Posted on 11/16/2005 11:20:59 AM PST by Pikamax
Pincus: Woodward 'Asked Me to Keep Him Out' of Plame Reporting
By Joe Strupp
Published: November 16, 2005 12:45 PM ET
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.
Woodward did not return calls seeking comment.
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."
When will Novak talk?
Apparently Novak has said that "We'll all laugh" when we hear who it was.
Gotta be Wilson. Or some prominent Dem.
But Woodward is a liberal journalistic icon. He could not possibly be involved...
He has access to a grand jury that is different from the one which indicted Libby. It looks like Woodward is now in the hot seat.
Bingo!
exactly... this couple seems like they were shouting it on every corner to get attention or something
This is why Pincus "forgot" what Woodward told him, as it revealed Joe Wilson to be a liar. Reporters like Pincus routinely "forget" such things.
Got a link to this apology? Sounds like the wheels are coming off the DNC/MSM/Fitzgerald witch hunt.
I might hope that Fitzgerald would actually go after the real perps--Wilson, Plame, and their friends in the left wing press--if he had not revealed, when he indicted only Libby, that he is nothing but another lying, left-wing stooge.
I don't think anyone should get his hopes up that Fitzgerald will ferret out the truth anytime soon, because his intentions appear to be quite different.
What a lying sack of sh** this Pincus is. Just like he backtracked and said Joe maybe didn't tell me he 'saw' the forged documents... I misunderstood him. He backtracked on a couple other subjects of his first piece. Even mods and libs talk about this guy (love him or hate him), was always right on in facts when you read him... they are flummoxed on how since the Wilson story, all his professionalism jumped out the window.
No, he most certainly did NOT say that.
"But Woodward is a liberal journalistic icon. He could not possibly be involved..."
The comments about Woodward by the DU site are totally disparaging; basically Woodward is a suck-up and a shill for the administration in order to gain access and sell books.
IF Woodward mentioned to Libby that Wilson's wife was with the CIA BEFORE Cheney told Libby about the Plame, and Libby NOW testifies that his recollection could have been incorrect, that it could have been Woodward and NOT Russert who mentioned Wilson's wife, then what evidence does Fitzgerald have that would, "beyond a reasonable doubt," prove that Libby committed perjury or obstruction?
P.S. Woodward couldn't be all that bad if DU despises him (kinda like what is a reasonable settlement? "one that both the plaintiff and the defendant hate"
They keep saying a White House official told him, I could have sworn he testified it was a high level CIA person... big difference.
FYI.
Looks like Pincus might want to think about getting a good 'white collar defense lawyer' on retainer. ;-)
Pinz
Irrelevant MSM types playing up their self importance once again.
They are going to try to muddle this so bad that it will eventually get so convoluted that they will just say let's forget it and moveon.org.
Agreed -- it is time for Pincus to be indicted for lying to the GJ.
"They are going to try to muddle this so bad that it will eventually get so convoluted that they will just say let's forget it and moveon.org."
True that they might try to get out of this by muddying the waters but I wonder how some testimony from Andrea Mitchel might just settle things to the bottom and provide a bit of clearity.
I have a question - Why is it that this incident is getting 10 times the coverage Berger got from stealing and destroying top secret information from the government?
And what did Berger get? I think it was probation -
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.