I guess this takes the wind out of the lefts sails:
Vice President Dick Cheney is not the unidentified source who told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward about the CIA status of the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, a person familiar with the investigation said Thursday.
Woodward did not talk with the vice president that day, did not provide the information that’s been reported in Woodward’s notes and has not had any conversations over the past several weeks about any release for allowing Woodward to testify, said the person, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Cough Tenet Cough.
Michael Barone has a great article today detailing his observations of on the latest news:
In yesterday’s story, Woodward is quoted as saying that he told Post reporter Walter Pincus that he had heard that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. Pincus is quoted as saying that he does not recall Woodward’s telling him this and that he is sure he would have remembered if Woodward had. I have known Woodward for 32 years and Pincus for about 20 years, and I find it impossible to believe that either would consciously lie about such matters. Therefore, I am forced to believe that memory is playing tricks on one of them. Since memory plays tricks on me from time to time, I don’t find that implausible.
But you could see this as a sort of partisan dispute. Woodward’s reporting on George W. Bush, as is evident in his books, is seen by many critics as pro-Bush. In my view, he has taken Bush at face value, describing how the president makes decisions and taking Bush’s own words seriously. Which is, in my view, the way it should be. Pincus’s reporting, on the other hand, has relied heavily on critics of the Bush policies, including, it appears, sources in the CIA. It is obvious that cadres in the CIA?the folks around Valerie Plame who sent Joseph Wilson on his mission to Niger, the folks who authorized the publication of Michael Scheuer’s “anonymous” book?have been trying to discredit and undermine support for Bush’s policy of liberating Iraq. I suspect that Pincus takes the same view, though he could argue that his reporting was justified regardless of his own views: He was just reporting what others, with some knowledge of what they were talking about, were saying. I don’t want to say that Woodward is pro-Bush and Pincus anti-Bush. But I can see how readers who don’t know these men as well as I do would so conclude.
One sees something here that resembles the intra-newsroom internecine warfare at the New York Times between Judith Miller and those?the great majority in that newsroom, it seems?who believe that her stories on reports that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were illegitimate journalism. That seems to me quite wrong: She was reporting on what sources she had reason to believe were legitimate said, and she was not obliged before she wrote those stories to seek information to discredit what in fact the intelligence agencies of the United States and all serious countries believed. Miller’s reporting was trashed in a huge mea culpa story in the Times last year, and she has now been forced to leave the paper. I am inclined to believe that she has been found guilty of writing stories that furthered the goals of the Bush administration, which of course is something the Times cannot allow.
[…]Patrick Fitzgerald has to be embarrassed. His statement at his press conference that Libby was the first administration official who identified Plame has been effectively refuted by Woodward’s (reluctant) testimony. On Fox News Channel last night, Brit Hume interviewed former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Joseph diGenova, who said that under Justice Department guidelines Fitzgerald must consider dropping the indictment of Libby.
[…]Beyond the confines of this criminal case are the perspectives of the Bush administration that will be taken by history. The view from Woodward’s books is of a president and his advisers trying to find policies that will protect this country and advance the causes of freedom and democracy in a difficult world. The view from the reportage of Pincus and of the “Bush lied” crowd of Democrats is of a “cabal” (Colin Powell’s chief of staff’s word) bent on distorting intelligence and willing to risk the country’s security by outing a secret CIA agent in retaliation for her husband’s critical op-ed piece in the New York Times. I think the outlook from Woodward’s book is more accurate. And I think his bombshell revelation weakens the already weak case for the alternative point of view. At a dinner at the Australian Embassy, I asked the by then former CIA Director George Tenet whether people in the agency had been engaging in covert attacks on administration policy. He said that absolutely no such thing had taken place. I doubted that then and doubt it very much more now. Bob Woodward first won his fame by exposing the lies of a White House that had attempted, unsuccessfully, to use the CIA to refute charges that its campaign committee had engaged in criminal activities. Now he comes forward, reluctantly it seems, to provide evidence that advances the case that the CIA tried to derail and delegitimize the policies that a White House was pursuing.
I recall that some years ago Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan argued that the CIA should be abolished, and I argued that that was a ridiculous and irresponsible position. As usual when Pat and I disagreed, Pat turned out to be right.
It appears to me that the CIA has become anti-American, could this be the doing of Clinton during his time as Coward In Chief? He gutted the whole agency, but did he also put people into the CIA that had the same views as himself?
Another thing, doesn’t this whole episode mean that Woodward knew Libby was innocent, but said nothing until it looked like he would be outed? What character.