Woodward Was Told of Plame More Than Two
Years Ago
Washington Post
By Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; A01
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.
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.
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.
Citing a confidentiality agreement in which the source freed Woodward to
testify but would not allow him to discuss their conversations publicly,
Woodward and Post editors refused to disclose the official's name or provide
crucial details about the testimony. 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.
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."
Woodward's testimony appears to change key elements in the chronology
Fitzgerald laid out in his investigation and announced when indicting Libby
three weeks ago. It would make the unnamed official -- not Libby -- the first
government employee to disclose Plame's CIA employment to a reporter. It would
also make Woodward, who has been publicly critical of the investigation, the
first reporter known to have learned about Plame from a government source.
The testimony, however, does not appear to shed new light on whether Libby
is guilty of lying and obstructing justice in the nearly two-year-old probe or
provide new insight into the role of senior Bush adviser Karl Rove, who remains
under investigation.
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.
William Jeffress Jr., one of Libby's lawyers, said yesterday that Woodward's
testimony undermines Fitzgerald's public claims about his client and raises
questions about what else the prosecutor may not know. Libby has said he
learned Plame's identity from NBC's Tim Russert.
"If what Woodward says is so, will Mr. Fitzgerald now say he was wrong to
say on TV that Scooter Libby was the first official to give this information to
a reporter?" Jeffress said last night. "The second question I would have is:
Why did Mr. Fitzgerald indict Mr. Libby before fully investigating what other
reporters knew about Wilson's wife?"
Fitzgerald has spent nearly two years investigating whether senior Bush
administration officials illegally leaked classified information -- Plame's
identity as a CIA operative -- to reporters to discredit allegations made by
Wilson. Plame's name was revealed in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert D.
Novak, eight days after Wilson publicly accused the administration of twisting
intelligence to justify the Iraq war. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn,
declined to comment yesterday.
Woodward is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter and author best
known for exposing the Watergate scandal and keeping secret for 30 years the
identity of his government source "Deep Throat."
"It was the first time in 35 years as a reporter that I have been asked to
provide information to a grand jury," he said in the statement.
Downie said The Post waited until late yesterday to disclose Woodward's
deposition in the case in hopes of persuading his sources to allow him to speak
publicly. Woodward declined to elaborate on the statement he released to The
Post late yesterday afternoon and publicly last night. He would not answer any
questions, including those not governed by his confidentiality agreement with
sources.
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 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.
Downie defended the newspaper's decision not to release certain details
about what triggered Woodward's deposition because "we can't do anything in any
way to unravel the confidentiality agreements our reporters make."
Woodward never mentioned this contact -- which was at the center of a
criminal investigation and a high-stakes First Amendment legal battle between
the prosecutor and two news organizations -- to his supervisors until last
month. Downie said in an interview yesterday that Woodward told him about the
contact to alert him to a possible story. He declined to say whether he was
upset that Woodward withheld the information from him.
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.
"Are you kidding?" Pincus said. "I certainly would have remembered
that."
Pincus said Woodward may be confused about the timing and the exact nature
of the conversation. He said he remembers Woodward making a vague mention to
him in October 2003. That month, Pincus had written a story explaining how an
administration source had contacted him about Wilson. He recalled Woodward
telling him that Pincus was not the only person who had been contacted.
Pincus and fellow Post reporter Glenn Kessler have been questioned in the
investigation.
Woodward, who is preparing a third book on the Bush administration, has
called Fitzgerald "a junkyard-dog prosecutor" who turns over every rock looking
for evidence. The night before Fitzgerald announced Libby's indictment,
Woodward said he did not see evidence of criminal intent or of a major crime
behind the leak.
"When the story comes out, I'm quite confident we're going to find out that
it started kind of as gossip, as chatter," he told CNN's Larry King.
Woodward also said in interviews this summer and fall that the damage done
by Plame's name being revealed in the media was "quite minimal."
"When I think all of the facts come out in this case, it's going to be
laughable because the consequences are not that great," he told National Public
Radio this summer.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
|