Yes, I’m speculating, but please consider what I have to say…

I listened to Woodward last night on Larry King. I admit to already believing that Bush was his source so I could be guilty of seeing things that aren’t there, but I don’t think I’m wrong here.

I’m going to lay it out for you. I apologize for not having the transcript from last night to reference, I’m going on memory. If someone can tell me where to find it, I will update the diary with actual quotes.

I found a transcript and just spent an hour updating the version of this on Kos.

Rather than do it here as well, I’ll put the link to the Kos diary here: It was Bush.

First, things that relate to the source, from last night (November 22) on Larry King:

  1. It’s a male. Bob actually said “he” in an unguarded moment.
  2. It came from someone he had a formal interview with, in casual conversation at the end of the interview and the question wasn’t on the datailed list of questions because it was related to a recent story by Pincus. This tells me that the “list” of questions was sent well in advance of the interview so the “source’s” people could review it. (See point 4).
  3. The only two people he had formal interviews with (i.e. “not on background”) were Bush and Rumsfeld.
  4. The only two people he had sent detailed questions to prior to speaking with them were Bush and Cheney.
  5. He said that Cheney was not interviewed “during the time in question”.
  6. The source told Woodward sometime between June 15 and June 18, 2003. Woodward said that when he read that Libby told Miller on June 23rd, that’s when he realized he had been told “a week to 10 days prior”. Combine that with his comment about the June 12 Pincus article coming out “a few days” before his interview with the source and you can nail down the timing of the interview a little better.
  7. During a discussion about Bush himself and Woodward’s interviews with him, it looked like Woodward got a little confused and uncomfortable at one point. I need the transcript for this, but I got the sense in that exchange that his comments were in relation to the “source” based on his apparent confusion.
  8. Woodward may have indicated to Libby that he knew about Wilson’s wife. Libby would know there was likely only one person who could have told him.
  9. It sounded like the “source” forgot about the conversation until Woodward called him up and reminded him. Who in the administration is that stupid? (I think you know the answer to that…)

From the following on-line interview with Len Downie:

Post Executive Editor Discusses Woodward Reporter’s Silence in CIA Leak Case Scrutinized

Well, I read through this and what struck me were his very specific references to the blanket waiver surrounding the confidentiality between Woodward and his secret “source”. Below are both references from the article:

Leonard Downie Jr.: This casual part of a long interview for Bob’s book was part of an overall confidential source agreement that cannot be broken or taken apart in any way without the source’s permission. So far, the source has agreed only to Bob testifying about their conversation in the Fitzgerald investigation.

Leonard Downie Jr.: Excellent question. The interview that was taking place when the gossipy exchange took place was entirely covered by a confidential source agreement. Therefore, the gossipy exchange was, too. It wasn’t as though it had occurred in some other casual conversation outside the confidential source agreement.

So it looks to me that whoever this source is, he had a very complex confidentiality agreement with Woodward and he spent hours with him in an interview for the book which is when he spewed forth the interesting gossip about Wilson’s wife.

So my question is this, would all 75 of the offficials he interviewed (either officially or on background) have THAT complicated a confidentiality agreement? Or would that type of agreement fit more closely with a very important figure?

A few other bits of information:

  1. Fitzgerald apparently met with Bush’s lawyer around the time of the Libby indictment.
  2. One report stated that the source was never infront of the Grand Jury, another report indicated the source was interviewed. That scenario only applies to Bush and Cheney and Woodward basically said last night that it wasn’t Cheney.
  3. Rumsfeld denied emphatically on a Sunday talk show that he was the source.

Now, to the question of Woodward’s earlier claim that this was nothing but harmless chatter and his revelation that he came upon another piece of information in his recent “reporter mode”. FYI, speculation from this point forward.

IF Bush were lied to about Plame’s status, he WOULD make an offhand remark to Woodward about Wilson’s wife working as an “analyst” at the CIA when asked about Wilson. Woodward would ASSUME that the President would have accurate information, so he ASSUMED that this was all just chatter.

BUT if Plame was indeed covert, as Fitzgerald said in the indictement, then either Bush lied to Woodward or someone lied to Bush. This was the new peice of information Woodward picked up that sent him into “reporter” mode. Woodward then called Bush. Bush, being the President, would be the only one I can think of who would run to Fitz with the Woodward news. He above all cannot be viewed as being complicit in this, especially if he was lied to by, say, Cheney or Rove. And he, above all, would not want his identity to be known at this stage of the game. Woodward agreed to keep his identity secret for now because he recognizes that Bush was likely lied to and didn’t knowingly out Plame. Bush (God forbid!) could actually be a whistleblower!

So that’s my theory. I’m telling you, it’s Bush. The big news in that, besides the obvious headlines and speculation it would generate? Someone lied to Bush about Plame’s status in the first place. Bush may finally get to play his pre-determined role of “patsy” for this pathetic, rogue administration run by neo-cons.