Was Cheney Woodward's Source? Is Fitz About to Indict the Vice President?

What is The Post trying to tell us today that it can't come out and say at this point? Early this month, Fitz secretly interviewed Woodward's unnamed high government source. That official revealed that in mid-June 2003, he told Woodward about Plame. That was days before Scooter Libby had a similar chat with Judy Miller, previously the first know disclosure to a reporter. Rove is not the source. By all indications, Cheney is. Bottom line: Cheney is going to be charged with obstruction of justice for his previous false statements. Woodward will be the chief witness against him.

There's a real divergence of opinion about this around here about Bob Woodward's motives in the Plame case.

On the one hand, there's the faction of Plamegate observers that says Woodward is an Old Spook who's got the goods on Bush-Cheney and is going to bring 'em all down. On the other, some of us are saying he's been brought in by Libby's defenders to generate smoke and call Fitzgerald's indictment into question, and perhaps to save Rove and others from indictment. Both can't be right? Right?

One has to do a careful, almost line by line, analysis of the story to see what The Post is trying to tell us. The most significant points are highlighted below.

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.

One: Fitz's investigation is clearly still very much in business. Finally, confirmation that it isn't over, as many had feared.

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.

Two: Mid-June 2003 would have coincided with Libby's conversations with Judy Miller at the NYT, a conversation that Libby belatedly revealed to the Grand Jury after Miller produced her reporters note book that shows Scooter mentioned the name, "Valerie Flame (sic)."

Fitzgerald interviewed Woodward about the previously undisclosed conversation after the official alerted the prosecutor to it on Nov. 3 -- one week after Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted in the investigation.

Three: Woodward didn't contact Fitz with what he knew. Fitz summoned Woodward to reveal that Woodward's unnamed source told him about Plame in Mid-June 2003.

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.

Four: Woodward may have an agenda in this outside his role as an investigative reporter for the WashPost, one which he obviously believes is important enough to put his editor's position at the paper
at some jeopardy - whoever the source and information he refuses to disclose, (s)he isn't a low-ranking functionary.

Woodward said he also testified that he met with Libby on June 27, 2003, and discussed Iraq policy as part of his research for a book on President Bush's march to war. He said he does not believe Libby said anything about Plame.

He also told Fitzgerald that it is possible he asked Libby about Plame or her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. He based that testimony on an 18-page list of questions he planned to ask Libby in an interview that included the phrases "yellowcake" and "Joe Wilson's wife." Woodward said in his statement, however, that "I had no recollection" of mentioning the pair to Libby. He also said that his original government source did not mention Plame by name, referring to her only as "Wilson's wife."

Five: Woodward already knew enough about Wilson's mission to Niger, and about his wife, that Libby saw no need to divulge further details about Plame's identity, according to Woodward's recollection. This appears to show that Libby wasn't the original source for the Plame identity leak. However, Libby isn't being charged with outing Plame, instead he is being prosecuted for perjury and obstruction over his earlier misleading testimony before the Grand Jury. Thus, this doesn't exonerate Scooter from criminal prosectution. Whatever Woodward's motive is, he's not really helping Libby, but is instead shifting the focus onto an as yet unnamed government source.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Rove, said that Rove is not the unnamed official who told Woodward about Plame and that he did not discuss Plame with Woodward.

Six: That significantly shirks the list of potential unnamed high Administration officials who might have been Woodward's source, to whom Fitz would now be turning his attention.

According to his statement, Woodward also testified about a third unnamed source. He told Fitzgerald that he does not recall discussing Plame with this person when they spoke on June 20, 2003.

Seven: It is completely unclear at this point who this third unnamed source might be, or what the significance of Woodward's inability to recall talking about Plame might be. Also, who is the second official? One might guess that Woodward talked to a couple of White House staffer about Wilson's trip to Niger, but didn't discuss Plame with them. There was a report last week that Rove's Administrative Assistant, Susan Ralston, was being called, so she may have been one of these other sources.

It is unclear what prompted Woodward's original unnamed source to alert Fitzgerald to the mid-June 2003 mention of Plame to Woodward. Once he did, Fitzgerald sought Woodward's testimony, and three officials released him to testify about conversations he had with them. Downie, Woodward and a Post lawyer declined to discuss why the official may have stepped forward this month.

Eight: Here is perhaps one of the biggest bombshells in the article. If I am reading this correctly, it appears that Fitz interviewed Woodward's original source earlier this month, and then, upon learning that the Post editor was in on the loop, subpoenaed Woodward to testify.

Woodward, therefore, did not volunteer what he knew about his original source, and did not name names until he was released by all three sources. This would seem to put a damper onto speculation that Woodward has been a mole of sorts in the White House for some party, perhaps the CIA, that's been eager to get the goods on those responsible for outing Plame. This is certainly not impossible, but evidence doesn't appear to yet firmly support that conclusion.

(WashPost Managing Editor) Downie said he could not explain why Woodward said he provided a tip about Wilson's wife to Walter Pincus, a Post reporter writing about the subject, but did not pursue the matter when the CIA leak investigation began. He said Woodward has often worked under ground rules while doing research for his books that prevent him from naming sources or even using the information they provide until much later.

Woodward's statement said he testified: "I told Walter Pincus, a reporter at The Post, without naming my source, that I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst."

Pincus said he does not recall Woodward telling him that. In an interview, Pincus said he cannot imagine he would have forgotten such a conversation around the same time he was writing about Wilson.

There's no reason to doubt Pincus on this. Both men have long-term ties to US intelligence sources, but unlike Woodward, Pincus seems to be a straight-forward career Washington Post reporter. Woodward, on the other hand, has some very complicated attachments and his own agenda. His motive is enigmatic. What appears to have happened is that Woodward tipped Pincus about Plame, but we don't know why, and the two disagree on the details about this.

Was Woodward actually playing a part in the White House plot to out Plame and punish Wilson, and then publicly attempted to minimize the importance of the investigation, perhaps even to obscure the facts? Or, was he playing along and putting together the ultimate insider story about the neocons vs. the career CIA?! We will have to wait and see about that.

So, finally, who might Woodward's orginal source have be? On June 12, 2003, Reuters ran an article saying the CIA was not taking credit for the Niger yellow cake report that had been cited as support for the invasion. http://web.archive.org/web/20030615195853/http://www.metimes.com/2K3/issue2003-24/reg/cia_rejects_blame.htm Eleven days later Scooter had a chat with Judy about Wilson and his wife. Recall, Judy went to jail for 85 days in order to protect Libby about what he revealed during this conversation. We now know more about what happened in between. A highly-placed Administration official told Woodward about Plame. The top people talk to each other first - that's the way Washington protocol usually works. So, who's over Libby, who might have had an interest in this matter? Really, only two people.

I think almost certainly that Fitz will want to talk again to Libby's boss - this time, under oath.

BOTTOM LINE: IMHO, Cheney is going to be charged with obstruction of justice for his previous false statements. Woodward will be the chief witness against him.

P.S. - Some very interesting events centered around 06/12/03 detailed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5374010&mesg_id=5374010

'Probably', because I believe that Fitzy WILL indict Cheney only IF his case is solid enough, and there are so many weird nuances that I am downgrading to probably just to cover my own ass :P

Thanks for compiling this info and analysis!

he did not believe the information to be classified or sensitive, according to a statement Woodward released yesterday.

He's trying to convince Fitzgerald that his source didn't realize the information was classified, therefore, he didn't break the law. I don't know if that would protect the source from perjury or obstruction charges, but it's an attempt to make the source look innocent, imho.

It's their job.

Woodward used to be a reporter, perhaps.

Woodward did not believe the information to be classified or sensitive. Of course it doesn't matter what Woodward believed.

But you are right in that Woodward is trying to make the source seem innocent. The source "casually" mentioned it?! There could have been nothing casual about it, given that her name was suddenly flying all over the place.

He comes on an interview making outrageous, inflammatory statements without blinking an eye. Then, subsequent interviews claims he never said something (again without blinking an eye) even though there is documented proof.

In many ways, he is more vile and evil than Karl Rove could ever hope to be.

I'll have to give some thought to the weapons they would have - something that would hurt like hell and result in a slow, painful death. Maybe fix them up like roosters in a cockfight?

The source spoke so casually that he (Woodward) didn't think the info was classified or the source didn't think the info was classified.
How could Woodward know whether or not the source thought anything unless the source told him.

But either he/source thought it was no big deal or he/source gave Woodward that impression. Woodward's been totally underwhelmed with the importance of the leak, we know that.

I think the phrase "he didn't believe" was referring, not to his source, but to Woodward. Woodward didn't believe the info was classified. I think Woodward is trying to cover his own ass.

As pointed out in other threads, the sentence is not clear on which of the two is the "he". If the he is Woodward, it is a very different story.

I think that it remains to be seen if Woodward is attempting to help or harm VP Spiro Cheney. But there are indicators that people around Washington do not think he is going to be in the administration much longer. I think this post outlines why not! Thank you!

He never came out and said anything about Libby, maybe because his ass knew he was getting indicted as well.


Great Post Nominated!

in all of this just so he can write another book. Now that deepthroat has been revealed, he craves the limelight.

I concur with your conclusion. I've been thinking about the implications of this sinc the news broke last night, and I keep coming back to the same conclusion...it MUST be Cheney.

K & R

it is Bush.

You said:

"Two: Mid-June 2003 would have coincided with Libby's conversations with Judy Miller at the NYT, a conversation that Libby belatedly revealed to the Grand Jury after Miller produced her reporters note book that shows Scooter mentioned the name, "Valerie Flame (sic)."

If I remember correctly, the first meeting Libby had with Miller, Plame's name wasn't mentioned, only where she worked. However, there was an earlier entry into her notebook with the name "Flame" and Judy stated that she wasn't sure where she had gotten the name. Could it be Judy's first source and Woodward's are the same?

Then you said:

"According to his statement, Woodward also testified about a third unnamed source. He told Fitzgerald that he does not recall discussing Plame with this person when they spoke on June 20, 2003."

It appears to me that Woodward was questioned about this other source, not that he was forthcoming with the information and after being confronted with the information stated that he "does not recall discussing Plame with this person". So this information has to have come from someone else's testimony.

Next you said:

"There's no reason to doubt Pincus on this. Both men have long-term ties to US intelligence sources, but unlike Woodward, Pincus seems to be a straight-forward career Washington Post reporter. Woodward, on the other hand, has some very complicated attachments and his own agenda. His motive is enigmatic. What appears to have happened is that Woodward tipped Pincus about Plame, but we don't know why, and the two disagree on the details about this."

Weren't Pincus'original articles regarding the Niger mission absent Joe Wilson's name? This would indicate that Woodward was aware of Pincus' unnamed source for his articles. So Woodward walks in and tells Pincus that his unnamed source's wife works for the CIA on WMD.

Finally you say:

"So, finally, who might Woodward's orginal source have be? On June 12, 2003, Reuters ran an article saying the CIA was not taking credit for the Niger yellow cake report that had been cited as support for the invasion. http://web.archive.org/web/20030615195853/http://www.me... Eleven days later Scooter had a chat with Judy about Wilson and his wife. Recall, Judy went to jail for 85 days in order to protect Libby about what he revealed during this conversation. We now know more about what happened in between. A highly-placed Administration official told Woodward about Plame. The top people talk to each other first - that's the way Washington protocol usually works. So, who's over Libby, who might have had an interest in this matter? Really, only two people."

I just want to reitterate that I believe the "Flame" reference in Judy's notebook is not with her notes with a Libby conversation but that it was an earlier entry. So again, Miller's "Flame" source is probably the same as Woodward's.

I would guess that it is not just Cheney who will be questioned again, but also Miller.

have been Miller's source for the "Flame" reference. That would certainly be an extra nail in the Veep's coffin.

Scooter really fell on the sword, if that proves true.

Thanks for that insight.:toast:

And Woody is working w/ one side against the other. Rove told Fitz about Cheney telling Woody. That's my guess.

Hopefully they'll shred each other until nothing is left of either one.

I hope that is what Woodward is up to, so what if it is to sell books. I just hope he isn't part of a smoke and mirrors campaign...:popcorn:

edit for spelling

Great way for Cheney to get rid of W.
Or, to dump the whole CON/WHIG/NeoCon cabal onto one person while the rest continue to plunder the treasury.

I mean I would love it, but the last indictment results were pretty minimal and that was after having expectations like this...

happen EVER?

Who, afterall, is the most petty puppet in this administration if not Bush himself. Suppose they discussed Plame's identity with Bush and told him they were going to marginalize Wilson's criticism by revealing (lying about)that his wife actually sent him to Niger?
Suppose it was Bush who told Woodward?

Call me crazy, but I'm posting a lot here now that I think that Karl Rove is rolling bowling balls at Dick Cheney now.

Does anyone really think that the leaked White House docs about the Petroleum CEO's participation in Cheney's task force just mysteriously appeared now?

I also think that one of the reasons Rove escaped his own indictment with Libby's is that he fingered Cheney in those last hurried meetings with Fitzgerald.

The documentary "Bush's Brain" lays out Karl Rove's ruthlessness at even those who have worked alongside him closely if it means protecting himself or his client...and his client is not Dick Cheney, it is George W. Bush.

Also, this all fits perfectly with WHY Karl Rove is still at the White House at all, doesn't it?