Thursday, November 17, 2005

Looks Like We Have a Ken for Judy Miller's Barbie

I’m referring to none other than Bob Woodward. So Bob got the word two years ago from a senior White House official(Some are speculating that it’s either Hadley or Cheney) that Joe Wilson’s wife was a CIA agent.

So for two years while the controversy mounted, Bob hunkered down, didn’t even tell his newspaper, because he didn’t want to be subpoenaed (and of course, he wanted to protect his source)

The only thing he did do, was drape himself in his magical Watergate Aura and criticize the investigation.

"there is going to be nothing to it. And it is a shame. And the special prosecutor in that case, his behavior, in my view, has been disgraceful." In a National Public Radio interview in July, Woodward said that Fitzgerald made "a big mistake" in going after Miller and that "there is not the kind of compelling evidence that there was some crime involved here." LINK

There is a lot to this revelation that I find especially disturbing.

Bob went through a hell of lot more drama putting together the Watergate story with Bernstein. He was afraid his apartment was bugged. He was afraid he was going to be “silenced” with a silencer if you know what I mean… Now, he’s afraid of being subpoenaed?

As a participant in the story, and using his Watergate gravitas to attack the special prosecutor’s case was the worst kind of slimy spin imaginable – even misdirection. Looking back on his comments now, it seems like he’s hiding something really big. It’s the same kind of stonewalling the Nixon administration used against him when he was reporting Watergate…and we all know how that turned out.

I went into Journalism in part because of the work Woodward and Bernstein did on the Watergate story. It demonstrated to me that reporters can do a tremendous amount of good in the world. They're supposed to be watchdogs. So, as someone with a degree in Journalism, let me say this: Yes, reporters need to protect their sources. BUT NOT WHEN THEY ARE POTENTIALLY BREAKING THE LAW AND UNDERMINING OUR NATION’S SECURITY. The least Woodward could have done was consult his paper.

Because at some point, you need to decide what you care about more. Your job, your reputation, or your country. Bob chose his job and reputation. And now both are damaged. He has no credibility. Are you going to trust anything he writes or says about this administration? I’m not. He’s obviously too cozy with them.

Woodward, who had lengthy interviews with President Bush for his two most recent books, dismissed criticism that he has grown too close to White House officials. He said he prods them into providing a fuller picture of the administration's inner workings.
"The net to readers is a voluminous amount of quality, balanced information that explains the hardest target in Washington," Woodward said, referring to the Bush administration.

If I were Bob’s editor, I think I’d make him cut the quality, balanced part of that last paragraph. And I’m just going to have to be satisfied with only respecting Bernstein from now on. Even if he’s not the cute one…


Blogger MnMnM said...

Book him, Danno.

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

9:31 AM, November 17, 2005  
Blogger boni said...

Why I'd be happy to go to a white collar prison to protect your identity...

10:04 AM, November 17, 2005  
Blogger Colleen said...

it really makes you wonder why he waited so long to speak out...i mean, even before scooter got indicted. why now? but, i want to know...what else does this guy know?

doesn't he have a book coming out soon on this? am i wrong? i remember reading something about that.

11:17 AM, November 17, 2005  
Blogger boni said...

Woodward was given pretty much unfettered access to the White House while he worked on a couple of books. I think he's gotten too close...I was especially shocked by his comments on the special prosecutor. It sounded like he was defending the administration. I think his evidence is not going to help Scooter scoot prosecution. (Scooter after all did lie under oath) I think it's going to help Fitzgerald plan a criminal conspiracy charge. We'll just have to wait and see.

11:40 AM, November 17, 2005  
Blogger Balloon Pirate said...

I like what Alterman had to say:

"The thing about Bob Woodward is that he long ago ceased to be a journalist. I’ve pointed out in the past that in bragging in the prefaces of his two books about the war that he received copies of classified notes from NSC meetings, and having the contents of those meetings leaked to him by participants, Woodward is participating in the commission of exactly the kinds of crimes Mr. Fitzgerald is now investigating."

Sorta sums it all up in a nutshell.

I lost respect for Woodward someplace around the publication of "Wired."


8:33 PM, November 17, 2005  
Blogger Philip Morton said...

mnmnm: you can always sign in as "annonymous" or a name with not "trackback" for security reasons and peace of mind.

9:38 PM, November 17, 2005  
Blogger Philip Morton said...

Yes, he's a hypocritical bastard, that has come to light. I never would have thought he would be a critic of this administration's critics, given his history. Unless it's a smoke screen so they'll continue talking to him - but in the end, it's the exact same, isn't it?

There's an old saying that you're a liberal in your twenties, a democrat in your thirties, and a consertive in your forties and on.

For some, there's some truth to that. When you're young, and the comfort zone is small, discomfort is highly tolerated. - like when you're isolated and alone during an investigation of the Nixon administration and threatened regularly. When you're older, and the comfort zone becomes very big when you're successful, the mildest pin prick seems like disaster, like a subpeona.

Seems like Bob has a very large comfort zone he doesn't want ruffled. Huffington pointed out something on her blog to the effect of "woodward's had quite a career, from investigating and bringing down one administration, to protecting another".

And his last book didn't sell either.

However it's important to note that this administration did a little game of shotgun target practice with this info - and floated it to multiple journalists, knowing one or more would fly with it, Novak-ula, as some refer to him, did the deed. Woodward did not. He didn't out anyone, he didn't misuse what was passed. Is it illegal to be told something top secret? No. I'm not convinced of the legal violation here. Ethics, yes, but legality, not. That he did nothing with the info is to his credit, that he didn't go running to the police with it may be less so. His complaining about Miller's treatment is absurd. But his doesn't strike me as criminal behavior. Was he shielding a source - yes - but one on who's material he didn't act. So he gained nothing from it, merely was informed of it.

I'm not a huge woodward fan, less so now, but he's more of an example of how journalism has lost its compass.

9:48 PM, November 17, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

oh, that really is rich, mr morton calling someone a hypocritical bastard!

i will agree with one statement in your comment:

"There's an old saying that you're a liberal in your twenties, a democrat in your thirties, and a consertive in your forties and on."

i think churchill said it better. something like: if you're a conservative in you're youth, your a cold bastard, if you're a liberal in adulthood, you're an idiot. or something to that effect...

it seems mr morton and his manson-like followers only like the media and its reporters when they report what the news they want to hear.

yeah, that's a free press with a free voice.

5:36 PM, November 18, 2005  
Anonymous Boni said...

We have no problems with free speech. Last time I checked you were still commenting here, right? I just think Woodward's stupid. If he really wanted to avoid being subpoenaed, and keep a low profile on the whole thing, he should have kept his mouth shut. But obviously he had some ulterior motives for making the comments he did. And now that it turns out he's involved in the Plame situation, his big mitt is caught in the political cookie jar. He just looks like another butt-boy for the administration.
And as far as Phil having manson-like control over us...
You are absolutely right. I am helpless in his power. He modified his TV remote and controls our every thought and deed. You're alright if you stay at least 20 feet away from him. And don't wear a tin-foil hat. And remove all your mercury fillings. Be afraid.
Be very afraid...

6:32 PM, November 18, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

okay... boni's attempt at humor... that's... funny...?

6:38 PM, November 18, 2005  
Blogger Philip Morton said...

boni: LOL.

9:17 PM, November 18, 2005  
Blogger United We Lay said...

You seem to be extrememly critical of other's ideas while keeping your own well hidden. Your criticism is never-ending, but it is difficult for me, at least, to acertain exactly where you stand. You have no blog in which to express your ideas, at least not one you will share with us, and so we can only determine your intelligence and ideas from the childish nature of your responses. I have responded to you on several other posts, and while I would love to engage in intelligent discussion, you seem to be avoiding it at all costs.

Why do you find Mr. Morton hypocritical? Do you often make a statement and refuse to back it up? Insults are tiresome and betray the level of your intelligence. Debate and discussion is the key to a civilized society. Only monkeys hurl shit at each other, and we have all evolved.

8:25 AM, November 19, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

polanco:i'm sorry that i offend you so much. and, as for ideas, the only thing i get from you guys is that bush LIED!!! and other hysterical statements, such as o'reiloser insights terrorism. (and, if you look on that post, you'll find i posed you and others a question, that last time i checked, was still unanswered).

as far as philosophically, if you can't tell where i stand on political issues then you are simply a dense person.

i really have no memory of not answering any queries you may have directed my way. i thought i had responded to them all. if i'm wrong it was perhaps more a matter of me being bored with the non-debate than it was me avoiding anything.

i think that cranky and i had a lively discussion, one where i was found at fault and i admitted such. don't i get any credit, polanco?

as far as mr morton is concerned, he has a special place in my heart and, obviously yours. His words betray his hypocritical nature. I've spoken about ad nauseum, no more needs to be said. I just expected more from a screenwriter that maybe, just maybe, he wouldn't be so predictable. but what am i saying? it's not as if mr morton is josh freidman...

and as far as being a monkey is concerned, i take it as a compliment since i'm quite an unattractive humanoid. i do smell, it is true, just not sure if anyone's slung shit my way recently. i intend on bathing one of these days, and when i do, i'm sure i will feel like a better and cleaner person on the inside as well... that will be the day that i will start my own blog...

thank you, once again polanco, for being my confessional. it's quite cathartic.

10:23 AM, November 19, 2005  
Blogger United We Lay said...

I am not offended. To be offended I would have to place value on your comments.

Bush DID lie. Why do you find that a hysterical statement? I have an idea of where you stand, but you do not support your position with any evidence. You simply spew insults and accusations. That is not the way to engage in intellectual discourse. If your debate with Cranky had been based on fact, you would receive credit. As of this moment, you have yet to prove yourself a worthy adversary.

In nearly every comment I've written to you I have asked a question or two. You have yet to answer one.

12:59 PM, November 19, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

then it's obviously true polanco: i am an idiot, because, especially today, i thought i answered every single of your same-sounding-all-rolled-into-one-am-i-going-crazy-or-didn't-she-already-say-that questions and statements based on my ignorance and inability to back anything up with fact... you are right polanco, i am not a worthy adversary.

but then again, why do you need an adversary, and not a friend? 'cause i like ya polanco, i really do...

and as far as if bush lied, then everyone including hill and the boys are liars. but keep taking the moral high ground, forget about coming-up with anything new, maybe some solutions and instead, lament in your outrage at bush... 'cause that's progressive!

and, i like the way you pick and choose... it was only a few days ago where i quoted two democrats who made sense to me... i don't know how i can back that up with fact, guess you'll just have to believe me, have a little faith. you can do that, can't ya...

anyways, to steal a quote from mr morton, this is kinda getting old and...

... yawn...

1:25 PM, November 19, 2005  
Blogger Sheisthemessiah said...

Unanswered questions:
Why do you find Mr. Morton hypocritical? Why do you think the statement that Bush lied is a hysterical one?

By the way, I am not a Democrat. I am registered Republican.

2:44 PM, November 19, 2005  
Blogger United We Lay said...

Sorry guys, forgot to switch out of lesson plan mode.

3:05 PM, November 19, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

thanks school of thought. now remember, before i answer these questions, i am a moron.

first: why is it such a big deal what i think of mr morton? who cares what i think? anyhow, i have written enough comments about mr morton to sufficiently answer this question. you may browse at your leisure...

democrats are hysterical in the whole bush lied debate because it seems to be their answer for everything. BUSH LIED!!! the people on this blog have comforted themselves with this slogan. before you can say anything, the answer is on the tips of their tongues.

ask them, well, what about the dems that voted for the war: BUSH LIED!!! let's not actually discuss the fact that a portion of that party actually did vote to go to war. let's not probe why they voted to go to war, because you may not like what you hear. instead, shout down: BUSH LIED!!! but that still doesn't change the fact that a significant amout of dems sided with bush.

recycle this slogan over and over again and over again and over again...

A couple of days ago i complimented a couple of dems who said that it's time these people drop this whole how we got in the war and basically, to start thinking of what we're going to do next.

This is pretty clear thinking from a couple of men who don't use the BUSH LIED!!! slogan as a crutch. They're attempting to kick-start their party into thinking about the future instead of being stuck in the past.

3:15 PM, November 19, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

and by the by poly

if you're a registered republican, then i'm moving to canada...

5:02 PM, November 19, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home