Bob Woodward Tied To Plame/CIA Leak

[Nbadan]

by Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; Page A01


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.

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

From Josh Marshall of Talkingpointmemo (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/)

So the news is out from the Post now -- both in a statement from Bob Woodward and in an article from the Post. The details still seems sketchy and I suspect we're going to find out a lot more in the next few days. But it now seems that Woodward -- who has long been publicly critical of the Fitzgerald investigation -- has been part of it from the beginning. Literally the beginning. From the Post account it appears that Woodward was told of Valerie Plame's identity before any other journalist by an as-yet-unnamed senior administration official who is not Karl Rove or Scooter Libby.

More problematically for Woodward, he didn't tell his own Post editors until last month and then only after the unnamed senior administration official came forward to Fitzgerald and told him about it....

[gtownspur]

spst......spst.. Nba......Nbadan....spst.... I have a little secret.......EVERYONE KNEW ABOUT VALERIE PLAME!!!!!!! ask andrea mitchell of cnbc.

[Nbadan]

spst......spst.. Nba......Nbadan....spst.... I have a little secret.......EVERYONE KNEW ABOUT VALERIE PLAME!!!!!!! ask andrea mitchell of cnbc.

OK, let's ask her, Ms. Mitchell?


NBC's senior diplomatic correspondent Andrea Mitchell is claiming that her comments have been deliberately distorted in reports covering a 2003 interview where she said Valerie Plame's identity had been "widely known" before her name appeared in a Robert Novak column.

"The fact is that I did not know [Plame's identity] before the Novak column," she told radio host Don Imus on Thursday.

"I said it was widely known that an envoy had gone [to Niger]," she insisted. "I said we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak column."

But the actual exchange in question shows that Mitchell was questioned specifically about Plame's CIA employment, not her envoy husband.

NEWSMAX (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/10/91245.shtml)

[gtownspur]

Let me see why dont you actually show the whole article.........







Web
NewsMax.com
Powered by

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...


Thursday, Nov. 10, 2005 9:11 a.m. EST
Andrea Mitchell: I 'Misspoke' on Plame ID



Reprint Information

NBC's senior diplomatic correspondent Andrea Mitchell is claiming that her comments have been deliberately distorted in reports covering a 2003 interview where she said Valerie Plame's identity had been "widely known" before her name appeared in a Robert Novak column.

"The fact is that I did not know [Plame's identity] before the Novak column," she told radio host Don Imus on Thursday.

"I said it was widely known that an envoy had gone [to Niger]," she insisted. "I said we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak column."

But the actual exchange in question shows that Mitchell was questioned specifically about Plame's CIA employment, not her envoy husband.


Story Continues Below



"Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?" she was asked by host Alan Murray in an Oct. 3, 2003 interview on CNBC's "Captial Report."
Mitchell replied: "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that."

Confronted with her comments Thursday morning, the top NBC reporter insisted: "[The quote] was out of context."

When pressed, a flustered-sounding Mitchell explained: "I - I - I said it was widely known that an envoy had gone - let me try to find the quote. But the fact is what I was trying to say in the rest of that sentence - I said we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak column."

Moments later, however, Mitchell changed her story, saying she was talking about both Plame and Wilson:

"I said that it was widely known that - here's the exact quote - I said that it was widely known that Wilson was an envoy and that his wife worked at the CIA. But I was talking about . . . after the Novak column."



Liberal Democrats Rent, Republicans Own!
New Stock Market Report - Limited Time Offer!
Real Estate rockets in the Balkans!
The Coming Shock on Wall Street - Urgent Report


"That was not clear," she finally confessed, before admitting, "I may have misspoken in October 2003 in that interview."
Her acknowledgment prompted Imus to remark: "It took me a minute to get that out of you."

Still, despite her admission, Mitchell blamed partisan "bloggers" for distorting her comments:

"We've got a whole new world of journalism out there where there are people writing blogs where they grab one thing and ignore everything else that I've written and said about this. And it supports their political view."

The full exchange went like this:

IMUS: Apparently on October 3, 2003, you said it was "widely known" that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

MITCHELL: Well, that was out of context.

IMUS: Oh, it was?

MITCHELL: It was out of context.

IMUS: Isn't that always the case?

MITCHELL: Don't you hate it when that happens? The fact is that I did not know - did not know before - did not know before the Novak column. And it was very clear because I had interviewed Joe Wilson several times, including on "Meet the Press."

And in none of those interviews did any of this come up, on or off camera - I have to tell you. The fact is what I was trying to express was that it was widely known that there was an envoy that I was tasking my producers and my researchers and myself to find out who was this secret envoy.

I did not know. We only knew because of an article in the Washington Post by Walter Pincus, and it was followed by Nicholas Kristof, that someone had known in that period.

IMUS: So you didn't say it was "widely known" that his wife worked at the CIA?

MITCHELL: I - I - I said it was widely known that an envoy had gone - let me try to find the quote. But the fact is what I was trying to say in the rest of that sentence - I said we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak column.

IMUS: Did you mention that Wilson or his wife worked at the CIA?

MITCHELL: Yes.

IMUS: Did you mention . . .

MITCHELL: It was in a long interview on CNBC.

IMUS: No, I understand that. But at any point, in any context, did you say that it was either widely known, not known, or whether it was speculated that his wife worked at the CIA.

MITCHELL: I said that it was widely known that - here's the exact quote - I said that it was widely known that Wilson was an envoy and that his wife worked at the CIA. But I was talking about . . .

IMUS: OK, so you did say that. It took me a minute to get that out of you.

MITCHELL: No, I was talking about after the Novak column. And that was not clear. I may have misspoken in October 2003 in that interview.

IMUS: When was the Novak column?

MITHCELL: The Novak column was on the 14th, July 12th or 14th of '03.

IMUS: So this was well after that?

MITCHELL: Well after that. That's why the confusion. I was trying to express what I knew before the Novak column and there was some confusion in that one interview.

IMUS: Who'd you find it out from? Russert?

MITCHELL: I found it out from Novak.

IMUS: Maybe Russert's lying?

MITCHELL: You know Tim Russert doesn't lie.

IMUS: Which would break little Wyatt Imus's heart, by the way.

MITCHELL: Well, which has not happened. But this is (unintelligible). We've got a whole new world of journalism out there where there are people writing blogs where they grab one thing and ignore everything else that I've written and said about this. And it supports their political view. And . . .

IMUS: Bingo.

MITCHELL: Bingo.









All Rights Reserved © 2005 NewsMax.Com


108-108-108-108-108-108

[Nbadan]

IMUS: Who'd you find it out from? Russert?

MITCHELL: I found it out from Novak.

IMUS: Maybe Russert's lying?

MITCHELL: You know Tim Russert doesn't lie.

Well, there goes her credibility.

[boutons]

Just as Colin Powell sullied his outstanding career by lying to the UN and going along with the Iraq war, it seems that anybody who rolls around with these Repug pigs gets covered with shit.

This a huge fuckup by Woodward. Although I appreciate his desire to avoid a subpoena and potentially 100s of $K of legal fees attached to it, he still fucked up.

==========================


Woodward Apologizes to Post for Withholding Knowledge of Plame

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, November 16, 2005; 1:18 PM

Bob Woodward apologized today to The Washington Post's executive editor for failing to tell him for more than two years that a senior Bush administration official had told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame, even as an investigation of those leaks mushroomed into a national scandal.

Woodward, an assistant managing editor and best-selling author, said he told Leonard Downie Jr. that he held back the information because he was worried about being subpoenaed by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case.

"I apologized because I should have told him about this much sooner," Woodward said in an interview. "I explained in detail that I was trying to protect my sources. That's Job No. 1 in a case like this. . . .

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

Downie, who was informed by Woodward late last month, said in a separate interview that his most famous employee had "made a mistake." Despite Woodward's concerns about his confidential sources, Downie said, "he still should have come forward, which he now admits. We should have had that conversation . . . I'm concerned that people will get a misimpression about Bob's value to the newspaper and our readers because of this one instance in which he should have told us sooner."

The Post disclosed this morning that Woodward testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case. Woodward said today he had gotten permission from one of his sources, White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr., to disclose that he had testified that their June 20, 2003 conversation did not involve Plame, the wife of administration critic Joseph C. Wilson IV. He said he had "pushed" his other administration source, without success, to allow him to discuss that person's identity, but that the source has insisted that the waiver applies only to Woodward's testimony.

The abrupt revelation that Woodward has been sitting on information about the Plame controversy has reignited questions about his unique relationship with The Post while writing books with unparalleled access to high-level officials, and about why Woodward minimized the importance of the Fitzgerald probe in television and radio interviews while hiding his own involvement in the matter.

The disclosure has already prompted critics to compare Woodward to Judith Miller, the former New York Times reporter who left the paper last week--after serving 85 days in jail in the Plame case--amid questions about her lone-ranger style and why she had not told her editors sooner about her involvement in the matter. Miller discussed Plame with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was Vice President Cheney's chief of staff and has now been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. Woodward said he testified that Libby did not discuss Plame with him.

Both Woodward and Downie said they are not sure that The Post could have done anything with Woodward's 2003 conversations because they were conducted on an off-the-record basis. Woodward said the unnamed official told him about Plame "in an offhand, casual manner . . . almost gossip" and that "I didn't attach any great significance to it."

Woodward said he had passed along a tip about Plame to Post reporter Walter Pincus, who was writing about Wilson in June 2003, but Pincus has said he does not recall any such conversation.

Woodward said he realized that his June 2003 conversation with the unnamed official had greater significance after Libby was portrayed in an indictment as having been the first administration official to tell a reporter, the Times's Miller, about Plame. Syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak disclosed Plame's CIA role on July 14, 2003.

Woodward said he could not discuss why he decided to notify Downie about his role in the Plame matter last month. He said Downie had told him that there was "a breakdown in communications, but not a breakdown in trust." Downie said he has told Woodward he must be more communicative about sensitive matters in the future.

In past interviews, Woodward has repeatedly minimized the Fitzgerald probe, telling National Public Radio, for example, that when "all of the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great." Downie said Woodward had violated the paper's guidelines in some instances by expressing his "personal views."

Woodward said today that he "had a lot of pent-up frustration" about watching Fitzgerald threatening reporters with jail for refusing to testify, while "I was trying to get the information out and couldn't" because of his agreement with his administration source.

Downie said he remains comfortable with the arrangement in which Woodward spends most of his time researching his books, such as "Bush at War" and "Plan of Attack," while giving The Post the first excerpts and occasionally breaking off to do daily news stories or passing information to colleagues.

"Many, many times over the years, he has brought this newspaper many important stories he could not have gotten without these book projects," Downie said.

Woodward, who has had lengthy interviews with President Bush for his last two books, dismissed criticism that he has grown too close to White House officials. He said he prods them into providing a fuller picture of the administration's workings because of the time he devotes to the books.

"The net to readers," Woodward said, "is a voluminous amount of quality, balanced information that explains the hardest target in Washington," the Bush administration.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[Nbadan]

Rawstory (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/National_Security_Adviser_was_Woodwards_source_111 6.html) is reporting that it was National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley who outed Valarie Plame to Bob Woodward...


National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was the senior administration official who told Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA officer, attorneys close to the investigation and intelligence officials tell RAW STORY.

Testifying under oath Monday to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Woodward recounted a casual conversation he had with Hadley, these sources say. Hadley did not return a call seeking comment.

Woodward said he was told that it was “no big deal” that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate the veracity of the Bush Administration’s claims that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. According to the attorneys, he said Hadley dismissed the trip by saying his wife, a CIA officer who worked on WMD issues, had recommended him.

[Nbadan]

http://www.cagle.com/working/051118/beeler.gif