The Elimination Game: It's About Time
[multiple updates]
The reporters at the major news outlets have stumbled upon an incredibly simple strategy for discovering Bob Woodward's mysterious source: the process of elimination. For the last two days, reporters have been securing denials from as many "senior administration officials" as possible, and with each denial they are zeroing in on the culprit. It's just a matter of time now. According to the latest article from the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), spokesmen for the following officials have now denied that they are Woodward's source:
And while they're it, maybe they can try the same approach with respect to Robert Novak's source or Walter Pincus's source. In fact, why the hell didn't they do this along time ago? Did it really take our brilliant press corps two years to discover the basic logic behind the process of elimination? That's pathetic.
UPDATE: The Times had picked up where the Journal left off. The Times has secured denials from the following people:
Still in the running: Armitage, Rumsfeld, Robert Joseph, John Hannah, David Addington, David Wurmser, Fred Fleitz.
Of that group, both Armitage and Rumsfeld are known to have been sources for Woodward's book "Bush at War." Given Armitage's access to the INR memo in mid-June 2003 (which mentioned Valerie Wilson), he has to be considered the most likely suspect at this point. Tom Maguire shares this suspicion. My prediction: the Washington Post will name Woodward's source today. Other news outlets are getting too close to the truth. The Post got scooped on Deep Throat. They won't let themselves get scooped on Deep Throat II.
UPDATE II: The AP has breathed some new life into Raw Story's claim that Hadley is Woodward's source. According to the AP:
That's a pretty weak denial. That said, my hunch is that this is just Hadley having some fun with reporters. I doubt he would be smiling and engaging in this sort of back-and-forth if he was really the source. He'd probably just say "no comment." My money's still on Armitage.
UPDATE III: Raw Story's sources are standing by their claim that Hadley is Woodward's source. Meanwhile Reuters is reporting that "a lawyer in the case said Woodward's source had not previously testified before a grand jury in the leak case." That's an important clue, if true. In the same article, Reuters also reports that "Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman would not answer directly whether Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was Woodward's source."
The reporters at the major news outlets have stumbled upon an incredibly simple strategy for discovering Bob Woodward's mysterious source: the process of elimination. For the last two days, reporters have been securing denials from as many "senior administration officials" as possible, and with each denial they are zeroing in on the culprit. It's just a matter of time now. According to the latest article from the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), spokesmen for the following officials have now denied that they are Woodward's source:
The PresidentWho does that leave? Marc Grossman and Richard Armitage from the State Department are still unspoken for. And there's always Donald Rumsfeld, though his name never gets mentioned. There are also a number of bit players who were either mentioned in the indictment or who have been rumored to be involved in the underlying events. This cast of characters includes Ari Fleischer, John Hannah, David Wurmser, Eric Edelman, David Addington, and Fred Fleitz. Can these folks fairly be described as "senior administration officials"? That's questionable. I suppose Fleischer could be. And Hannah and Addington are now senior officials. Hopefully our intrepid press corps can secure some more denials in the coming days and narrow the field a little more.
The Vice President (the AP confirms)
Karl Rove
Condoleeza Rice
Stephen Hadley (so much for Raw Story) [or not]
Colin Powell
George Tenet
John McLaughlin
Doug Feith
Dan Bartlett
Carl Ford
John Bolton
And while they're it, maybe they can try the same approach with respect to Robert Novak's source or Walter Pincus's source. In fact, why the hell didn't they do this along time ago? Did it really take our brilliant press corps two years to discover the basic logic behind the process of elimination? That's pathetic.
UPDATE: The Times had picked up where the Journal left off. The Times has secured denials from the following people:
Marc Grossman
Paul Wolfowitz
Eric Edelman
Karen Hughes
Ari Fleischer
Alan Foley
David Shedd
Still in the running: Armitage, Rumsfeld, Robert Joseph, John Hannah, David Addington, David Wurmser, Fred Fleitz.
Of that group, both Armitage and Rumsfeld are known to have been sources for Woodward's book "Bush at War." Given Armitage's access to the INR memo in mid-June 2003 (which mentioned Valerie Wilson), he has to be considered the most likely suspect at this point. Tom Maguire shares this suspicion. My prediction: the Washington Post will name Woodward's source today. Other news outlets are getting too close to the truth. The Post got scooped on Deep Throat. They won't let themselves get scooped on Deep Throat II.
UPDATE II: The AP has breathed some new life into Raw Story's claim that Hadley is Woodward's source. According to the AP:
Referring to news accounts about the case,
Hadley said with a smile, "I've also seen
press reports from White House officials
saying that I am not one of his sources." He
said he would not comment further because
the CIA leak case remains under investigation.
Leaving the room, Hadley was asked if his
answer amounted to a yes or a no.
"It is what it is," he said.
That's a pretty weak denial. That said, my hunch is that this is just Hadley having some fun with reporters. I doubt he would be smiling and engaging in this sort of back-and-forth if he was really the source. He'd probably just say "no comment." My money's still on Armitage.
UPDATE III: Raw Story's sources are standing by their claim that Hadley is Woodward's source. Meanwhile Reuters is reporting that "a lawyer in the case said Woodward's source had not previously testified before a grand jury in the leak case." That's an important clue, if true. In the same article, Reuters also reports that "Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman would not answer directly whether Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was Woodward's source."
posted by A.L. at 12:08 AM
6 Comments:
I'm fairly sure that Armitage was out of the country through the period of time that could reasonably be called "mid-June"--that's why Grossman was doing the WH briefing in the first place. For that matter, I don't think he had seen the memo until July.
Also, AL, can you specify whether the Dick Cheney denial is an on-the-record denial? Or is it the same denial as the AP has, from someone "familiar with the investigation" and not even Dick's spokesperson. I think we need to be careful to assess the QUALITY of these denials.
emptywheel
The WSJ doesn't give a source. They just say the following:
"Vice President Dick Cheney isn't believed to have talked to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald since last year, nor has he given a waiver to Mr. Woodward. That removes him as Mr. Woodward's source."
They sound pretty sure, but who knows.
In fact, why the hell didn't they do this a long time ago?
I'll guess that (a) they were lied to about Karl way back when, but more importantly, (b) ratting out each other's sources was not the done thing back when we still tried to respect journalism as a profession.
As to Armitage being out of the country - the daily schedule is at the State Dept - per my reading, he was ou on June 10, back on June 11, and in country through the weekend at least. (So why was Grossman "Acting" on June 11? Who knows, maybe Armitage took a red-eye.
Sorry, I can't get the links to work.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/appt/2003/21355.htm
And worth remembering - Woodward's statement said his source was a current or former Bush Admin official.
The WaPo promoted the source to "senior", in the same story that said Woodward refused to talk to them or elaborate on his statement.
Now, maybe Downie, the editor, gave them the nod to upgrade the source.
But who knows? In which case, Hannah, Wurmser, and Fleitz are back in play.
Tom Maguire
Today I'm going with Armitage, though the denial about Cheney is so strange as to deserve some followup. As to a couple of TM's points: Woodward's statement about current or former administration officials may be nothing more than a reference to the fact that Libby is, after all and despite the public love letters Bush and Cheney sent him, a former administration official. Also, regarding the senior administration official, which has been repeated several times now by different WaPo reporters, it might be worth considering that we don't know when that person might have become a senior administration official, as Hannah now has, right?
AL
Check out Laura Rozen's blog, where she says her best source says one of the guys who has denied being the source is the source. And while there, consider that Laura is friends with everyone's best source, Murray Waas. So I wouldn't take any of these denials--particularly Hadley's or Dick's--too seriously.
The problem with the "process of elimination" is that, well, er, you have to believe the people being "eliminated" are telling the truth. Didn't Karl Rove tell everyone way back in 2003 that he had nothing to do with the leak? And now we're supposed to believe him when he says, um, he had nothing to do the leak?
And another thing. Don't all these denials--especially from the President and Vice-President--contradict their stated policy of not commenting on an ongoing investigation? Cheney's office said just yesterday, as reported in NYT, that he would not comment. And now, apparently, he has (though the source remains conveniently anonymous). This should bury for good the "can't comment on an onging investigation" excuse, and the WH press corps should not let McClellan get away with it anymore.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home