NationStates Jolt Archive

The guy with the ultimate street cred for an investigative journalist - the man with all the inside contacts any investigative journalist would ever have or need. He's also said that the whole Plame thing has been blown way out of proportion (you should hear his interview on Fresh Aire). So, do you think that Woodward knows more than has been discovered already?

He knew about Plame before Judith Miller. He's probably the first to know about Plame, and he said on Fresh Aire that it was mentioned in passing, and he places no importance on it.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001480643

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001480714

NEW YORK Bob Woodward and The Washington Post revealed late Tuesday that he had testified before the federal grand jury probing the Plame/leak scandal on Monday, saying that he, indeed, had talked to an unnamed official about the CIA operative in June 2003, among other revelations (see Bob Woodward Now Embroiled in Plame Scandal). This came as a surprise to most, including his editor, Leonard Downie Jr., particularly since Woodward had downplayed the scandal in numerous TV appearances.

He has called Patrick J. Fitzgerald a "junkyard dog prosecutor" and said in interviews this year that the damage done by Plame's name being revealed in the media was "quite minimal." He told NPR this past summer, "When I think all of the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great."

"junkyard dog prosecutor"

Thats a bit harsh, isn't it? The guy is only doing his job.

Thats a bit harsh, isn't it? The guy is only doing his job.

Harsh, yes. But reporters are allowed to call people names.

That aside, I think that Woodward has far more connections on both sides of the aisle than any prosecutor will ever have, and a far better sense of what is going on in Washington than any prosecutor (or tinfoil hat wearer) will ever have.

If this were really the Nixonian conspiracy that Stephistan and others believe it is, then Woodward would have known.

Here's another take on it:

http://villagevoice.com/news/0546,schanberg,70021,6.html

Harsh, yes. But reporters are allowed to call people names.

That aside, I think that Woodward has far more connections on both sides of the aisle than any prosecutor will ever have, and a far better sense of what is going on in Washington than any prosecutor (or tinfoil hat wearer) will ever have.

If this were really the Nixonian conspiracy that Stephistan and others believe it is, then Woodward would have known.

Funny, when Woodward was investingating Watergate, other journalists and politicians regularly downplayed the importance of it.

Now the shoe is on the other foot.

Woodward now gets personal interviews with Whitehouse officials.

Perhaps he's gotten too cozy.

Here's another take on it:

http://villagevoice.com/news/0546,schanberg,70021,6.html

It still doesn't change the fact that he knew about Plame long before Miller.

It also points up how little the prosecution knows - the prosecutor was surprised that Woodward knew.

He knows far, far more than the prosecution knows, or would even have the imagination to ask about.

It still doesn't change the fact that he knew about Plame long before Miller.

It also points up how little the prosecution knows - the prosecutor was surprised that Woodward knew.

He knows far, far more than the prosecution knows, or would even have the imagination to ask about.

IF he's telling the truth...which one of his own reporters finds hard to believe.

IF he's telling the truth...which one of his own reporters finds hard to believe.

Apparently, there's a White House official who is Not Rove and Not Libby who corroborates the story.

It still doesn't change the fact that he knew about Plame long before Miller.

It also points up how little the prosecution knows - the prosecutor was surprised that Woodward knew.

He knows far, far more than the prosecution knows, or would even have the imagination to ask about.

Well, personal slights against the prosecuter notwithstanding, you raise an interesting point. If there were more leaks that were previously unknown then either a) the people interviewed may have lied about who they passed the information on to (hello perjury charges!), or b) there was some stonewalling going on.

Neither of which looks as bad on the prosecuter as it does on the Administration.

What I find curious is why Bob is bringing this up now. Clearly he had information germaine to the case, clearly he knew that, and clearly he did nothing to bring that to the attention of the investigation until now although he seems perfectly willing to talk about it. Standing on the sidelines with relevant information and saying nothing until after the Grand Jury is closed does not make you a hero or a smart guy Bob. It makes you look bad as you gloat over having had knowledge pertaining to the case the whole time.

What? Did he just want to make a big splash for himself?

The fact that he implies having full knowledge of the impact of the outing of Plame and her cover agency is even more intriguing. It implies that lips around the Whitehouse and CIA are even loser that previously expected. Not only was she outed to him, but also some details on the scope of her work.


Still, all this might have done is successfully re-open the investigation down new avenues. Congrats Bob. If you thought you were going to minimize the whole affair you might just have this one backfire on you.

And considering Bob's level of access and the already understood flow of where the information came from (Cheney -> Libby/Rove -> Reporters), can you imagine the field day the Democrats wil have if it turns out that Bob's source WAS that one step up the food chain? i.e. that Cheney spilled it to him?

My oh my will the feces hit the rotating blades if THAT turns out to be the case.....

What I find curious is why Bob is bringing this up now. Clearly he had information germaine to the case, clearly he knew that, and clearly he did nothing to bring that to the attention of the investigation until now although he seems perfectly willing to talk about it. Standing on the dielines with relevant information and saying nothing until after the Grand Jury is closed does not make you a hero or a smart guy Bob. It makes you look bad as you gloat over having had knowledge pertaining to the case the whole time.

I guess you forget that reporters have an agreement and obligation to keep silent using First Amendment protections unless their source agrees to be outed.

Usually, I count on Democrats to support that idea long before a Republican, but I guess you're rapidly learning to be a Republican.

I guess you forget that reporters have an agreement and obligation to keep silent using First Amendment protections unless their source agrees to be outed.

Usually, I count on Democrats to support that idea long before a Republican, but I guess you're rapidly learning to be a Republican.


Are you implying that Bob's source phoned him up this past week to complain about not getting invited to the grand jury and so told Bob to release this information?

I find that hard to believe.

And, indeed, Bob has NOT revealed his source but rather the meat of the story, which is - as I pointed out - a story that could just have easily been told two months ago. Before the Grand Jury investigation ended.


So, once again, why do you think he stirred the pot now?

Are you implying that Bob's source phoned him up this past week to complain about not getting invited to the grand jury and so told Bob to release this information?

I find that hard to believe.

And, indeed, Bob has NOT revealed his source but rather the meat of the story, which is - as I pointed out - a story that could just have easily been told two months ago. Before the Grand Jury investigation ended.


So, once again, why do you think he stirred the pot now?

No, I'm implying the following:

1. Based on Woodward's statements all through this investigation, he believes the whole thing to be bullshit.
2. So he didn't believe there was any reason to investigate (again, based on his statements and view of the situation).
3. I think that he asked the source if he could talk about the matter in public.
4. Until now, the source said no.
5. Woodward still thinks the investigation is bullshit.

No, I'm implying the following:

1. Based on Woodward's statements all through this investigation, he believes the whole thing to be bullshit.
2. So he didn't believe there was any reason to investigate (again, based on his statements and view of the situation).
3. I think that he asked the source if he could talk about the matter in public.
4. Until now, the source said no.
5. Woodward still thinks the investigation is bullshit.

And yet the CIA and the Justice Dept. and Fitzgerald DON'T believe the investigation (which isn't over,) is bullshit.

Also, has it occurred to you that no one was charged with outing a CIA agent because Fitzgerald KNEW that there was another, older source out there? Perhaps a higher-up source?

We don't know.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001522433

Former Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee today defended Bob Woodward, who revealed in a story Wednesday that he waited more than two years before disclosing to current Post editors a conversation he had in 2003 with a White House official about CIA Agent Valerie Plame.

"I don't see anything wrong with that," said Bradlee, who ran the Post during the turbulent Watergate coverage that made Woodward famous. "He doesn't have to disclose every goddamn thing he knows."


He also revealed that Woodward had shown him a copy of the story on Tuesday before it was published. And he explained: "Woodward never has 'no involvement' because he is who he is."