ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Woodward Reveals Important Clues About White House Smear Campaign

By Faiz Shakir on Nov 21, 2005 at 9:48 pm

From Woodward’s appearance on Larry King “Live” tonight:

Question: Your source, did the source indicate whether Ms. Plame was an undercover agent or a desk analyst?

Woodward: Good question. And specifically said that — the source did — that she was a WMD, weapons of mass destruction, analyst. Now, I’ve been covering the CIA for over three decades, and analysts, except — in fact, I don’t even know of a case. Maybe there are cases. But they’re not undercover. They are people who take other information and analyze it. And so — and if you were there at this moment in mid-June when this was said, there was no suggestion that it was sensitive, that it was secret.

This exchange is extremely important. From the indictment, we learned that Vice President Cheney told Scooter Libby that Plame worked in the “Counterproliferation Division,” an agency in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations (DO) – see fact #9. The DO is well-known as the clandestine arm of the CIA.

Working at the CIA as an analyst on “weapons of mass destruction,” however, is part of the Directorate of Intelligence (DI), which is “on the overt side of the CIA.” Recall, Novak’s source also told him Plame worked as an “Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.” Matt Cooper was similarly told that Plame worked at the “Agency” on “WMD.” And Judith Miller? Same deal — she was told Plame worked at “WINPAC” (the more formal acronym for the Agency’s work on weapons of mass destruction).

So, at some point along this chain, someone in the Bush administration changed Valerie Plame’s job affiliation with the CIA, possibly to convince reporters that it was OK to report on her. Were Woodward, Miller, Novak, and Cooper all intentionally deceived about Plame’s status? If so, it strongly suggests the outing of Valerie Plame was not unintentional.

UPDATE: Crooks and Liars has video of Woodward’s appearance.

Media

Tonight on Larry King: Woodward’s Disingenuous Attempt to Rehabilitate Himself

By Faiz Shakir on Nov 21, 2005 at 6:26 pm

CNN just offered a sneak preview of Bob Woodward’s interview with Larry King tonight on CNN. This is what Woodward says:

The day of the indictment, I read the charges against Libby, and looked at the press conference by the special counsel and he said the first disclosure on all of this was on June 23rd, 2003 by Scooter Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff to New York Times reporter Judy Miller. I went whoa whoa, because I knew I learned about this in mid-June, a week, ten days before. Then I say something’s up. There’s a piece that the special counsel does not have in all of this. Then I went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode…

There’s an easy explanation for why Fitzgerald didn’t know about this vital piece of information – because Woodward intentionally sought to keep it from him. The only person known to have had information regarding Woodward’s knowledge about Plame was Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus. And Woodward specifically told Pincus not to reveal that information to anyone:

[Pincus] believed as far back as 2003 that Bob Woodward had some involvement in the case but he did not pursue the information because Woodward asked him not to. “He asked me to keep him out of the reporting and I agreed to do that,” Pincus said today.

Let’s recap. First, Woodward told a fellow colleague about his information on Plame but instructed him not to share; then, he failed to disclose this information to his editors at the Post in order to — in his words — avoid a subpoena; then, he criticized Fitzgerald’s investigation; and finally, after failing to disclose his knowledge and realizing Fitzgerald was not aware of it, he sniffed a great story and went into “aggressive reporting mode.”

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you commit a “journalistic sin.”

Politics

BREAKING: Scanlon Pleads Guilty

By ThinkProgress on Nov 21, 2005 at 5:15 pm

From CNN:

Well Wolf, Michael Scanlon, former partner of high-powered lobbyist Jack Abramoff just pled guilty in court at this hour. That is, we’re told by government officials, part of a plea deal that he worked out with the justice department. Those sources say as part of the deal, Scanlon has agreed to testify against Abramoff. The government last week accused Scanlon of conspiring with Abramoff to defraud clients, mostly Indian tribes. They were also accused of trying to corruptly influence a member of Congress with sports tickets, lavish trips, and campaign donations. A government source identified that Congressman as Bob Ney of Ohio… Now Wolf, as you mentioned, Scanlon is also an ex-aide to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. DeLay is also facing scrutiny for his associations with Abramoff.

The Abramoff scandal was described in the New York Times as potentially “the biggest scandal in Congress in over a century.”

THINK AGAIN: Read more

Security

Exclusive: Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon’

By ThinkProgress on Nov 21, 2005 at 3:33 pm

To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren’t technically “chemical weapons.”

The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are “incendiary muntions” that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons.”

But the distinction is a minor one, and arguably political in nature. A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled “Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical” describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:

IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. [...]

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.

In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they’re used by our enemies. Read more

Security

Cheney: If U.S. Troops Come Home, Osama Bin Laden Will Rule Iraq

By Judd Legum on Nov 21, 2005 at 12:27 pm

cheney_aei

Vice President Cheney made a striking claim a few minutes ago at the American Enterprise Institute:

Those who advocate a sudden withdraw from Iraq should answer a couple simple questions. Would the United States and other free nations be better off or worse off with Zarqawi, Bin Laden and Zawahiri in control Iraq? Would we be safer or less safe with Iraq ruled by men intent upon the destruction of our country.

Cheney didn’t provide any evidence supporting his claim. The suggestion is that if the U.S. leaves, Iraqi forces would be completely incapable of defending the country against terrorists. Yesterday on ABC, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said people who doubted the capabilities of Iraqi security forces were “flat wrong”:

People who denigrate their competence and capability are flat wrong. They’re making a mistake. They either don’t understand the situation or they’re trying to confuse it, but the Iraqi security forces are well respected by the Iraqi people. They’re doing a very good job.

So Cheney either doesn’t understand the situation or is trying to confuse it. Take your pick.

[UPDATE: Video of Cheney at Crooks & Liars.]

Politics

White House Flip-Flops on Murtha

By Judd Legum on Nov 21, 2005 at 11:40 am

First, Murtha was taking a “baffling” position only accepted by “the extreme liberal wing.” White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 11/18/05:

[I]t is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled — nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer.

Now, he’s taking a “clear stand” in a “legitimate discussion.” Vice President Cheney, 11/21/05:

Recently my friend Jack Murtha called for a complete withdraw of our troops in Iraq. I disagree with Jack and believe his proposal would not serve the best interest of this nation. He’s a good man, a marine, a patriot and he’s taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion.

Politics

Cheney Rewrites The Headlines

By Faiz Shakir on Nov 21, 2005 at 11:22 am

Vice President Dick Cheney began his speech at the American Enterprise Institute today with the following statement:

My remarks today concern national security, in particular the war on terror and Iraq front in that war. Several days ago, I commented on some recent statements that have been made by some members of Congress about Iraq. Within hours of my speech, a report went out on the wires under the headline quote, Cheney Says War Critics Dishonest, Reprehensible, endquote. The one thing I’ve learned in the last five years is that when you’re vice president you’re lucky if your speeches get any attention at all but I do have a quarrel with that headline.

Here’s exactly what Cheney said just a few days ago, on November 16:

And the suggestion that’s been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.

To quote President Bush, it is “deeply irresponsible to rewrite history.”


UPDATE: Read more

Media

A Strip Search of Novak’s Column Yields No Facts

By Judd Legum on Nov 21, 2005 at 10:27 am

In his column this morning, Novak took issue with the assertion that Alito voted to approve the strip search of a 10-year-old girl:

The ad claimed Alito, as a federal appellate judge, “even voted to approve the strip search of a 10-year-old girl.” This distorts a case where a suspected drug dealer’s daughter was searched, visibly not manually, by a female police officer in the presence of the child’s mother.

Here’s what actually happened, as described by the court:

Once inside, however, the officers found no visitors, but only John Doe’s wife, Jane, and their ten year old daughter, Mary…They were instructed to empty their pockets and lift their shirts. The female officer patted their pockets. She then told Jane and Mary Doe to drop their pants and turn around. No contraband was found.

That sounds like a strip search. And as the court makes clear, the 10-year-old girl was patted down, so Novak’s claim that the girl was only searched only “visibly not manually” isn’t true. Later in the decision, the court specifically points out that the girl was “touched by a female officer who was searching for contraband.”

Also, Novak fails to point out that the girl was not covered by the warrant obtained by the officers. That’s why the majority found “Searching Jane and Mary Doe for evidence beyond the scope of the warrant and without probable cause violated their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.”

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up