Arianna Huffington has a useful analysis of what the Woodward-Pincus story means with regards to the Plame saga, Woodward’s career, the Washington Post and the meaning of life itself. Plus links.
Der Spiegel says that Woodward’s revelation may prolong Fitzgerald’s probe, plus more useful commentary on what it all means.
phil
Would true conservatives countenance the fiscal rape of their children and grandchildren?
One thing the Bush Administration clearly has been very good at is focusing the attention of the press (and by extension the American people) on issues that they want to highlight. This has had the effect of advancing the Bush agenda, but has had the added effect of deflecting focus away from things that the Administration does not want to highlight. One of those issues is clearly the rampant, runaway spending of your tax dollars by Bush and the Republican majority congress. At this point there can be no doubt that, as they try to focus your attention on issues like stem cells and Supreme Court nominations, Bush and the Republican Congress are spending us all into a hole from which it will take us, our children and our grandchildren years to recover.
You don’t need to take my word for this, nor the words of any democrat or Bush-hater. You need only to read what conservatives like George Will are saying, or the people at conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute recently completed a report on the spending habits of all US presidents during the last 40 years. If you’re interested in reading the report I’ve included a link at the end of this post.
If you want to continue to believe that Bush and Congressional Republicans are “on your side” or if you care only about saving stem cells and banning gay marriage perhaps you should read no further. But if you’re interested in the truth and are concerned about your financial well-being and that of your children, perhaps you should read on. Here’s some of what the Cato Institute report had to say about presidential spending over the last 40 years:
All presidents presided over net increases in spending. As it turns out George W. Bush is one of the biggest spenders of them all. In fact he is an even bigger spender than Lyndon B. Johnson in terms of discretionary spending.
The increase in discretionary spending in Bush’s first term was 48.5% in nominal terms. That’s more than twice as large as the increase in discretionary spending during Clinton’s entire 2 terms (21.6%) and higher than Lyndon B. Johnson’s entire discretionary spending spree (48.3%).
Adjusting the budget trends for inflation Bush looks even worse; his spending rate is much higher then Lyndon Johnson’s. In other words, Bush expanded federal non-entitlement programs in his first term almost twice as fast each year as Lyndon Johnson did during his entire presidency.
George W. Bush is the biggest spending president of the last 40 years in both the defense and discretionary spending categories by a long shot. He beats Johnson by almost 4% in defense spending growth and more than 3% in domestic discretionary spending growth.
And conservative columnist George Will points out that in his column today that federal spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush and congressional Republicans as under President Clinton. And with respect to the argument that this profligacy is related to 9/11 and homeland security, Will and the conservative think tanks have noted that over 65 percent of the spending increase is unrelated to national security.
Will further reports that Congressional Republicans (who achieved their majority by promising fiscal discipline) have presided over an orgy of pork spending with your tax dollars the likes of which have never been seen before. In 1991, the 546 pork projects in the 13 appropriation bills cost $3.1 billion. In 2005, the 13,997 pork projects cost $27.3 billion.
You may support Bush and the congressional Republicans because of some vague promise of “progress” on social issues with which you and the Republicans agree. In that case perhaps you are entitled to refer to yourself as a “social conservative.” But nobody who calls themselves a fiscal conservative could support Bush and the Republican Congress who are spending your tax dollars in an orgy of profligacy the likes of which has not been experienced in our lifetimes. You can continue to deny yourself this truth, but be assured that true conservatives know the truth. Bush and the Republican Congress are asking you to mortgage their futures and the futures of their children and grandchildren in exchange for soft “promises” on social issues. You are justifying the fiscal rape of your children and grandchildren perpetrated by your “moral” leaders in exchange for a vague promise of gains on social issues. Do yourself and your kids a favor; look them in the eye and explain to them why you have chosen to saddle them with these financial burdens, explain to them your reasoning. Then look in the mirror and explain to yourself how you can continue to support the people who you know in your heart are screwing you and to your kids. Is that morality? Is that conservatism?
Read the whole Cato article here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf
Read the Will column here:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/will/cst-edt-geo17.html
anonymous
Notice Woodward reported to Toronto, Canada just before going public.
CSIS was concerned about the assasination of the Lebanese PM(shipping magnate like Martin and friend of Jean Chretein) by Mossad using Syria. The concern was that Martin gave away federal oil rights in Newfoundland, which called for some type of reaction. The answer was the old trade for a ‘Lebanese’ PM instead of a Canadian reponding to the Gomery report. It was a ‘warning.’ Later, the London bombing over the G8 GDP tax, which Blair doubled the day after the bombing, was seen as a trade and warning also because Martin cooked this up as finance minister and studying with Kofi before becoming Prime Minister. The ‘Live 8 G8’ concert was never really needed and, yes, they were all British nationals. Canada is going to call an election to get rid of Martin and most Candians are afraid of the consequences of him being outed, alot like Clinton and Gore’s warning ‘You’ll need us’ when the terror issue is confronted and the answer was 9/11.
The Plame things are just to make sure she is’nt indicted.
Mac Buckets
Is there some sort of decoder ring available for this comment section?
Jcricket
Basically, this proves Fitzgerald’s point that it’s difficult to undercover the underlying crime if everyone’s lying to you and obstructing your investigation. That’s why Libby was charged with those 5 crimes.
I don’t think this undermines Fitzgerald’s case at all, unless he was charging Libby was spearheading the criminal conspiracy to out Plame, or that he was a “lone wolf” – neither of which Fitz’ has said. This isn’t like “Rathergate” where additional info “drove a stake through the heart” of the only evidence. Fitzgerald will argue that this merely proves that some people were good at lying and obstructing to the point where even the best prosecutor couldn’t undercover the true crimes that occured.
Given that we now know Rove and Libby and a third administration official (Hadley?) leaking to multiple reporters, attempted to pass it all off as “gossip” and then lied to investigators about their involvement, Fitzgerald’s scope will likely widen, not shrink. Can you seriously imagine him saying, “oh, yeah, libby wasn’t the first, so I guess that means plame wasn’t covert. no harm no foul. my bad”?
BTW, how many people does it take leaking before it’s a conspiracy? Again, this bolsters Fitz’s ability yo widen the scope of his investigation and amend the original indictment to include more crimes.
It’s sad to see Woodward clinging to the Judith Miller defense (“it’s about freedom of the press”) when his sources were so clearly using him as a patsy.
Steve S
Yeah, I was shocked to hear his involvement in the scandal after watching him carry water for the Republican talking points on TV.
My god, but have these people no shame?
Jcricket
Oh, also, if you read the indictment it clearly states “Libby was the first known official to talk to reporters”. Fitzgerald’s case is not predicated on Libby being the first, but on Libby lying about the direction the communication flowed. All of the reporters, even Woodward, were informed by one of three (at least) WH officials of Plame’s identity, or the necessary information to get it. Sure, they all took steps to make it appear as if it was just “gossip” (like Woodward suggests), but that’s how you have to do it when you’re breaking the law.
If places like Powerline, etc. are going to hang their hat on this revelation, they’re going to end up with egg on their faces.
SomeCallMeTim
Woodward is DC’s official toady; people have known that for at least a decade. If that becomes his reputation worldwide, then it might have a salutory effect on journalism. Other than that, who cares? It’ll play out the way it plays out.
John or Tim, why not delete the first comment, which is clearly spam?
Krista
anonymous – I’m Canadian, and I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about, hon. What does the Gomery report, the upcoming election and the Lebanese PM have to do with Bob Woodward and the Plame case?
MnMnM
Grand Jury testimony of longtime Washington Post editor Bob Woodward, leaked by Rove-ing reporter (humor).
It is posted at: Bob Woodward Tells Grand Jury Who Leaked First
Bobbing and weaving, a tangled web we do.
Please keep my identity a secret. Double super Secret.
Middle-aged, Middle-of-the-road, Mid-Westerner
Shygetz
Yeah, and where do the womb babies fit in?
I can’t believe that Mac Buckets and I agree on something–I missed my super-secret decoder ring. I bet those comments really say “Drink more Ovaltene.”
rs
It looks like deep throat can go under “skilled in” on Woodward’s resume.
jcricket
Ah yes, here’s the exact quote from Fitzgerald’s Press Conference (emphasis added):
If Woodward had come out and said, “I heard about Plame from Russert”, then we’d have evidence to support the WH’s claim that it was common knowledge and the information flow was from reporter to WH. Instead, combined with what Fitz has outlined, Woodward has just confirmed (to us lay people) that at least three officials were engaged in an effort to spread classified information about a CIA operative (who potentially was considered covert).
scs
Well Fitzgerald knows who this Mr. X is, and hasn’t charged him with any crimes. Apparently he had cooperated from the beginning and it is very possible he DIDN’T know that this was a big deal and that Plame was covert. He must have given up lots of info too to Fitz to have convinced him of that. Apparently though, he never told Fitz about Woodward, so Fitz may be rethinking how cooperative this Mr. X was being. In Mr. X’s defense, he probably thought, “well Fitz never asked me whom I told FIRST, so why should I tell him?”
Perhaps this Mr. X also told some other reporters whom he also “forgot” to mention. If that is the case, and a reporter told another reporter, and Libby was aware that other reporters “knew” about Plame, then Libby is in the clear. In fact, if Libby even knew that Woodward knew, he may be in the clear. That would make it that much harder for Fitz to prove that there is not some other reporter out there that he hasn’t dug up who told some other reporter who told Libby about Plame first, whom Libby can’t remember, and the perjury charges are dropped. It seemed all to be a whole lot of nothing.
As to who this Mr. X is, we know it is a former, senior, non-partisan type, administration official. According to that article, we got denials from Colin Powell, and Tenet (although not technicallyan admin official). Another likely candidate had been Ari Fleischer, who read a memo about it on a plane trip right before the Novak’s article, but I think he’s out of the running because that was a month after Woodward knew.
Hey I still think my Richard Clarke is in the running. You all owe me $100 each if I’m right.
scs
By the way, you didn’t have to go to Der Spiegel for that article, it was in the NYT today.
scs
Alright, another thought on this. I just saw Countdown with Keith Olberman on MSNBC, and he and his guests were speculating on how and when Mr. Fitzgerald will find out who this Mr. X. is.
I think they are missing some obvious stuff here. Bob Novak ALSO said his FIRST source was not Rove, nor Libby, but a “non partisan, former, senior administration official” and implied that he and his source have cooperated. Does anyone really think that the former senior admin offical that told Woodward and the former senior admin official who told Novak are not the SAME GUY? Come on. I can’t believe I’m watching the media go through this. They are the same guy and Fitz already knows who he is. He just hasn’t told Fitz everything yet.