If It's Good Enough for the Times ...
The recent revelation from the Washington Post that Bob Woodward learned of the identity of CIA operative (and my wife), Valerie Wilson, in June, 2003, is perplexing. Woodward and his partner Carl Bernstein were heroes to me as they were to many of my generation for their fearless reporting on the machinations of the Nixon administration. The Watergate investigation was what spurred me to pursue a career in public service. As Bob and Carl made clear in their pursuit of the truth, we as a nation had a right to demand better from our government. I still remember seeing All the President's Men at the old MacArthur Boulevard theater, just blocks from where we now live in the Palisades.
So now we have a situation where an icon of the journalistic fraternity intentionally sat on a story for over two years, while a special prosecutor investigated whether a criminal betrayal of the national security of our country occurred.
Why did he do so?
Was it out of fear of being subpoenaed, as he says, or was it rather to save it for the book for which he was interviewing at the time he was made aware of Valerie's identity? But there were no subpoenas being issued in June, 2003 and the book, Plan of Attack, contains no reference to the case.
And why did Woodward take it upon himself to adopt an advocacy position on a story in which he was involved, and which has now resulted in the first indictment of a sitting senior White House official in over a century. For months, Woodward appeared on radio and television talk shows to criticize the special prosecutor ( "junkyard dog"), and to downplay the importance of the case (his favorite term, if I recall correctly was "de minimis").
I don't know if what he was doing was a conflict of interest or inconsistent with journalistice ethics, but I would sure like to hear a fuller explanation, and I suspect many of the Post's readers would like one as well. After all, our newspapers are for many of us the principal filter through which we receive our information and opinion. The self styled "papers of record", it seems to me, have a particular responsibility to ensure that the filtration process is not corrupted by conflicts surrounding either interests or relationships with sources. Judith Miller and the New York Times is a case in point. When it became apparent that there were questions about her role in the Plame matter, the Times forthrightly addressed the questions and reported back to its readers. The Post would be well served to follow that precedent and share with us its conclusions.
I am personally very keen on knowing the extent to which Woodward's relationship with his sources at the White House, and his personal involvement in the case affected his views, and by extension the reporting of his newspaper. It is no secret that the Post's reporting has been less than objective, dating back to the first piece by Susan Schmidt in July, 2004 in which she misrepresented the Senate Select Committee report, conflated the conclusions of that report with the views of three republican senators, and even confused Iran with Iraq as a nation that had expressed an interest in Niger's uranium. That article has formed the basis for much of the subsequent reporting on the matter.
Speaking of the Senate Select Committee Intelligence report, while we are looking at truth in reporting, perhaps the Republican committee members and their staffs could now share with the American people what the nature of their relationships were with the White House, and particularly the office of the Vice President, while they were doing their investigation and writing their report. Will they, once and for all, confirm or put to rest the persistent rumors of collusion and cooperation in the drafting of the SSCI report, including phone calls with Libby and his successor, Addington, and meetings with Cheney as they crafted the first salvo in the now 27 month old character assassination campaign waged against Valerie and me. Josh has frequently disparaged the report as mendacious, a view I share. Now is the time to ascertain the whys and wherefores of that mendacity.
just as a general comment, <span>it oughta be clear by now that no one in this administration or its stubbornly loyal congressional party leaders is going to suddenly develop an honest streak... they are going to stick to their lies no matter what... they've perfected this game over 5 years under the tutelage of the satanic master, karl... it's worked perfectly well so why should they change now...?</span>
November 18, 2005 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Wilson-
I am perplexed by these questions also.
Was Woodward an "opportunist" from the earliest days of Watergate reporting, or was he just a "midlife sellout"?
I'm wondering whether his silence is in the same vein as Tim Russert's. Arianna Huffington hammered him relentlessly for not talking about what his involvement was- only to find out that it was his testimony that exposed Libby and set the prosecutor's "perjury trap" that he so awkwardly fell in.
Is Woodward in the same position with some new lead? Someone who has actually been off the radar screen for a while? Wolfowitz? Bolton? Harriet Meirs?
I think the only way to deal with it is to begin a boycott of these self appointed "papers of record" until they come clean with the readers. They have been complicit- not duped- allies in the marketing department of BushCo, and have been paid handsomely with ad revenues and access.
November 18, 2005 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The journalistic "souls" of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are dead. May their journalistic integrity RIP...
Back when Watergate happened the importance of sources were that they gave confirmation or denial to the facts of a story. The story was the most important aspect. Fast forward 30+ years and we find out having access to sources trumps all. The 4th Estate has failed in their responsibilities because of this...
Judy Miller and Bob Woodward are nothing more then a shills in my eyes...
November 18, 2005 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good question for Downie right not...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/11/1 7/DI2005111700936.html
November 18, 2005 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe, first let me thank you and Valerie for your service to this country and extend to you my sympathy for what you and your family have suffered in return for that service. The reward must come from doing the right thing rather than honors from the Bush administration.
IMO, Bob Woodward has not been working for the Washington Post and its readers for some time now. He thinks his No. 1 job is to keep his sources confidential, whereas I would have thought his No. 1 job was to inform the public via the WP. He's collecting information for his books, not for the WP and its readers.
While aggressively criticizing Patrick Fitzgerald, he was in possession of pertinent information on that very matter. Even if he was not required to disclose his own connection to the Plame matter, he could at least have kept his opinions on the investigation to himself. I see a big conflict of interest here.
It seems that retaining access to insiders in the White House for material for his books is the prime consideration for Woodward. What happened to that bold and courageous reporter who broke the Watergate story?
His last book was pure White House hagiography, so, in a way, a situation like this was predictable. The bosses need to realize that he drags the Post down with him as his reputation disintegrates. This is very sad, because he was once one of the best.
June Butler
Thibodaux, LA
November 18, 2005 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's in the Bush administration's interests to make this story ever more complicated to obscure the only fact that matters: they outed a covert CIA agent. I don't care if they bring Zsa Zsa Gabor into it - I'd still be asking "Is it OK to to reveal the name of an undercover CIA officer, or not?"
Woodward is a whore.
November 18, 2005 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe:
If anyone believes, as Woodward apparently does, that this is not a big deal, I'd be happy to tell them about a botched third-rate burglary attempt.
November 18, 2005 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ambassador Wilson, I just wanted to thank you and your wife for your years or public service, for your courage in waking people up to just how despicable this administration is, and for just generally being better citizens than most of us. I also wanted to express how sorry I am that the system and our (I can't believe these jerks were actually) elected officials have treated you two true patriots so badly. I also wanted to say that, regardless of the criticism, I'm proud of you for participating in the last election. I must say that if I were treated as badly as you were, I'd go to work for the opposition too. I'd go there on a run!
The one consolation that I see is that the Republican Party is imploding faster than I have ever seen, now that the corner's been turned. I think ordinary people started to have doubts about the war, the way we got into it, how it was being prosecuted, what we were really doing there after Abu Grahib (sp? sorry) pictures came out, during the election. Then during Katrina, I think people really realized that this administration is all smoke and mirrors, empty suits, incompetents. Republicans are one thing, but the neocons are an abomination! Again, thank you so much for standing up and standing tall.
November 18, 2005 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I firmly believe truth will prevail. Sadly, Bush and his supporters (including Woodward) will attempt to muddy the water as they have on every issue since taking (not winning) office. Booby should be fired without hesitation by the Post. The media is our source in maintaining a democracy and it is quickly eroding before our eyes. Booby and Judy, cases in point. Public flogging? Bring it on!
November 18, 2005 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
First Mr. Wilson I want to express my respect and grattitude for what you have done for America. You are a true public servant. Thank you.
When Robert Fisk was asked what is the job of the journalist, he replied to always, always question power. This is the problem we face right now, our journalists have forgotten and need to relearn what their job is. It's not to cuddle up to the powerfull, it's to question them. Mr. Woodward should be stripped of his job since he obviously withheld information for his own personal benefit, the book writing. Simply, a term I did not coin, a presstitute!!!!
We must hold the press/media responsible for their complicity in the creation of the Bush tyranny-- now our job is to reclaim our country from the opportunists.
November 18, 2005 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe:
Ariana Huffington's 15 questions for Woodward are here, do you have any you'd like to add?
November 18, 2005 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Ambassador for tirelessly speaking truth to power.
November 18, 2005 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The rightwing blogosphere is making a lot of hay about the timeline and Fitzgerald apparently not having it 100%. Mr. Wilson, if Woodward is telling the truth (which, at this point, remains to be seen quite frankly), they're going to argue that your wife was outed a month before they apparently had a reason to.
Was there a conscious effort on the part of the administration to gear up for discrediting you even before your timely July 2003 editorial? Do you think they knew this was coming?
November 18, 2005 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems the new Woodward would have seen little importance in a political party spying on another's hotel headquarters.
How things have changed. Apparently Woodward's ego requires periodic boosts or he acts out.
November 18, 2005 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone believes, as Woodward apparently does, that this is not a big deal, I'd be happy to tell them about a botched third-rate burglary attempt.
But, never forget that when that burglary attempt was made there were some honest, patriotic Republicans in the Congress, a major shortage today. This Congress would no more investigate the crimes of the Bush administration and, especially, Bush himself, then they would dance nude outside the Capitol building.
Until we can get a Democratic majority in the House there is absolutely no risk of impeachment for Bush, and very little risk even if we do get a Democratic majority. That majority would be in office only two years before Bush leaves office, and given the placidity of our Democrats today, they would be highly unlikely to chose to stir the pot. This will change only if Bush himself is seen dancing nude in front of the Capitol building, with a male prostitute who is clutching the $100 bill he just received from the President. Don't bet on that happening.
November 18, 2005 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
What did Carl Bernstein do to deserve this?
November 18, 2005 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't criticize Bernstein. All I said about him is that the investigative journalistic integrity he and Woodward showed during Watergate is now dead. I only criticized Miller and Woodward...
November 18, 2005 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm beginning to wonder about the terms of Woodward's exclusive deal with the Washington Post regarding scoops. Did he play his Watergate success into gaining greater access all over Washington? And was a condition of that access a reduced ability to share what he knew with his editiors?
Is that something that the Post editors would have agreed to? It seems to me that having an employee who can provide good solid information every once in a while, in a place like Washington, would be worth not learning everything he knows. As we keep hearing, "Bob is Bob."
This provides the perfect excuse for Woodward seeking to avoid testifying before a grand jury - how much information could he get from his sources if they knew he was going under oath? He said himself he didn't say anything to avoid the subpoena - why watch a lifetime of accumulated access evaporate? The man who lived by access shall now die by access. Shame, really.
November 18, 2005 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
One cannot blame an investigative reporter for doing what is in his own best interest; to do so would be inherently un-American. It was the GOP which was burned at the stake thanks to his Watergate investigations, now, it is Patrick Fitzgerals and his investigation. If that isn't objectivity at its best I don't know what is.
November 18, 2005 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, fair enough. No offence, but you could have been clearer.
November 18, 2005 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, fair enough. No offence, but you could have been clearer.
Yes, I completely agree that I should have been clearer. In fact I was worried that the same thing you thought could be inferred from my post. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify that in no way am I criticizing Bernstein...
November 18, 2005 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It certainly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. He was taking an advocacy position when he was a party to it," Wilson said.
WTG Josh!
November 18, 2005 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amb. Wilson:
many thanks for your bravery and persistence against the slings and arrows of the Bush administration and the right wing slime machine.
I read the transcript of the Downie online session re:Woodward and was surprised (sorta) by the apparent stance of the Post news division as apologists for Woodward's transgressions.
It's quite clear that they don't get it: Woodward's misbehavior in this matter is far bigger than Miller's. Not jsut the secret-keeping, but the attempts to discredit Fitzgerald and the investigation of Ms. Plame's outing.
Trust, like truth, seems to be the biggest casualty of this particular war.
November 18, 2005 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The importance of the timeline is not really when Libby found out from Cheney about Joe's wife, but when Woodward found out the information in relation to Cheney's inquiry to the CIA. This seems to further implicate Cheney as the ultimate leak source, unless I am missing something.
November 18, 2005 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Permit me first to join the others in thanking you and Valerie Plame Wilson for your dedicated and effective public service.
May I then ask, also: do you consider it possible that another explicit motive of the "outings" of Valerie Plame was actually the destruction of Brewster-Jennings?
November 18, 2005 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point. The Democrats are also complicit in the march to war, and there's no reason to think turning Congress over to them in 2006 will result in impeachment if we can't get the current Republican congress to impeach.
I think any reasonable person could identify high crimes and misdemeanors, so let's give the defecting GOP lawmakers a chance.
November 18, 2005 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"After all, our newspapers are for many of us the principal filter through which we receive our information and opinion."
I'm afraid, Mr. Wilson, that MSM outlets have lost their capacity to objectively and accurately "filter" information. To my mind blogs such as TPM (and other sites stressing professionalism) have replaced the Times and WAPO in that regard. Your comments regarding the Times "forthrightly" addressing their role in the "Plame matter" (specifically Judith Miller's role) were surprisingly generous given Miller's refusal to completely cooperate with reporters working the story. The parallel between Miller and Woodward is such that we will never know in any credible fashion what their respective roles were, and I doubt any forthcoming books will change that. Ultimately, I learned far more about the "process" used to discredit you and your wife from blogging than I did from the WAPO. I have no idea what your thoughts on this matter are but it is my belief that TPM and other committed sites were central in keeping the leak case alive. My wife refers to my blogging as participating in "techno-roots" politics and I believe she is right. I hope the outcome of all this offers at least some compensation for your famiily.
Jfran
November 18, 2005 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now, there's a $64,000 question if I've ever seen one. Just how deep does this go?
November 18, 2005 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am curious about Bob Woodward's role at the Washington Post. I know he is an assistant editor. Does he select which analyses go on page A1 versus page A37, particulaly in the debate leading up tp war? If so it seems to me that the Post itself may have a serious conflict.
November 18, 2005 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Amb. and Valerie Wilson for being true patriots.
Just don't let WP off the hook. They had their chance to come clean and have botched it up completely. Several things I don't understand.
One is the characterization of two years of deceit as a mistake.
It is a mistake to go on vacation instead of doing the payroll and paying your employees. It is criminal to not pay them for two years.
It is a mistake to make an unfounded public statement once. It is criminal to continue the lie for two years.
Bob Woodward lied to everyone for two years. This isn't a mistake. Maybe the WP should mistakenly forget to pay him for the next two years. It should be easy enough for them to rationalize the behavior, since they have already condoned two year mistakes by their employees.
The second problem is Mr. Woodward's relationship to the WP. As explained by the WP, they get some good stories as Bob researches his books, and they even get to publish in advance excerpts for his book. I'm not sure about this, but it sounds to me like the WP gets to advertise Bob's latest book for free! Shouldn't the WP shareholders demand something a little more favorable in return?
When Mr. Woodward goes on television is he introduced as being an employee of the WP? If so, he should be held to a higher standard, and a higher requirement of disclosure than a regular author or even a politician. If you are going to use your title, you should be required to follow company policy. Mr. Woodward didn't just make a mistake in this regard, he actively deceived the WP and everyone else for two years. The WP should demand repayment of his salary during that time.
November 18, 2005 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ambassador Wilson,
I wonder if we could get you to comment on a rumor that I read first on a blog. The story is so outrageous it is either complete bunk or something that changes the whole political landscape.
Many people have openly wondered why, if WMD in Iraq were so important to the neocon's goals, why didn't they just plant some in Iraq for the Army to "find" and that would have likely doubled their political standing. They obviously didn't do this, and few of us more strident Bush critics are willing to credit "ethical restraint" on their part as the reason.
So what would stop them? They didn't feel they could get away with it. And why not? Because CIA WMD intelligence operatives and analysts would find out, and if they could others would as well. Remind you of anyone?
So not only was your public debunking of some of their claims what caught their attention, but the secret work of Mrs. Wilson and her co-workers and contacts that were galling to them. They might not have ever seriously developed any plans to plant WMD, but very least accurate intelligence even if it was classified was never their friend. So is it possible that Valarie Plame was their target all along, even before wrote your fateful op-ed?
November 18, 2005 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fitzgerald said that Libby's contact was the first KNOWN contact.
Woodward testified without making known who his contact was. Who is he trying to protect? My guess is Cheney. That might explain his two years of silence and bad-mouthing Fitzgerald.
I find it impossible to understand that people cannot see the distinction of protecting a whistleblower who is uncovering governmental wrong-doing and someone who is a conspirator in covering-up governmental wrong-doing. The Fourth Estate is supposed to be one of the checks on government tyranny, not its enabler.
And Ambassador, I admire your courage.
November 18, 2005 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't bet on which happening?
Bush dancing nude with Jeff Gannon or Bush getting caught dancing nude with Jeff Gannon?
;<D
November 18, 2005 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to over-value it, or give it more credibility than we can presently document, but see Madsen's November 11 posting, suggesting that Brewster-Jennings may have been actively sidetracking or preventing WMD's from being planted in Iraq.
Outrageous? You can call it that if you like, as Miss Marple used to say. But there it is--more plausible than the administration's fading meme that they didn't even know she was covert. They had to know that, considering their sources; and--knowing it--they had to know the damage to WMD intelligence that would be caused by the outing they were getting reading to out with. Knowledge of the intended consequences makes intent for those consequences difficult to rule out.
November 18, 2005 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just Out!
Here
November 18, 2005 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
If that isn't objectivity at its best I don't know what is.
Apparently you have a lot to learn about objectivity. During Watergate, Woodward helped expose a cover up. In this case, he is part of the cover up. In my mind that makes him complicit, not objective.
And just why do you think Woodward's forced revelation negatively affects Fitzgeralds investigation? I fully expect this to give him more ammunition to expose just how deep the conspiracy to discredit Joe Wilson goes. It doesn't really matter who was first. Evey person with a security clearance who leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent is equally guilty, whether it was malicious or neglegent.
And Woodward has already shown he is lying about his involvement. To claim he told Walter Pincus within days, but had to withhold it from his boss for two years is ridiculous on it's face. You don't maintain confidentiality by telling a fellow reporter about what you just learned. And Pincus has made it clear that Woodward did not tell him during that time period. It's obvious which one has a motivation to lie.
November 18, 2005 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Bush Admin and the military really believed that they would face a chemical weapon attack when they reached Baghdad, wouldn't there be documents or plans which addressed the issue, including the number of casualties they should expect and the number of additional troops that would be required over and above that needed without WMDs?
Shouldn't Bush have warned the American public of the expected number of casualties we could expect if WMDs were used on American Troops near a high population area? I don't remember any official warnings.
Even if there was no specific planning with respect to WMDs for the Iraq War, there should be volumes of this type of discussion from the past. Obviously WMDs give an unfair advantage to the side using them, otherwise why invest money to manufacture them in the first place?
November 18, 2005 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the same vein, it was very striking to watch the Republicans clamor for an investigation of who leaked the secret prison locations, until they found out it might have been a Republican, then it was all hush-hush... not a "matter of principle" anymore, and not a big deal.
I don't know how these people live with themselves.
November 18, 2005 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Wilson,
I've spent a great deal of time defending you in online circles in this debacle for the simple reason that based on all the evidence I believe you are correct. Truth is always, or should be, the bottomline. If this belated assertion of Woodward is factored in we do indeed need to know what influence, if any it had with reporters such as Schimdt who the misinformationists still quote. I think it is a smear campaign for the obvious reasons and the technicalities further support this thesis. You continue to earn my support for all the right reasons.
November 18, 2005 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink