Pincus: Woodward 'Asked Me to Keep Him Out' of Plame Reporting

NEW YORK Walter Pincus, the longtime Washington Post reporter and one of several journalists who testified in the Valerie Plame case, said he 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. His comments followed a Post story today about Woodward's testimony on Monday before special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, in which Woodward reportedly disclosed that a senior White House official told him about Plame's identity as a CIA operative a month before her identity was disclosed publicly.

In today's Post story, by reporters Jim VandeHei and Carol Leonnig, Woodward is quoted as saying he told Pincus that he knew about Plame's true identity as a CIA operative in 2003. Pincus said, in the same story, that he did not recall Woodward telling him that, but believed he might have confused the conversation with one they had in October 2003 after Pincus wrote a story about being called to testify.

"In October, I think he did come by after I had written about being called and said I wasn't the only one who would be called," Pincus said, adding that he believed Woodward was talking about himself, but did not press him on it. "Bob and I have an odd relationship because he is doing books and I am writing about the same subject."

Pincus said he did not believe Woodward had purposely lied about their conversation, saying, "I think he thought he told me something." Pincus declined to comment on the other revelation in today's story, namely that Woodward had waited until last month before revealing his conversation with the White House official to Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. "I don't talk about what other people do, other reporters," he said. "Everybody does in this business what they think is the right thing to do."

Pincus also declined to comment on what reaction there has been in the Post newsroom to Woodward's testimony. "I'm not listening," he said.

Pincus gave his deposition to Fitzgerald in September 2004, in which he spoke about a conversation with a source related to the Plame case, but has never disclosed the identity of the source.

When asked if Woodward's unusual arrangement with the paper, in which he often withholds information and source identities for use in his books, is a problem for the Post, Pincus defended Woodward and said the situation is often a help.

He cited as an example a story Pincus wrote in 2003 just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which doubted the existence of weapons of mass destruction. "Bob helped to get it in the paper," Pincus said. "He had been hearing the same thing and actually wrote a couple of paragraphs that I adapted into the story."

From Woodward:

"I testified that after the mid-June 2003 interview, 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 does not recall that I passed this information on."

From Pincus June 12, 2003 article:

"Armed with information purportedly showing that Iraqi officials had been seeking to buy uranium in Niger...the CIA in early February 2002 dispatched a retired U.S. ambassador to the country to investigate the claims, according to the senior U.S. officials and the former government official...The sources spoke on condition of anonymity and on condition that the name of the former ambassador not be disclosed." (June 12, 2003)

Hmm...

Woodward says that he told Pincus about Wilson's wife working at CIA in mid-June.
Pincus does recall that Woodward gave him these details
Yet, Pincus publishes a story on June 12 where the starring, albeit unnamed, source is Joe Wilson
Pincus has additional details about this source (provided by Woodward) that are INCREDIBLY related to what was being report (i.e., that the CIA had dispatched a "former ambassador" to Niger about yellowcake), but he doesn't recall being told about that.
At no point after June 12th does Pincus do a follow up whereby he includes this additional detail that Woodward told him: that the "former U.S. ambassador 's" wife worked at CIA. He doesn't report that at all...neither that she was an analyst, a covert operative, the head CIA cafeteria lunch lady, or a janitor at CIA

So, Pincus, either before June 12 or after June 12 was told by Woodward that "the former ambassador's" wife worked at CIA. That the wife (i.e., Plame) was an analyst on WMD. Yet, he doesn't do a follow up story, post on the web, nothing.

Pincus has critical and revealing details about a high profile story that he JUST wrote about, but he does no follow up?

That's a little more than odd.

It isn't until a month later when Novak uses the term "CIA operative" that this whole bruhaha gets going.

Q: Are the operating members of the left (the dems and ABCNBCCBSCNNWASHPOSTNYTIMESLATIMESETC) that focused on 1 word? Is it possible that they are seizing on 1 word --a word which Novak explained was mudanely used and was not used to indicate any kind of covert or undercover status-- to fabricate a story to make an anti-war argument?

You tell me. I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Right?

Also...I wonder if "mid-June" means before or after June 12?

If "mid-June" is before June 12, then it might be possible to believe that Pincus learned of "the ambassador" from Woodward, did some investigating, found additional "sources" and wrote his June 12 piece.

" Going back to Woodward's statement, the administration officials he spoke with only said that "Wilson's wife worked as an analyst on WMDs". There would be no way that the official (whether Rove, Libby, or other) could be accused of knowing that Wilson's wife was either an undercover or covert CIA operative, because all they referred to Wilson's wife was an analyst on WMD. An analyst is hardly a covert (or undercover) field operative.

If "mid June" means after June 12, then Pincus already knew (or was told) about Wilson. Course, it turns out that the source for the June 12th Pincus piece was none other than Wilson himself. However, given the level of detail in the June 12 piece AND the quotes from the unnamed sources (i.e., Wilson), it is hard to believe that Woodwards "mid-June" revelation would have mattered to Pincus. He had already written/published or was already writing the June 12 piece.

Another words, the fix was already in.

The only thing that Pincus didn't do, was to use Google and figure out that Joe Wilson 1) had a wife and 2) her name was Valarie Plame. And, that is something that anyone could have done on June 12, 2003. And, it is probably what Bob Novak (or an assistant) did in his lead up to the now-famous July 14 article. And, that Novak contacted CIA and asked the status of Plame and the CIA didn't request that the name not be used, only makes this situation more curious. It also seems to lend a fair share of credibility that, indeed, the CIA was in on this thing (Investigate the CIA OR Was the Joe Wilson Valerie Plame Affair a CIA Plot?).

All roads lead back to CIA.

Who provided the intelligence on WMDs? A: CIA
Who sent Wilson to Niger to investigate claims about uranium? A: CIA (specifically Wilson's wife)
Who was it that told Bush "it's a slam dunk"? A: George Tenet (CIA)
Who was it that let Plame's name go public by not telling Novak, "Hey that's too sensitive. Please do not publish" (a request that Novak said he was have obliged)? A: CIA
WHo did President Bush demand more accountability from after 9/11? A: CIA

Would would/should be forgiven for believing that the CIA, itself, is not interested in U.S. interests, but in only CIA interests.

All I can say is, FREEPER Wolfstar deserves a Pulitzer for writing the piece "Set up? Anatomy of the contrived Wilson 'scandal'" in October of 2003. Any FREEPER who wants to know how this was all planned, whether you believe the CIA angle or not, should read that post.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.