either woodward's lying, or there's a new leak scandal

... or both. I've confirmed with national security expert Larry Johnson that Woodward couldn't possibly have the security clearance needed to read a CIA damage assessment on the Plame case, yet he claimed to know its contents on CNN the other night. Furthermore, Woodward asserted that the outing of Plame caused no serious damage, a statement Johnson and others in a position to know disagree with strongly.

Either Woodward's part of a major security breach - one that rivals Plamegate itself - or he's lying. Either way, he owes the nation an explanation.

Let's be clear: Had Woodward said "Sources tell me that ...," he would be guilty of simply passing on a lie, rather than lying. That's why reporters often use these qualifying sentences, even when they're carrying water for their government cronies. But let's look at what Woodward actually said:

They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger of any kind and there was just some embarrassment.

There's no other way to read it: He's saying he knows the contents of the report, without any doubt, ambiguity, or possibility that his source is 'spinning' its contents. There is only one way that statement could be true, and that's if he'd read the report himself. But uh-oh, there are some problems with that ...

As Larry Johnson told me in an email: "He does not have clearances and no one in their right mind at CIA is going to "show" him the damage assessment." And Atrios links to a Washington Post article this morning which says, "The CIA has not conducted a formal damage assessment, as is routinely done in cases of espionage and after any legal proceedings have been exhausted."

So there are only a limited number of possible explanations for Woodward's behavior:

A) Woodward's lying: There has been no damage assessment, but he's claiming that there has been - and that he knows its contents.
B) Somebody Lied to Woodward, And He's Repeating It As Fact: One of Woodward's crony/sources lied and said the damage report existed, and that these are its conclusions. Even in this scenario, Woodward's still lying - at least by implication. He doesn't say "I've been told that ..." or "My sources say ..." He states as fact that the damage assessment exists and says there has been "minimal damage." Repeating a lie - without any qualifiers - is telling a lie.
C) The Report's Been Written, Woodward's Read It, and That's What It Says: This is the only scenario under which Woodward is not a liar. That's the good news for him. The bad news? He is now implicated in a major security scandal, one's that as big as (or bigger than) the original Plamegate scandal. He's been given access to a highly classified document for political purposes. That's conceivably ... dare I say it? ... bigger than Watergate.

My money's on A or B. Of course, it's possible that the truth is a combination of two or more scenarios - for example, that the report's been written but that Woodward's still lying about its contents. Or that somebody lied to Woodward but he repeated it knowing it was a lie. Or that somebody in the CIA - maybe even Republican hack Porter Goss, who Bush made CIA Director, or one of his lackeys - decided to make these off-the-cuff statements to some reporters and describe them as an informal "damage assessment."

But that's just nuance. I remain convinced that there is no such report - yet - and that the Plame outing caused substantial harm. As Larry says, "there was damage done but this will never be proved in public because it would expose things that just don't need to be put out there." If true, and I believe that it is - that means that Woodward is - there's no nice way to put this - a liar. I realize that's an incendiary thing to say, and I'll be happy to retract it if clarification is provided.

The important thing is that Woodward must be held accountable, and his fellow journalists should insist that he provide a full explanation of this extraordinary statement. Personally ... if journalists wore uniforms, I'd want to see Woodward stripped of his epaulets while a drum-and-bugle corps played mournfully in the background. But that's just me. What matters is our nation and its security. Woodward owes his country some answers, and fast.

Comments

[No Blood for Hubris]

I'd vote for B. What a creep Woodward has become.

I recall Joe Wilson, in a TV interview, letting it be known that it would be impossible ever to acknowledge the extent of the damage done by the Plame outing--it would necessarily involve revealing secret information which cannot be revealed.

He spoke eloquently about how much more difficult it will be to recruit new CIA officers and new assets overseas, now that Plame's identity has been so cavalierly given up (thus also outing all her assets).

[Jay Rosen]

As Larry Johnson told me in an email: "He does not have clearances and no one in their right mind at CIA is going to "show" him the damage assessment."

Serious question: how do you--or Johnson--know that Bob Woodward doesn't have a security clearance? I mean how do you know for sure?

I've been trying to find out whether Judy Miller had a security clearance, and so has the New York Times public editor. So far the Times hasn't answered the question. Many journalists were puzzled and alarmed when she said in her first-person account that Fitzgerald asked about her “clearance to see secret information.” I've talked to reporters at the Times who said it would be a scandal if it were true, but they also said they feared it might be.

Think about it... Cheers, RJ.

[Carole]

I have rarely been at a loss for words but the outrageous behavior of the people who have made money off of this administration is so sickening that words can't begin to express it. Woodward has been shameful for a long time. To continue to spread the myth that outing a CIA agent is no big deal in order to continue to line your pockets should be a crime in and of itself. Put him right next to Halliburton , L. Paul Bremmer, and everyone who has stolen money, told lies and continue to swim in the blood of our soldiers, innocent Iraqi people and all those who have suffered at the hands of these criminals. Woodward did not even have the nerve to come back on the next night and continue to spread his lies! Wake up people. Wake up! We need to figure out what it's going to take before we end up under martial law or worse.....

[trinitysitesarah]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

Scroll below to read about Carl Bernstein's outing of Bob Woodward:

Operation Mockingbird is a Central Intelligence Agency operation to influence domestic and foreign media discovered during the Church Committee investigation in 1975 (published 1976):

"The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets."[1].
The word Mockingbird was first used by Deborah Davis in Katharine the Great (1979). There is no evidence that the CIA called it this. In fact, when Cord Meyer joined the operation in 1951 he said it was so secret it did not have a name. [2].

Carl Bernstein, who had worked with Bob Woodward in the investigation of Watergate, provided further information about Operation Mockingbird in an article in Rolling Stone in October, 1977. Bernstein claimed that over a 25 year period over 400 American journalists secretly carried out assignments for the CIA:

"Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors-without-portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested it the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles, and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad." [27]
It is almost certain that Bernstein had encountered Operation Mockingbird while working on his Watergate investigation. For example, Deborah Davis (Katharine the Great) has argued - incorrectly, as it turned out - that Deep Throat was senior CIA official, Richard Ober, who was running Operation Chaos for Richard Nixon during this period. [28]

Has Mockingbird Been Closed Down?
According to researchers such as Steve Kangas [29], Angus Mackenzie [30] and Alex Constantine [31], Operation Mockingbird was not closed down by the CIA in 1976. For example, in 1998 Kangas argued that CIA asset Richard Mellon Scaife ran "Forum World Features, a foreign news service used as a front to disseminate CIA propaganda around the world." [32]

On 8th February, 1999, Kangas was found dead in the bathroom of the Pittsburgh offices of Richard Mellon Scaife. He had been shot in the head. Officially he had committed suicide but some people believe he was murdered. In an article in Salon Magazine, (19th March, 1999) Andrew Leonard asked:

"Why did the police report say the gun wound was to the left of his head, while the autopsy reported a wound on the roof of his mouth? Why had the hard drive on his computer been erased shortly after his death? Why had Scaife assigned his No. 1 private detective, Rex Armistead, to look into Kangas' past?" [33]
On 27th June 2005, the World Tribunal on Iraq published their preliminary declaration of the Jury of Conscience World Tribunal on Iraq. Finding and Charges Against the Major Corporate Media:

"1. Disseminating the deliberate falsehoods spread by the governments of the US and the UK and failing to adequately investigate this misinformation. This even in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary. Among the corporate media houses that bear special responsibility for promoting the lies about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, we name the New York Times, in particular their reporter Judith Miller, whose main source was on the payroll of the CIA. We also name Fox News, CNN and the BBC."[34]

According to Carl Bernstein 400 reporters were working for the CIA as part of Operation Mockingbird. These include, but are not limited to:

CBS (William Paley)
Chattanooga Times (Charles Bartlett)
Christian Science Monitor (Joseph Harrison)
Copley News Services (James Copley)
Louisville Courier-Journal (Barry Bingham Sr.)
Miami News (William C. Baggs, Herb Gold, Hal Hendrix)
Newsweek (Ben Bradlee)
New York Herald Tribune (Stewart Alsop)
New York Times (Arthur Hays Sulzberger)
Time Magazine (Alfred Friendly, Charles Douglas Jackson, Henry Luce)
Washington Post (Walter Pincus)
Washington Star (Jerry O'Leary)

[Julie]

Remember, too, that Bush himself has passed classified info to Woodward, in "Bush at War." According to Alterman:

"In his most recent book, Bush at War, Bob Woodward brags that he was given access to the deeply classified minutes of National Security Council meetings. He also noted, not long ago, that the President sat for lengthy interviews, often speaking candidly about classified information. This surprised even Woodward, who observed, "Certainly Richard Nixon would not have allowed reporters to question him like that. Bush's father wouldn't allow it. Clinton wouldn't allow it.''
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031103/alterman

Deeply embedded, indeed. Plus, the administration--maybe even Bush, I can't remember now---actually ASKED Woodward to write his second book on this administration. After all, they loved the first one.

[Plato]

"Serious question: how do you--or Johnson--know that Bob Woodward doesn't have a security clearance? I mean how do you know for sure?" Posted by: No Blood for Hubris | October 29, 2005 at 01:36 PM

How on earth could a reporter get top-level (or any level) CIA security clearance? If that is, indeed, possible, I think the public would be interested in hearing about it. If it is not possible, the question posed by Hubris nonsensical.

Plato

[Plato]

Oops. That comment I quoted above was posted by Jay Rosen..
No Blood for Hubris: Sorry for the mistake!

Plato

[dveej]

Plato, why would the public even question the CIA giving some reporter a clearance? Is that idea so outrageous?
Please explain why, if so.

[Julie]

Putting my two cents in about the security clearance question (Plato may have another answer).

It's not a question of whether or not the CIA would give a reporter a clearance that the public should question. It's the idea that the reporter would ACCEPT such a clearance, making him or her unable to report on some facets of what the government is doing. A reporter cannot work for both the government, which he has a duty to question, and for his or her media. The two are by nature mutually exclusive.

[Larry]

I too saw the Larry King show the other night. My wife and I sat there, stunned by Bob Woodwards, apparent non-concern over the recent events, and his attempts to downplay the impact. After his comments about the damage assessment by the CIA, I looked at her and said, "he's lying." The CIA wouldn't release that kind of information. To do so would only compound the damage already done. I worked there many years ago, and they've alway's employed a strict "need to know" policy. Bob Woodward would not, in their view, have a need to know. To reveal in any depth what the damage is, could also reveal how they get their information. I don't know what happened to Woodward. I used to respect him as a reporter. That respect has long since evaporated.

[JL]

I know this is 2 years late but the hilarity bears comment from a fellow guitar player and "progresssive republican". Blog author, you DO realize both scenarios A and B as promoted means there was NO serious security breach and thus your false draping of the flag of justice over the spear you try to skewer Woodward (or any nearby Bushies) with is ludicrous?
Read the Amicus Curai by the media giants on behalf of Judith Miller. This whole thing was dead out of the gate, the CIA was extremely embarrassed at their incompetance as Wilson tried to set up Cheney in a scandal to tip the 2004 race. Imagine the VP asks for an answer to a question, it not only never gets answered but a subordinate looking for a career change from civil servant to politician is sent and ends up as the opponent's foreign policy advisor. THAT FAILURE IN TRUST is the damage to our national security, when the WH cannot trust its own intelligence services to fill their requests on policy matters.