I'm standing right next to yo, Steve. Shoulder to shoulder.

While I respect his ability to keep a secret, I am as intolerant as you are of his antics.

Enough is enough.

Steve,
u express my sentiments exactly.
what are your thoughts as to King's motivation to invite BW to his show? Seems to me, King is as much responsible in fanning BW's ego.

I sent a nice note to Powell reminding her that Booby does not need an editor to massage his balls. Booby needs to tell all because he was/is part of conspiracy to out an undercover CIA agent.

It's nice to see the statue of Bob Woodward begin to crumble. He did something for the public good 32 years ago (although I suspect the Woodstein contribution is conventionally overrated). For this we have given him a career-long bye. The end of this charity is long since past due.

Steve Clemons >"...Stop the duplicity, Bob."

He`s all about duplicity and has been for decades; a willing pupil of Bill Casey

I hope Fitzgerald is able to take him down a couple of notches

"Against stupidity, the very gods themselves must contend in vain." - Friedrich von Shille

I like this Patrick Fitzgerald guy. So far President Bush has given his investigation the respect it deserves. If Scooter Libby was lying, a la Martha Stewart, then he needs to pay the price. The Republicans will have lost their minds if they ever end up attacking Fitzgerald.
Having said that I am a huge Dick Cheney fan and thank God he's running the country and not the Washington Note, Bush 41, Bush 41's cabinet or the Democrats. So I greatly appreciate anything Mr. Libby has been doing serving Cheney. But lying to special prosecutors should not be on the checklist.

Yes, there are rumors and there are rumors. However, opinion is not a rumor, only the motivation behind it might be a rumor. A good reporter moves through the rumor and innuendo to present the facts. A bad reporter dwells on the rumor and innuendo without resolving what is or has occurred.

The public dwells on the inference that one can draw from innuendo and rumor...when there is nothing better with which to reach a judgement.

In that sense, I am currently dwelling on the rumor and innuendo that Woodward has apologized. I have no concrete facts with which to judge the legitimacy of these Woodwardian apologies. There are some reputed apologies trumpeted in the Washington Post but, alas, these seem to have fallen flat once the fizz has dissipated from that confectionary soda-pop masquerading as something more substantial but delivering little in the way of contrition while contributing much to the cavities in the mouth of our enterprise.

parrot (at 6:30 pm): "I have no concrete facts with which to judge the legitimacy of these Woodwardian apologies."--lol!

Apparently Woodward was not bothered at all by the outing of Plame, nor by the smearing of Ambassador Wilson, nor of the perjury by Irving Libby. What disturbs me most of all is that he didn't consider the public worthy enough to share his information--he's paid to inform the public, and instead he spun mis-informing information while keeping the facts from us.

I predict no recognition or acknowledgement of these issues tonight by Woodward on Larry King. I predict what little contrition he expresses will be that he wish he were even quieter, except to his editors, but certainly not contrition to the public for lack of reporting on the issue.

the wapo said...

"Post reporter Bob Woodward should not be vilified for protecting the identity of his source in this complex affair."

i agree... vilifying him is pointless... he should damn well be fired... why...? if for nothing else, failure to inform his boss of the fact that he had received extremely sensitive information from an anonymous source that could have potentially significant consequences down the line for both himself and the paper... that failure demonstrates enormous lack of professionalism if not outright insubordination which has destroyed his professional credibility and seriously damaged that of his employer... woodward violated that famous guideline for both employment as well as the human species in general - never shit in your hat...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2005/11/fire-bob-woodward.html

If it's anything like the Judy Miller show, I'll be throwing up in mouth in no time. I'm sure he'll say he has no regrets with that Bushit eating grin on his Neo-Con Zionist traitor face...just like Ms. Run Amok WHIG operative. These people are nothing but meat puppets and part of the perception management apparatus.

profmarcus,

I believe that what you are observing is the trying method that some rhetoric majors enlist to tell us, the public, what to feel. I think that when the guilty tell the victims how to feel about their villainy it has gone way out of bounds.

Where is the indignation at the Post and the other nations newspapers at Woodward? Was there any major newspaper in America that dared, dared on Sunday to write a scathing editorial denouncing Woodward and the Post? (Admittedly, I don't read the WSJ...) I still say its outrageous that Woodward seems to be getting away with this. The Washington Post thinks its done enough to exculpate itself from this...this...odious excretion of an "apology"? The odor continues to linger. Perhaps I'll start turning to the Washington Weekly Standard for better information! So far, the pretense over there hasn't involved them in obstruction...we hope.

"When it all comes out … people will see how casual and offhand [the leak of Valerie Plame’s name] was," Bob Woodward told Larry King tonight. “Remember, the investigation and the allegations that people have printed about this story is that there's some vast conspiracy to slime Joe Wilson and his wife, really attack him in an ugly way that is outside of the boundaries of political hardball. The evidence I had firsthand — a small piece of the puzzle, I acknowledge — is that that was not the case."

Well, then, Americans don’t know that the leak was “offhand and casual” and are following the Scooter Libby case with great anticipation. Woodward has a big story! Why is he sitting on it? We all know how to write a story that doesn’t prejudice an impending court case. Is it not his duty to tell Washington Post readers that he has “firsthand” information that suggests that there’s nothing to the Libby case?

When I turned it on, they were laughing at the "rumor" that BW had a bombshell to drop.

So I dropped them.

allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment here:
there are some things here that make one think he has an expose' pending folks. a reporter doesn't have to tell anyone anything until the court tells him he does, right? isn't that still the law?
listen to a smart reporter. Forget the nonsense and read the transcripts (instead of the simple edited quotes that are being passed around). i think he mentioned something really heavy on his mind tonight. read the transcript from the first few minutes. If his quote about the "junk yard dog" comment was correct and in context, then that is a compliment, and everyone knows that. He was a junkyard dog and it brought us a date with a high priced plumber.
admit; much of what he is doing seems pretty bizarre, but think of what he knows! and what he may do upon the meltdown of the regime that is about to happen? Fitzgerald knows that he knows! Fitzgerald has spying, perjury, obtruction, et al, in front of maybe what 20+ people on the table right now? what is to say he hasn't got Woodward's cooperation now and has just unraveled the whole business? nailed someone else large with Woodwards testimony. whaddya bet that we see indictments for the spying charges, among other things now. patience. Woodward isn't stupid enough to lie to the attorney generals office in an investigation bringing down the very goverment whose secrets he holds. What if Woodward is so excited inside about getting to bring down yet a second presidency, this time with a nearly complete government that goes with it? Just nearly bursting as he gets to be deep throat, knowing all, telling all the facts without having to tell the names, gently guiding, letting Fitzgerald put the pieces together, waiting for the whole thing to just go off BOOM
just like the mushroom cloud that the shrubs knew was required to make the sheep go to war. it would be a solid piece of reporting that he could not very well participate in, well not quite, i wonder?

Due to an inability to condensce Bob Woodward's contrition on Larry King Live tonight down into a simple phrase, I am dependent on my fellow citizens for their unvarnished, yet hopefully brief and to the point, impressions of Sir Woodward's joust with journalistic ethics.

Woodward was spinning furiously. Not al all credible. Every time he not want to answer a question he kept bringing up Watergate. He mentioned Watergate a dozen times as if to say remember who you are talking to, legenday Watergate journalist Bob Woodward.

There is no hope for Woodward. He is a spent force. Corrupt through and through.

It is the age old story. Power corrupts. It has corrupted Woodward.

If this ends up being another media charade to stroke Woodward's celebrity needs...

steve, its a Larry King interview...what else COULD it be?

I've yet to read an interview with either Downie or Woodward where they are asked "hard news" questions....stuff like, "did the Post notify Fitzgerald right after Woodward finally told Downie, and before indictments were handed down?" or "Why would Bob Woodward think his secret was safe from Downie, when he knew that Pincus was obligated to tell Downie everything he knew -- and that would include Woodward's supposed conversation with Pincus?"

Woodward and Downie are doing damage control, pure and simple. Mary Mapes was crucified for making an unintentional mistake -- yet the press treats Woodward with kid gloves?

What if it was Pincus who forced Bob to reveal his source to Downie? Still a possibility...

Personally, I'm beginning to believe, especially after watching Mr. Woodward's not so stellar performance tonight, that Bob got really worried that the Post might be charged with obstruction if he didn't come clean to Downie *before* the Special Counsel had his press conference on the 27th. The news that Bob had a source seems to have spread like wildfire by the evening of the 27th of October among investigative reporters at other papers--the Larry King Live show of the 27th proves that much with the questioning of Bob.

What if it was Pincus who forced Bob to reveal his source to Downie? Still a possibility...

...but HIGHLY unlikely. When Woodward's statement was published and the Post reported it, he was adamant that he'd told Pincus about "Wilson's wife". The next day, we got a significantly different story -- that Woodward had mentioned it to Pincus while passing Pincus's desk, and Pincus said "What?" (as in "I didn't hear you...what did you say) and Woodward did not reply.

If Pincus had forced Woodward to tell Downie, that would have been settled before Woodward raised serious questions about Pincus's credibility.

I was amused when Woodward held up headlines of
the Washington Post during the time his book came out.
Big stuff like " Powell disagrees with the war"
: Bush Agonizes over War"
WELL DUH BOB - That was common knowledge.
When King asked if he was being " used" by Bush & Co
he holds up those papers to show how hard he
was on the Bush Administration???
I wanted to puke.
Just how stupid does he think we are?
He wants to get inside government or should I say the personalities
of government and for that he sells his soul?

Woodward has turned into Theodore White -- without White's integrity.

“When King asked if he was being " used" by Bush & Co
he holds up those papers to show how hard he
was on the Bush Administration???”

Anna,

Of course Woodward, in order to gain access to Bush, allowed himself to be “used” by Bush in that book. I was shocked to see him portray Bush as a reformer of Arab societies, and so forth. Not only did he write that stuff up uncritically but amplified on them, approvingly, during post-publication TV appearances. Why does Woodward promote this moron, who is a laughing stock to the world and who has plunged America into a humiliating foreign-policy disaster, but brought down Nixon for a simple lie? I’m a “McGovern Democrat” and believed that American voters deceived themselves when they elected Nixon over McGovern. But Nixon turned out to be one of the most brilliant American presidents. We’re still living in the shadow of his foreign policy accomplishments on Russia, China – and to an extent – the Middle East. His domestic policy was actually “liberal” by today’s standards. Did he really need to be hounded out of the White House and the nation plunged into what Gerald Ford rightly called a “national nightmare” for a political lie for which nobody was hurt or lost a penny? Was Nixon’s lying (not under oath) such a unique folly by the American political standards? Remember, Woodward’s boss, Ben Bradlee, had visited President Kennedy, his friend, 70 plus times at the White House. Everybody in town knew about Kennedy’s episodes with women, his rather hypocritical stance on the Civil Rights Movement, and other stuff, but we hardly had a story critical of Kennedy’s political or personal conduct in the Washington Post. I have always thought that Watergate was a political – rather than moral – fight in which the Post was used to nullify the verdict of the 1972 presidential election. Woodward and the Post have been busy entertaining the readers more than informing them. Look how they practically collaborated with Bush and the neocons in bluffing the nation into the Iraqi quagmire! I guess I’ve shocked you all enough with my views about Nixon.

About freedom of the press and the war-crazed administration, check this out:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16397937%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=exclusive%2d%2dbush%2dplot%2dto%2dbomb%2dhis%2darab%2dally-name_page.html

this is terrifying...America, wtf is going on with you????

At one point in the interview Woodward said that
he had question lists for Scotter Libby. One of them was about Joe Wilson's wife. The question about Wilson's wife apparently got added to his list of questions after her name was told to him by his source.

I would like to know the following: If we are to believe that the mention of Wilson's wife's name and position at the CIA was such a casual mention at the tail-end of an interview with a Bush Administration official, then why/how does a question about Wilson's wife make it on to susequent list of Woodward's questions for Scotter Libby?

Secondly, I think Woodward is dilusional. He actual said during the interview "I think the biggest mistake you can make in this sort of situation as a reporter is to worry about yourself." Huh?

Here's a hyperlink to the article that Stefen cites above.

Madness of war memo

Is the Mirror a reliable source? The memo referenced in the article would be a fascinating read, if it exists. Sounds like we'll never know...

Woodward's interview, I mean appearance with Larry King last night was a shameless exercise in grovelling to the public to excuse his ethical lapse and fear of Fitzgerald. His little crying game was nothing more than steaming pile of horse manure. Woodward literally and figuratively makes me sick. Is this man a reporter or a celebrity hound?

vaughan, Thanks for the link. The Mirror is a popular (circulation nearly 2 million) tabloid, which is given to sensationalism. But I doubt that it would fabricate a memo of No 10 Downing Street. Oh boy! I knew Bush is xeophobic and impressionable, but couldn't imagine he could be so foolish and dangerous!

Your welcome, Mustafa. I'm home with a cold today, so I'm surfing. I know this is off-topic, but the buzz in the message boards at the moment is all about this article:
Iraq leaders call for U.S. withdrawal timetable
I think this may be it! We have no excuses to stay in Iraq. It is time to declare victory, let Bush have a well-scripted "Mission Accomplished" moment, and we are out of there! Peace may be at hand (or at least we may have a chance to diminish the amount of violence inflicted with and on US assets). Sweet!

If you doubt it, read Duncan Black's post here, about how the Iraqi government basically backs up the right of insurgents to fight against the US as occupiers:

Legitimate Right of Resistence

As for journalistic ethics, Woodward committed three major offenses: One, he sat on a story of importance to the public; two, publicly criticized an investigation that had implications on him and his sources without disclosure; and three, couched these actions as wanting to avoid a subpoena. These are major offenses for any journalist, and can only lead to the conclusion that he is no longer a journalist but a book-writer who gains access to the administration by promising flattery of it. Woodward is part of the sickness that is ailing and endangering MSM.

Vaughan, I hope you feel better. Saw your Iraq links, and they remind me of Woodward’s references to Iraq as though it’s another Third World country like Afghanistan or Somalia, which basically has been the neocons’ (and, Bush’s, Cheney’s and Condi Rice’s) notion of it. And that’s why we’re in trouble in Iraq. The Iraqis are a fiercely independent-minded people. Their intelligentsia are culturally the most sophisticated in the Middle East, except those of Israel and Lebanon. The scholarship of their intellectuals (especially the Sunni ingellectuals) is intimidating. Those of us who had predicted this insurgency before the war began were told by enthusiasts of the war not to worry because “the Arab street doesn’t rise.”

I'm sorry but at this point Woodward has about the same journalistic credibility as Geraldo Rivera. Every word out of his mouth is an obfuscation. His ability to tell this story without prejudice went flying out the window the second he opened his yap as a pundit without revealing his first-person entanglement. No amount of after-the-fact enlightenment or "aggressive reporting" on his part can erase the fact that he publicly misrepresented himself and concealed relevant facts. This is NOT someone who can be trusted with finding and reporting the truth. About anything. Period.

On yesterday's Larry King show, Woodward, claimed that when he "learned another piece of this puzzle," it prompted him to go into "incredibly aggressive reporting mode."

What type of "aggressive reporting mode" was he referring to? The more one listened to Woodward the more definitive it became that he was lying thru his teeth.

What is equally incredible is Howard Kurtz's take on Woodward's performace on Larry King in today's WAPO.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/21/AR2005112101378.html.

Come on...is this for real?

Vaughan, I hope you feel better. Saw your Iraq links, and they remind me of Woodward’s references to Iraq as though it’s another Third World country like Afghanistan or Somalia, which basically has been the neocons’ (and, Bush’s, Cheney’s and Condi Rice’s) notion of it. And that’s why we’re in trouble in Iraq. The Iraqis are a fiercely independent-minded people. Their intelligentsia are culturally the most sophisticated in the Middle East, except those of Israel and Lebanon. The scholarship of their intellectuals (especially the Sunni ingellectuals) is intimidating. Those of us who had predicted this insurgency before the war began were told by enthusiasts of the war not to worry because “the Arab street doesn’t rise.”

Posted by Mustafa

Also, it must be remembered that most Iraqis can recall pre-91 Iraq, which had opportunites for self betterment that were not gender specific, and the Iraqis enjoyed a quality of life that was secular and unique from its neighbors. Health care, education, job opportunities, all better than the standard middle eastern fare. It is as a DIRECT RESULT of OUR MEDDLING that Iraq is in the state it is in today. Many Iraqis that enjoyed those happier times have had their families, their homes, and their livelyhoods DESTROYED as the result of the actions of OUR government. The sanctions claimed the lives of over 500 thousand Iraq CHILDREN. How many more has this "war" killed? Do any thinking logical human beings think that the parents of these kids feel "liberated" by the actions of our government??? We have brought a soveriegn nation ands it's people to its knees over the course of the last fifteen years. We have destroyed its culture, looted and destroyed its antiquities and history, MURDERED hundreds of thousands of its citizens, razed its infrastructure, polluted its environment with dangerous radioactive dust, and profited grossly by the hardships of its people by favoritism and corruption in the awarding of "reconstruction" projects. And now, thanks to that satanistic sick son of a bitch Cheney, we are TORTURING THEM.

Guess what, people? WE are the evil empire.

When patriots put themselves above the law these are no longer patriots. What they are exactly is sometimes hard to determine. Hopefully, there is a court whose jurisdictions they will fall under soon that can reach a just conclusion.

The Mirror article brings to mind several questions. May they all be answered soon. And without bloodshed.