Woodward Was Told of Plame More Than Two Years Ago

Washington Post ^ | November 15, 20005 | Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig

[areafiftyone]

RAW STORY IS SAYING THAT IT IS STEPHEN HADLEY

Since its not welcome on Free Republic you can draw your own conclusions by clicking on the link National Security Adviser was Woodward's source, attorneys say .

[TBP]

I just want to know when Jim Robinson knew Valerie Plame was a CIA agent.

Before he knew who MD4Bush is.

[Democratshavenobrains]

Its very hard to prove the difference between lying and having a memory lapse.

[GOPJ]

LOL

Whoever the "high Administration official" was, said official went to Fitzgerald and told him that he, "Administration official", had revealed Plame's identity to Woodward. Said official then gave Woodward a release to testify about the conversation. Woodward was stuck. He had to tell Fitzgerald what he knew. As they say in the Guinness ads, "Brilliant!"

[Steve_Seattle]

"Speaking of Novak, that guy said early on that he was chomping at the bit to tell all. I wonder what his problem is now? Let's have it, Bob."

Since he knows we're all waiting to hear what he says, maybe he's not going to shoot his wad on a mere column; maybe he's turning this into a book.

[gathersnomoss]

An early, but expected Christmas Present. Yeehah!

[TBP]

If everyone in Washington knew Plame wasn't covert (and let's assume the CIA also knew she wasn't covert), why then did the CIA ask the Justice Department to investigate this?

To set up the Administration for a political fall.

[Steve_Seattle]

"The question is do you believe that Libby forgot that he called the CIA, or whether he mislead investigators."

At the very least, Libby can say that Pincus ALSO forgot about when he first heard about Plame, thereby establishing credibility for confusion of memory.

[george76]

[Steve_Seattle]

"The challenge to the prosecution will be to diminish the "was she outed" question; and the strategy of the defense is to keep raising the "was she outed" question."

That is a secondary - but important - issue, pertaining to motive and the basic storyline of why all this was happening in the first place. I think that the defense needs to make some effort to "de-martyr" Wilson and Plame by getting into evidence testimony that the WH was simply trying to set the record straight regarding Wilson's mis-statements, not trying to "get" Wilson for telling the truth.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Libby is charged with lying, not leaking."

As more people - including reporters - are shown to have known about Plame independently of Libby, it becomes easier to believe that libby heard about Plame either from a reporter or simply because it was "in the wind" and he was confused about when he first heard it. If Pincus couldn't remember hearing it from Woody, Libby is more credible saying that he got mixed up about when HE first heard it.

[Steve_Seattle]

"It defies credibility to believe that Corn could have authored this article just two days after Novak divulged Plame's name without some close cooperation by Wilson, cooperation that predeated Novak's article."

Yep, and notice how Corn mentions the three-year old twins - TWICE? This smacks of a set-up with full coordination with Wilson and probably some experienced PR hands in the Kerry campaign. This was a deliberate political smear campaign from day one; this is the same old Dem tactic we've seen since the Clinton years, i.e., accuse the Reps of doing exactly what you are doing yourself.

[Rocky]

What would a scandal in Washington be without Woodward's involvement? I guess I will never know in my lifetime.

[Jo Nuvark]

[...Its very hard to prove the difference between lying and having a memory lapse...]

Not so difficult if you follow this rule:
Conservatives lie. Liberals Misspeak.

[Dave S]

Libby is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Just like we all presumed Clinton was innocent?

[kabar]

Agree. Corn has played a central role in all of this, acting as the initial conduit between the Kerry campaign and Wilson. It is obvious Wilson gave him the info on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 including the penalties. As I stated, I am convinced that Wilson and perhaps some in the Agency developed their strategy from the gitgo. They knew that once Wilson peddled the story around, his wife's identity would become involved. They may not have figured that Plame's actual name would have been released by Novak. That was a bonus.

One other thing that has always bothered me about the Agency's response beyond the referral to the DOJ. Tenet's July 11th Press release made the point that the SOTU address had been approved by the Agency and that "CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual [Wilson] with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn." Tenet also indicated that, "Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials." That was well and good.

But Tenet also states that, "And third, the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President." Tenet also states in the press release, "The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake."

"From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct - i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed."

I question why it was necessary for Tenet to state that inclusion of the famous 16 words in the SOTU address was a mistake in any way. To me, that was the WH's call, not his. The press release added fuel to the fire and helped to reinforce the perception that the 16 words were a lie or mistatement. They were not. More Agency sniping against the President?

[Democratshavenobrains]

"Not so difficult if you follow this rule:
Conservatives lie. Liberals Misspeak. "

So true. If Scooter truly didn't remember the exact details of who he told, I do feel sorry for him. But he is a government official and has been used to this stuff for decades. Either don't talk to reporters or tape record everything you say.

[Dave S]

And this was before Cheney, before any of the timeline that Fitzgerald constructed for purposes of the indictment. This is earlier than anything to come out so far.

OOps, no. That is not the case. Libby was told about Wilson and Plame by at least four individuals beginning in late May throughout the first part of June. Woodward may have known the identity of Plame from Mid-June but he didnt speak to Libby until June 23 (by phone) and June 27 (in person). There is an updated chronology in todays WSJ showing where Woodward fits in. If you would like a copy let me know.

[kabar]

Nice try. Under our legal system the same presumption applies to Clinton or OJ Simpson. Clinton wasn't indicted. We did have the famous blue dress and Clinton did settle out of court with Paula Jones, paid a fine, and had his law license suspended for a period of time. But that is not what we are discussing now. We are discussing your statement about Libby not Clinton's guilt or innocence.

You stated that, "Even if true that he had heard it from Woodward, that doesnt change the fact that Libby attempted to mislead the investigators and lied before the grand jury. Again, what proof do you have to make such a statement beyond what is in the indictment?

It would be far easier just to admit that you made a mistatement and move on. You are defending the indefensible.

[Dave S]

Do you really think that Scooter Libby is stupid enough to go in an dperjure himself while turning over his own notes that contradict his statements? Or is it more likely, in that case, that it was a memory lapse?

Libby had months to refer to his notes before he had to talk to the FBI. He had more than a year before he lied to the grand jury. All the lawyers and such at the White House were trying to deterimine the source of the leak. Everyone was being questioned. You would think if he's really the legal genius, he would spend a little time checking his notes to at least see what kind of legal jeopardy he might be in. I cant believe he didnt look and I cant believe his memory is that bad. I think its more likely he concocted the reporter story thinking that the various reporters not have to testify about their source.