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. Here is the link to the transcript.
First, things that relate to the source, from last night (November 21) on Larry King:
- It's a male. Bob actually said "he" in an unguarded moment.
WOODWARD: ... I guess a few weeks later. So I said to this source, long substantive interview about the road to war. You know, at the end of an interview like this, after you're doing an interview on television, you might just shoot the breeze for a little while. And so, I asked about Wilson, and he said this.
- 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).
WOODWARD: ... I guess a few weeks later. So I said to this source, long substantive interview about the road to war. You know, at the end of an interview like this, after you're doing an interview on television, you might just shoot the breeze for a little while. And so, I asked about Wilson, and he said this.
KING: I see.
WOODWARD: Most kind of off-hand.
...
WOODWARD: Yes, I don't -- somebody has questioned that. In my book, "Plan of Attack," I outline how I sent a 21-page memo to President Bush with the chronology and some of the questions I wanted to ask, in no sense limiting the questions. And I've done that with Cheney, and I've done that with other people.
It is an aid and a way to say, "This is the period of time I want to cover, some of the issues, some of the, quite frankly, things I've learned that you may not be comfortable with or some of the secrets in all of this," and then let the person respond. But no one has ever said, OK, that's not on the list, you can't ask that question. So...
- The only two people he had formal interviews with (i.e. "not on background") were Bush and Rumsfeld.
WOODWARD: The people who are on record for the second book, for "Plan of Attack," are the president and Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense. All the other interviews are on background. So again, I'm not going to go parading a list of people I talked to.
- The only two people he had sent detailed questions to prior to speaking with them were Bush and Cheney (that he mentioned anyway, see quote in point 2. There could have been others...)
WOODWARD: Yes, I don't -- somebody has questioned that. In my book, "Plan of Attack," I outline how I sent a 21-page memo to President Bush with the chronology and some of the questions I wanted to ask, in no sense limiting the questions. And I've done that with Cheney, and I've done that with other people.
- He said that Cheney was not interviewed "during the time in question".
KING: ... did you meet with Cheney?
WOODWARD: Not in this period.
- 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.
Then, the day of the indictment I read the charges against Libby and looked at the press conference by the special counsel and he said the first disclosure of all of this was on June 23rd, 2003 by Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff to "New York Times" reporter Judy Miller.
I went, whoa, because I knew I had learned about this in mid- June, a week, ten days before, so then I say something is up. There's a piece that the special counsel does not have in all of this.
...
WOODWARD: Came up because I asked about Joe Wilson, because a few days before, my colleague at the "Washington Post," Walter Pincus, had a front-page story, saying there was an unnamed envoy -- there was no name given -- who had gone to Niger the year before to investigate for the CIA if there was some Niger-Iraq uranium deal or yellow cake deal.
- 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. Below is the part I'm talking about, but I got the sense in that exchange that his comments were in relation to the "source" based on his apparent confusion.
WOODWARD: (INAUDIBLE). No it's not quid pro quo. That's what's nice about the process and the method of going to everybody else involved. And in these matters in the Bush administration I've been able to do two books.
I've been able to interview President Bush for the last book "Plan of Attack" for three and a half hours over two days, no limitations on questions, no practical limitation on time.
It was like -- people who have read the transcript said it's like a deposition. Why did you do this? Cheney said this. How about this intelligence? So, all the stuff, all the material I've gained from confidential sources and documents and notes and so forth can be tested in this case with the president who is on the record and if he wants to say, oh, that's not true or offer his point of view, as he does, then that will be included.
- 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.
He said, "Well, is it possible you asked -- in other words, that you conveyed to Libby that you knew Joe Wilson's wife worked in the CIA? Because it's on a question list."
And my sworn testimony is that it's possible. I certainly don't recall it, and he certainly said nothing. But after long interviews and you have long lists of questions, you can't really say, "Gee, did I ask that or that." At least, two years later, I can't. Maybe the next day I might have been able to.
- 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...)
And the source in this case at this moment, it's a very interesting moment in all of this, said "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."
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:
- Fitzgerald apparently met with Bush's lawyer around the time of the Libby indictment.
- 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.
- 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: An excellent question. The week of the indictment I was working on something and learned another piece of this puzzle and I told Len Downie about it and I told him about the source and what had been disclosed to me and there was a sense before the indictment, well, this is kind of interesting but it's not clear what it means.
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.
Update: I just read through the comments and thought it prudent to highlight a couple of things that tend to debunk my theory:
1. Woodward's book says Bush was interviewed in December 2003.
2. That people interviewed on background have the confidentiality agreement, not those interviewed on the record (as Bush and Rummy were), which would mean that Bush is not Woodward's source.
I still think it's Bush (call me stubborn) but it's important I point these things out to you. I don't intend to delete the diary, the discussion in the comments section is just too good.