132 online
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 9 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
General News   

Protecting Planted Items and the White House

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   3 comments
Two Sundays ago, two individuals on two different morning talk shows suggested Richard Armitage as Bob Woodward's unnamed source. One talking head even spelled out that Armitage as the source would bring State into some of the disrepute now enjoyed by the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal. (There's no envy like moral envy.)

This past Sunday, the talking heads pretty much omitted the CIA leak/plant case.

With major media outlets circling the wagons to protect their remaining credibility, we turn to Bob Woodward's published statement itself ("Testifying in the CIA Leak Case," Washington Post Nov.16, 2005), for what it actually discloses.

The statement as read reveals:

" That Bob Woodward conducted at least four conversations or interviews back in June 2003, with at least three "current or former Bush administration officials," that "relate to the investigation of the public disclosure of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame."
" That one of the unnamed officials told Woodward "in mid-June 2003" that former ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife "worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction as a WMD analyst."
" That Woodward then carried with him to other interviews with administration officials, that month, one or more lists of questions and items including his notation "Joe Wilson's wife."
" That Woodward had a phone conversation with Libby on June 23, with his notation about Wilson's wife on his desk at the time, but does not recollect any mention of her in the conversation.
" That Woodward also had an interview with Libby on June 27, in which Libby discussed the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) about alleged Iraq weapons of mass destruction. In this interview, Libby also mentioned "yellowcake" and referred to an effort by the Iraqis to get yellowcake from Africa. He also referred to February 2002, which as Woodward says was the time of Wilson's trip to Niger.
" That Woodward again carried the item about Wilson's wife to the interview in his list or lists, but does not recollect any mention of her in the interview.

The disclosures raise questions. Was that first conversation with the unnamed official, who has now gone to the prosecutor in the Plame matter, by phone or in person? Did that official provide any documentation about Wilson's wife, or was Woodward expected just to take his word for the item?

A phone message left before the holidays with Woodward's office at the Post, and emails sent for forwarding to Woodward through several offices at the paper, have not been answered.

Woodward's statement says that the reference to Mrs. Wilson seemed to him "casual and offhand, and that it did not appear to me to be either classified or sensitive. I testified that according to my understanding an analyst in the CIA is not normally an undercover position."

For what it is worth, no government official in Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" comes across as casual or offhand. But an administration official dropped an item about a CIA analyst to Bob Woodward, who has maintained CIA contacts for years and has written a book about the CIA, and he took it to be casual and offhand? - Why?

The statement refers to a total of four conversations with three government officials, relating to the Plame investigation. Who initiated these interviews? Was Woodward called, or did he do the calling? Did they arise in response to particular events or reports?

The statement also contains the curious item that Wilson's wife was referred to but not by her name. In retrospect, doesn't it seem odd that more than one government official, as we now know, told about Wilson's wife being a CIA analyst but also referred to her as his wife rather than by name? Given that those mentions have been alike in style as in substance, don't they seem more concerted in that way, especially in light of later excuses that 'we didn't name her'?

Did any of these officials also drop the impression that Wilson's Niger trip had been arranged by Mrs. Wilson? Why is that not clarified in the statement? What's the secret? - We know by now that that was going to be the administration line, that Wilson's trip was some sort of junket tipped to him by his wife; why leave it out of this statement? Doesn't the public have a right to know, given that the administration was clearly going after its domestic critics?

The statement also says Woodward testified that "after the mid-June 2003 interview," he told Post reporter Walter Pincus about Wilson's wife, a mention Pincus reportedly does not recall. If Woodward, who has been criticized widely for decades for being in bed with the CIA, and who is also management at the Post, idly dropped this item about a CIA analyst to a Post reporter, why did he do so?

If Woodward did pass the item along to Pincus, how soon after mid-June was it? Was it before or after July 13, when Robert Novak transmitted it in his column? Was Woodward, rather than Novak, the first journalist to transmit the planted item?

In response to questions, Joe Wilson replies by email that Woodward was not present when the Washington Post interviewed Wilson about his Niger trip on July 6, 2003. Wilson also responds that Woodward was not at the June 14, 2003, conference where Wilson referred to his Niger information and told retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern that he intended to go public on the yellowcake story in "about two weeks."

We have known for a while that the Bush administration uses any means to go after opponents, critics or even questioners. But the CIA plant case is now opening up some of the ways this administration has used willing media outlets as its means - not just the usual outlets of Fox News or publications from the Reverend Moon, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Hoover Institution, but the former flaming brands of investigative journalism at places like the Washington Post Company.

My own recommendation for the major media outlets is that they pursue an aggressive "hang-out," and do it fast. If they keep trying to sweep this one under a rug, they will dwindle even further and faster than they have already dwindled in respect and trust.
Rate It | View Ratings

Margie Burns Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Margie Burns is a freelance journalist in metro D.C. with a blog on government, law and politics, and Hill credentials through the Austin-based Progressive Populist. Her articles have appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Baltimore Sun, (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Is Fitzgerald's Office Leaking to the Chicago Tribune?

Scooter Libby Was Not Arrested

Arlen Specter Switches Parties, Still Calls GOP 'Us'

Premature Launch

Protecting Planted Items and the White House

Questions Bob Woodward Has Not Answered

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend