Little Mister Run Amok

Matt Welch | November 16, 2005

Puttin' the "gate" back in "Plamegate"!

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. [...]

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.

Washington Post article here, Woodward's statement here. In the coming issue of Reason, I have column comparing the many similarities between the Pariah and Hero of newspaper journalism.

Link via Atrios, who has been collecting and publishing all of Woodward's Miller/Plame-related commentary, most of it on Larry King.

Comments

R C Dean|11.16.05 @ 12:58PM|#

Libby just took a big step toward acquittal, folks. Libby has been indicted at least in part because he claimed to have heard about Plame first from reporters.

Woodward is saying Libby was not the original leak about Secret Agent Val and that he knew about it from someone else very early on. Further, Libby and Woodward spoke before and on the very same day as Libby spoke to Judy Miller.

Fitz must be kicking himself right about now for going on the record with this:

At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true.

It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.

which has now been flatly contradicted by Woodward.

R C Dean|11.16.05 @ 1:12PM|#

Libby just took a big step toward acquittal, folks. Libby has been indicted at least in part because he claimed to have heard about Plame first from reporters.

Woodward is saying Libby was not the original leak about Secret Agent Val and that he knew about it from someone else very early on. Further, Libby and Woodward spoke before and on the very same day as Libby spoke to Judy Miller.

Fitz must be kicking himself right about now for going on the record with this:

At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true.

It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.

which has now been flatly contradicted by Woodward.

Matt Welch|11.16.05 @ 1:34PM|#

RC -- I dunno. I haven't been following it that closely, but this seems to queer the chronology more than it does the crime of lying about it deliberately & repeatedly.

TallDave|11.16.05 @ 1:46PM|#

Matt,

Well, there's a serious problem with that too now. Remember, this isn't a cut-and-dried case of lying; the charge is based on one person's recollection vs. another's. Now we find Pincus saying one thing and Woodward another. As in Libby's case, one of them is either lying or misremembers.

In addition, we find some evidence Woodward may have told Libby about Plame, bolstering Libby's claim he heard it from reporters.

And finally, this bolsters the claim that Plame's status was widely known to reporters.

Notice, too, that the whole original charge of outing Plame has apparently been dropped completely.

We're left with Joe Wilson repeated lying about national security, and Libby possibly lying about when he disclosed the status of a non-undercover CIA analyst whose status was already known to the media.

R C Dean|11.16.05 @ 1:51PM|#

Its not a slam dunk for Libby by any means, but it should do a lot more than just queer the chronology (which itself is a pretty big deal, since the underlying issue is who heard it from who).

Libby says he heard about Secret Agent Val from reporters before he talked to Judy Miller. Now a reporter, who is on the record as talking to Libby both before and on the same day as Libby talked to Miller, says he knew about it when he talked to Libby. This supports Libby's claim that he heard about her from reporters.

Libby says he wasn't the original source of the leak. Fitz claims he was. Now a reporter shows up saying he got the leak from someone other than Libby, and did so before Libby spoke to Miller.

The chronology is a very big part of this case, and Woodward just trashed Fitz's chronology.

As a perjury case, this case is all about credibility, and Woodward just corroborated major elements of Libby's testimony.

|11.16.05 @ 1:52PM|#

This -

"He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter"

Is contradicted by Woodward. This -

"And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly."

Not so much. Now it depends on what Fitz claims he was lying about. If the charge is based on Libby lying about not being the first, then, yes, Woodward's statement is huge for him. However, if Libby lied about ever discussing the subject, well Woodward's admission won't change that.

I know that this is one your pet projects, so I'm assuming you can enlighten me on what Fitz alleges Libby actually lied about, RC. I haven't had the time or inkling to actually read all the paperwork (I think this prosecution is just as wrong as the Martha Stewart one, although I think Libby is by far the more despicable human being of the two).

|11.16.05 @ 1:55PM|#

"We're left with Joe Wilson repeated lying about national security"

Mind pointing out the repeated lies? And note that I don't buy that Bush 'lied' about the pre-war intelligence either. Spinning is the politicians skill in trade, and that is what they do. I'm having a hard time finding where Joe Wilson even spun his facts as much as Bush and his neo-con pals did.

|11.16.05 @ 2:08PM|#

Does this have the potential to get Fitz in trouble?

TallDave|11.16.05 @ 2:11PM|#

quasibill,

See the Senate Report on the subject.

|11.16.05 @ 2:20PM|#

Does this have the potential to get Fitz in trouble?

He may lose credibility but I can't imagine any major problems. He was prosecuting someone he thought committed a crime, and now there is new information regarding the crime. I would imagine this happens quite often. Its why we have trials and just Judge Dredd.

Rich Ard|11.16.05 @ 2:23PM|#

Is it impossible that the chain started at Libby's desk, meandered around back into the administration, and then to Woodward?

I don't see how this is a big deal as relates to Libby, but this has gotten odd enough that I lost handle on it long ago.

|11.16.05 @ 2:29PM|#

So who do we think was Novak's source?

|11.16.05 @ 2:46PM|#

Is it impossible that the chain started at Libby's desk, meandered around back into the administration, and then to Woodward?

That's certainly possible, but then there needs to be another investigation that pushes the timeline back, or those facts have to come out quickly during this trial.

It makes you wonder why this veritable bombshell was not already known. You'd think that either Fitz would have gathered this information or the Woodward would have made it clear before Libby was actually indicted.

Even putting on my conspiracy cap and supposing that Woodward is going to reveal Cheney as the true source, why wouldn't he come forward before this?

|11.16.05 @ 2:47PM|#

"quasibill,

See the Senate Report on the subject."

Yep. And I'll believe that document just as soon as they can explain their accounting. Not that the document actually supports your allegation, but even so, I'm not likely to be influenced by something those professional liars pump out, especially when controlled by the same party that controls the White House...

TallDave|11.16.05 @ 3:32PM|#

quasibill,

LOL You clearly have not been following this story. The Senate Report says in no uncertain terms that Wilson lied. There's no issues of "accounting."

TallDave|11.16.05 @ 3:36PM|#

Here's just one of the many, many articles on Wilson's proven lies.

For starters, he has insisted that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, was not the one who came up with the brilliant idea that the agency send him to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire uranium. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson says in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment. The panel even found a memo by her. (She should have thought to use disappearing ink.)

Wilson spent a total of eight days in Niger "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people," as he put it. On the basis of this "investigation" he confidently concluded that there was no way Saddam sought uranium from Africa. Oddly, Wilson didn't bother to write a report saying this. Instead he gave an oral briefing to a CIA official.

Oddly, too, as an investigator on assignment for the CIA he was not required to keep his mission and its conclusions confidential. And for the New York Times, he was happy to put pen to paper, to write an op-ed charging the Bush administration with "twisting," "manipulating" and "exaggerating" intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs "to justify an invasion."

In particular he said that President Bush was lying when, in his 2003 State of the Union address, he pronounced these words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

We now know for certain that Wilson was wrong and that Bush's statement was entirely accurate.

The British have consistently stood by that conclusion. In September 2003, an independent British parliamentary committee looked into the matter and determined that the claim made by British intelligence was "reasonable" (the media forgot to cover that one too). Indeed, Britain's spies stand by their claim to this day. Interestingly, French intelligence also reported an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium from Niger.

Yes, there were fake documents relating to Niger-Iraq sales. But no, those forgeries were not the evidence that convinced British intelligence that Saddam may have been shopping for "yellowcake" uranium. On the contrary, according to some intelligence sources, the forgery was planted in order to be discovered � as a ruse to discredit the story of a Niger-Iraq link, to persuade people there were no grounds for the charge. If that was the plan, it worked like a charm.

But that's not all. The Butler report, yet another British government inquiry, also is expected to conclude this week that British intelligence was correct to say that Saddam sought uranium from Niger.

And in recent days, the Financial Times has reported that illicit sales of uranium from Niger were indeed being negotiated with Iraq, as well as with four other states.

According to the FT: "European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq."

There's still more: As Susan Schmidt reported � back on page A9 of Saturday's Washington Post: "Contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence."

The Senate report says fairly bluntly that Wilson lied to the media. Schmidt notes that the panel found that, "Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"

The problem is Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel discovered. Schmidt notes: "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."

Ironically, Senate investigators found that at least some of what Wilson told his CIA briefer not only failed to persuade the agency that there was nothing to reports of Niger-Iraq link � his information actually created additional suspicion.

A former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, told Wilson that in June 1999, a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations." Mayaki, knowing how few commodities for export are produced by impoverished Niger, interpreted that to mean that Saddam was seeking uranium.

|11.16.05 @ 3:44PM|#

"LOL You clearly have not been following this story. The Senate Report says in no uncertain terms that Wilson lied. There's no issues of "accounting.""

Are you really this dense or are you a bad caricature. My point is that the Senate - controlled by Republicans who have a vested interest in maintaining the popularity of the head of their party, and who routinely criticize companies like Enron while running one of the biggest scams in the history of money - is hardly a source for an unbiased story. The accounting quip was an attack on their general credibility and had nothing to do with Wilson in particular.

The Nation has some really strong articles stating that Bush lied, and point to all sorts of supporting evidence for the assertion. Don't believe them either. They're just about as objective as the Senate Report.

BTW, nice wholesale quoting of RNC talking points without attribution.

|11.16.05 @ 4:49PM|#

Talldave - The talking point about Val getting Wilson the job is a joke. Her boss made the call, and Wilson was a reasonable choice as he had good relations in West Africa and an agent whose part time job was to spy on him. The Senate can conclude whatever it wants, but Val's boss has taken credit for making the decision to send Wilson.

Wilson's conclusions about the investigation are not so important. When he got to Niger, he checked in with the embassy and talked to the um, ambassador, and got a specific set of points to review with the mightymuckymucks. Wilson then reported back to the CIA and the CIA made its own conclusions based on Wilson's report and the 10X as much information it already had without Wilson.

Wilson sharing his conclusions is OK. If he had told us all about who at the embassy gave him his list of questions, or the complete list of what the um ambassador told him to look for, then that would have been not-so-good.

|11.16.05 @ 5:58PM|#

Something is deeply rotten about this "revelation." Suddenly Woodward comes clean with this information, but nobody can remember him telling anyone about it and it's even news to his editor. In the absence of corroborating evidence, I don't think I buy it, especially given Woodwards shift to Presidential media whore over the past 5 years.

TallDave|11.16.05 @ 6:36PM|#

quasibill,

Remove the tinfoil from your head and read the report. The CIA says Wilson lied. Wilson claims to have seen documents that did not exist when he claimed to have seen them.

johnl,

It's not a talking point, it's a fact. Wilson said she had nothing to do with it. That was a LIE.

Shem,

Yes, anything that benefits Republicans smells bad.

jimmy|11.16.05 @ 8:20PM|#

whatever happened to real scandals? seriously, this sounds like junior high school.

|11.16.05 @ 8:32PM|#

Woodward isn't merely a standin for "the media." He has established a relationship with this White House based on repeating their spin points, in exchange for an unusual level of access, which he then turned into a book. The idea that "Bob Woodward knew" somehow counts as "it was well known among reporters" is nonsense.

|11.16.05 @ 8:34PM|#

I'm going to go back and read the comments now.

Five gets you twenty some obedient shills are trying desperatelyl to hijack the thread into a discussion of Joe Wilson.

|11.16.05 @ 8:47PM|#

Hey, wow, look at that.

|11.17.05 @ 3:13AM|#

Will everyone view the comments of Mr. Fitzgerald again!! He stated that Libby was KNOWNLY the first individual to speak of Mrs. Plame. This doesn't clear Libby as his Lawyer stated. Libby is going to jail, Period. We do know that Woodard lied and is continuing covering up for the Bush adminstration. These journalist (Miller, Woodard) are an emabrrasement to their profession. Their becoming the story and not reporting the story. They want to celebrities and brag about being close to power. They are in fact a bunch of losers.

|11.17.05 @ 12:10PM|#

The question becomes, who outed Plame to Woodward? Was it Libby? Was it Rove?

Roger Schlafly|11.17.05 @ 12:47PM|#

Joe Wilson's Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies And Misstatements
http://www.rnc.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=5630