lot of information the refutes much of what Joe Wilson claimed.

    Here is a good sumation of it from an article written shortly after the report was published:

    The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

    Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.

    "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

    Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

    The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.

    The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

    "Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

    Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

    Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

    According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.

    Still, it was the CIA that bore the brunt of the criticism of the Niger intelligence. The panel found that the CIA has not fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day, citing reports from a foreign service and the U.S. Navy about uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin.

    The agency did not examine forged documents that have been widely cited as a reason to dismiss the purported effort by Iraq until months after it obtained them. The panel said it still has "not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa."

    Again the question is, what else would Iraq have been interested in purchasing from Niger?

    Posted by CPT at 11/18/2005 @ 3:31pm

32. Yeah Rio Bravo - and you can tell that to Scooter at his next court hearing. I am sure he would agree where the fallout is. Or tell that to the people in the administration being investigated by Fitzgerald's new grand jury. Or the ever increasing flow of republicans running away from this administration. Or GOP strategists tring to resurrect our poor president's and VP's dismissal approval ratings - they would be happy to know you are in the 36% and 19% camps of those who somehow actually approve their performances.

    Just keep repeating - "There is nothing to see here!" As Bob Marley said, "Everything is gonna be alright!"

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/18/2005 @ 3:37pm

33. CPT:

    I am aware of what the report says and mentioned to you the two pieces of evidence that went into it. It obviously says what it says, but more senior officials at the CIA (and Wilson and Plame)say that is not accurate. So you can go on believing that (1) a staffer who was not present at any meeting, and (2) Plame's memo in which she never explicitly suggests Wilson for the trip provide enough evidence that Plame suggested Wilson for the trip. I will believe Wilson, Plame, and the CIA officials who say that she suggested Wilson for the 1999 trip, but not the 2002 one, and that Plame's memo was written after Wilson was selected.

    As to the Niger document point, you are correct, and Wilson admitted that he misspoke.

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/18/2005 @ 3:45pm

34. Nothing that the senate or the congress say, in any of their so-called "investigations" will shed any light on the mess this country's government has created in Iraq. Because, as President Cheney and his fellow thugs keep insisting (sometimes on their own, and other times through the mouth of their medicine show front man, the "democrats" went along for the ride. They're all neck deep in the big muddy, and a real investigation would reveal their mutual complicity in this massive war crime they have instigated. The time to call bullshit was when Powell was doing his dog and pony routine at the U.N., not a full two and a half years after the vicious cabal in the national administration and the majority party finished consolidating their machinery. The democrats now sound as ludicrous as Zinoviev and Kamenev at the Moscow Show trials, on the one hand repudiating the machinery they helped into power, on the other, defending the so-called integrity of a historic process. They're all (republican and democrat) a pack of renogades, and it is far, far too late to expect real accountability from either political party.

    Posted by Sweetdaddy at 11/18/2005 @ 3:57pm

35. Nothing that the senate or the congress say, in any of their so-called "investigations" will shed any light on the mess this country's government has created in Iraq. Because, as President Cheney and his fellow thugs keep insisting (sometimes on their own, and other times through the mouth of their medicine show front man, the "democrats" went along for the ride. They're all neck deep in the big muddy, and a real investigation would reveal their mutual complicity in this massive war crime they have instigated. The time to call bullshit was when Powell was doing his dog and pony routine at the U.N., not a full two and a half years after the vicious cabal in the national administration and the majority party finished consolidating their machinery. The democrats now sound as ludicrous as Zinoviev and Kamenev at the Moscow Show trials, on the one hand repudiating the machinery they helped into power, on the other, defending the so-called integrity of a historic process. They're all (republican and democrat) a pack of renogades, and it is far, far too late to expect real accountability from either political party.

    Posted by Sweetdaddy at 11/18/2005 @ 3:57pm

36. Nothing that the senate or the congress say, in any of their so-called "investigations" will shed any light on the mess this country's government has created in Iraq. Because, as President Cheney and his fellow thugs keep insisting (sometimes on their own, and other times through the mouth of their medicine show front man, the "democrats" went along for the ride. They're all neck deep in the big muddy, and a real investigation would reveal their mutual complicity in this massive war crime they have instigated. The time to call bullshit was when Powell was doing his dog and pony routine at the U.N., not a full two and a half years after the vicious cabal in the national administration and the majority party finished consolidating their machinery. The democrats now sound as ludicrous as Zinoviev and Kamenev at the Moscow Show trials, on the one hand repudiating the machinery they helped into power, on the other, defending the so-called integrity of a historic process. They're all (republican and democrat) a pack of renogades, and it is far, far too late to expect real accountability from either political party.

    Posted by Sweetdaddy at 11/18/2005 @ 3:57pm

37. November 18, 2005 OUR REPORTERS HAVE DECEIVED US

    I am very disturbed about "celebrity journalists" using their celebrity to write books for "mucho" royalties, instead of reporting the news for the newspapers that hire them. Three columnists have fallen into this category, and I will name and discuss their transgressions:

    1. Judith Miller. She was a reporter for the New York Times. She wrote her articles very well. She had certain sources of information, without which, she would have very little to write about. In order to obtain these sources she became very "chummy" with certain members of the Bush Administration, namely Scooter Libby. She defied court orders and served 85 days in jail for contempt. This jail time brought her notoriety. She used this jail time as "quiet time" to write a book. When her source "allegedly" released her, she was released from jail. Upon being released the Editor of the NY Times, in a public article in the Opinion section of the NY Times, questioned his lack of supervision and her misuse of the newspaper person's privilege, which privilege did not exist in Federal Court. She was used by the Bush Administration, through her "Scooter" source to spread the Bush line to lead us to war in Iraq. She either was fired or asked to leave, and then did the book tour circuit to publicize her book.

    2. Now it has been revealed that Woodward, the "great" spokesman for the "protecting the source doctrine" held back information for two years, in order to write and profit from two books on Bush and the Iraq wars. He even boasted that Bush gave him 3 hours of his very "precious" time (time not spent clearing brush) for Woodward to get material from the "horses ass" the lead up issues to the Bush invasion of Iraq. Why did Bush spend so much time with Woodward? In view of what has now come out, Woodward, as was Miller, was used by Bush to push the war.

    3. Now Tom Friedman. Friedman's book "The World is Flat" has been on the "Times" Best Seller's List for almost 6 months. Colin Powell even quoted Friedman during his interview with Charlie Rose last night, as to the origin of the "Pottery Barn" Doctrine. Powell claimed that Friedman invented the name to fit the doctrine.

    Why have these publications been so lax in their supervisory duties over their leading "employees". The answer is Money, Money, Money. In order to sell advertising, these publications must have "public" reporters on their staff. The editors "blink" instead of editing, due to pressure from the "Bean Counters" up above the feeding chain.

    I put it to you very clear. Can we trust what we read or hear? Has the 4th Estate abandoned us for the mighty buck? If so we are in deep trouble. WHO SPEAKS FOR US? NOT O'REILLY, AND NOW NOT THE NY TIMES OR THE WASHINGTON POST. The LA Times should close its doors due to its decimation of its reporter and op-ed staff. It is too trashy to read.

    Martin S. Friedlander, Esq.

    www.freedompost.typepad.com

    Posted by msf31538 at 11/18/2005 @ 4:46pm

38. .

    SEATTLESCRIBE 11/18 @ 2:51pm

    NACL, Don't try and lay that anti-Semite crap on me; I guarantee you don't know who you're corresponding with. Do you seriously believe that anyone who happens to be Jewish is not to be criticized? If you had read my post, it would have been clear that I shared your disdain for the people and organizations you listed. I wrote that I would add others to that list of people and groups to be disdained.

    When you classify the JDL with Arafat, Stalin and the Khmer Rouge I know who I'm talking to. You acquit yourself in a way no jury ever would.

    The JDL were a few dozen Brooklyn based bullies who ranted about fighting the Black Muslims and killing Arafat and avenging suicide bombings. Their strutting and gesturing landed one or two of those psychopaths in jail, but none ever succeeded in more than interrupting a ballet performance with a stink bomb.

    In your first few posts you held a tight grip on yourself and spoke moderately. But pretty soon the real you burst through and the absurdities and stupidities ripped loose. Now you have laid out you idea of even-handedness. I'm a Goebbels because I don't equate the JDL with the Khmer Rouge.

    Do some soul-searching. Maybe you'll find one.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 11/18/2005 @ 5:28pm

39. Why don't you start a petition to sent to Fitzgerald urging him to jail Bob Woodward for 85days for withholding his sourse?

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/18/2005 @ 5:39pm

    Because... He already testified?

    How'd I do?

    Did I pass?

    Posted by Will C. at 11/18/2005 @ 6:45pm

40. Yet it seems the LEFT is quite willing to take Joe Wilson's word at face value.

    Posted by CPT 11/18/2005 @ 11:03am

    Actually we accept his word and the word of two sources also sent to Niger that corroborated his story.

    It's part of that whole trust but verify thing.

    Hmm, who was the guy that used to say that?

    Posted by Will C. at 11/18/2005 @ 6:49pm

41. Well he cries about his wife being "outed" and what does he do? He gets the cover of Vanity Fair, with him AND his wife in a Jaguar!

    Posted by CPT 11/18/2005 @ 11:03am | ignore this person

    Well, she's already outed. Which means every Intel service on the planet is going to be stopping by for a picture or two. Maybe he just wanted to avoid a traffic jamb in front of his house.

    He does live in a respectable neighborhood.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/18/2005 @ 6:55pm

42. Fitz needs to call both Val and Joe in to have a little "rap" session under oath.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/18/2005 @ 9:15pm

43. "Who was Woodward's source?"

    Who was Corn's source...

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/18/2005 @ 9:29pm

44. A+ for Will C.

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/18/2005 @ 10:04pm

45. Nothing that the senate or the congress say, in any of their so-called "investigations" will shed any light on the mess this country's government has created in Iraq. Because, as President Cheney and his fellow thugs keep insisting (sometimes on their own, and other times through the mouth of their medicine show front man, the "democrats" went along for the ride. They're all neck deep in the big muddy, and a real investigation would reveal their mutual complicity in this massive war crime they have instigated. The time to call bullshit was when Powell was doing his dog and pony routine at the U.N., not a full two and a half years after the vicious cabal in the national administration and the majority party finished consolidating their machinery. The democrats now sound as ludicrous as Zinoviev and Kamenev at the Moscow Show trials, on the one hand repudiating the machinery they helped into power, on the other, defending the so-called integrity of a historic process. They're all (republican and democrat) a pack of renogades, and it is far, far too late to expect real accountability from either political party.

    Posted by SWEETDADDY 11/18/2005 @ 3:57pm

    Did you post this three times on purpose? I know their server's kind of messed up- I inadvertently did a double post earlier.

    In any case- 130 Democrats voted against the "Iraq War Powers" resolution. They shouldn't be lumped in with the generic term "Democrats".

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/18/2005 @ 10:21pm

46. In any case- 130 Democrats voted against the "Iraq War Powers" resolution. They shouldn't be lumped in with the generic term "Democrats".

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/18/2005 @ 10:21pm

    I should have said "Iraq Use of Force" resolution.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/18/2005 @ 10:24pm

47. Quick note to David Corn: if you're going to make bad puns based upon Woodward's old Watergate source, let's go all the way.

    They called Mark Felt Deep Throat because he was a very under cover source. Well, Woodward's new source clearly is nursing a grudge against Wilson. So call the new source Sore Thoat.

    Works better than Top Throat, me thinks.

    Posted by ecojew at 11/19/2005 @ 03:24am

48. One does not have to believe Joe Wilson was completely truthful to believe that Cheney, Libby, et. al conspired to retaliate against him by exposing Valerie Plame's identity. There is plenty of dishonesty and poor behavior on both sides. And Bob Woodward is as "political" as any of them. From a legal perspective, IF he had a duty to come forward with relevant information, Fitzgerald should charge him with obstruction along with Libby. However, from a legal standpoint it is tough to imagine where that duty would arise. So he just failed to help the process along, rather than technically obstructing. Just one more sleazy, greedy, "star journalist".

    Posted by dmsteinman at 11/19/2005 @ 12:06pm

49. Drudge has a link today to Newsweek [msnbc.msn.com] who is also speculating that "Leak Throat" may be Richard Armitage.

    Posted by voxdoc at 11/20/2005 @ 12:59pm

50. Woodwards coming out right now is probably supposed to hinder the on going investigation but I don't see how it would.Cheney was determined to hurt Wilson so there are probably lots of people out there who were told about Plame.I really do think Woodwards timing has a motive.

    Posted by BusyHands at 11/20/2005 @ 8:22pm

51. Woodward's information deos little to help Libby or the administration in my mind - all it does is add yet another (unknown) official to the mix as leaking classified information to a reporter to smear a dissenting view.

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/21/2005 @ 09:42am