Blogs Abuzz About 'WoodwardGate'

By: Greg Mitchell The Washington Post broke the news so late last night that few mainstream sources were able to weigh in quickly on Bob Woodward's unexpected testimony before the Plame grand jury this week. That left the field pretty clear for the blogosphere, and they have responded enthusiastically, as usual.

Herewith a few samples from among the most popular blogs

*
From Joshua Micah Marshall at Talking Points memo:

The details still seem sketchy and I suspect we're going to find out a lot more in the next few days. But it now seems that Woodward -- who has long been publicly critical of the Fitzgerald investigation -- has been part of it from the beginning. Literally, the beginning.

From the Post account it appears that Woodward was told of Valerie Plame's identity before any other journalist by an as-yet-unnamed senior administration official who is not Karl Rove or Scooter Libby.

More problematically for Woodward, he didn't tell his own Post editors about any of this until last month and then only after the unnamed senior administration official came forward to Fitzgerald and told him about it. That apparently led Fitzgerald to subpoena Woodward

Woodward claims that he told Post reporter Walter Pincus about it at the time. But Pincus says he has no recollection of such a conversation.
*

From Vaughn Ververs at CBS News' "Public Eye" blog:

The man who helped make ?anonymous sources? famous appears to now be smack dab in the middle of the investigation that is helping make the phrase infamous. ...

In a statement, Woodward says he discussed ?potions of interviews? he conducted with three separate administration officials. ?All three persons provided written statements waiving the previous agreements of confidentiality on the issues being investigated by Fitzgerald. Each confirmed those releases verbally this month, and requested that I testify,? Woodward says. We?ve come a long way from the days of flower pots on the patio and clandestine meetings in a parking garage.

Whatever differences Woodward?s testimony may make in the Plame investigation, it is further evidence of something gone terribly wrong with how reporters treat their sources. On the heels of Judith Miller?s ?entanglements? with Libby, consumers of news are justified in asking tough questions of those who purport to be seeking the truth. Former CBS correspondent Eric Engberg last week divulged to us some of his ?sources,? indicating the absurdity of the practice at times. But it is clear there can be real consequences attached when you read some of Miller?s pre-war stories.

Don?t think the discussion over sourcing will end anytime soon. Indications in The New York Times this morning are that Libby?s defense team will seek testimony from journalists, including some not named in the indictment, and may want information that goes beyond agreements made between reporters and prosecutors. That could mean more battles ahead for reporters. Of course, the Times story is based on ?people involved in the case? and quotes ?a lawyer close to the defense who spoke on condition of anonymity.?

We look to be heading for more showdowns on anonymous sourcing. Who knows, perhaps Woodward can re-write the rules of journalism once again.
*

From Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly:

So who is this mysterious Mr. X that blabbed to Woodward? We don't know. It's not Libby, and Karl Rove's spokesman says it's not Rove. No other names were mentioned.

And why do we suddenly know all this? Because Woodward testified about it on Monday to Patrick Fitzgerald.

Why did he do that? Because Mr. X fessed up to Fitzgerald about the conversation a couple of weeks ago, and Fitzgerald subsequently asked Woodward to testify about it.

And why did Mr. X suddenly confess? No one knows.

Did Woodward tell anyone about this conversation back when it happened? He didn't tell his editor, but he says he did tell fellow Post reporter Walter Pincus. Pincus, however, says Woodward is delusional: "Are you kidding?" he says. "I certainly would have remembered that."

I can't begin to make sense of this. The only thing that's clear is that Mr. X must have had some reason to suddenly come clean, and that reason must have had something to do with Fitzgerald's ongoing investigation. Perhaps Mr. X is a cooperating witness, or perhaps he's someone who started to feel some heat and decided to come forward because he got scared. Who knows?

But what this does tell us is that the Plame investigation is alive and well and continuing to make progress. Fasten your seatbelts.

*
Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has only linked to the Post story. Meanwhile, Atrios at Eschaton has been feverishly pulling lengthy Woodward quotes on the Plame case from earlier this year on CNN, MSNBC and NPR.

*
From Armando at DailyKos:

What does it mean about Plamegate? Not clear. The unnamed Administration official who told Fitzgerald on November 3, 2005 that he told Woodward about Plame may face jeopardy, or not, depending on whether his failure to tell Fitzgerald about the conversation came under oath, whether he was ever asked relevant questions at all and whether or not he is a cooperating witness.

What does it mean about Bob Woodward? That his reputation is shot.

*