Woodward Apologizes to Post for Withholding Knowledge of Plame

[kpete]

Woodward Apologizes to Post for Withholding Knowledge of Plame

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; 1:18 PM

Bob Woodward apologized today to The Washington Post's executive editor for failing to tell him for more than two years that a senior Bush administration official had told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame, even as an investigation of those leaks mushroomed into a national scandal.

Woodward, an assistant managing editor and best-selling author, said he told Leonard Downie Jr. that he held back the information because he was worried about being subpoenaed by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case.

"I apologized because I should have told him about this much sooner," Woodward said in an interview. "I explained in detail that I was trying to protect my sources. That's Job No. 1 in a case like this. . . .

"I hunkered down. I'm in the habit of keeping secrets. I didn't want anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111601286_pf.html

[onehandle]

1. Fire the snake. nt

[mod mom]

2. Isn't this obstruction of justice?

[Blue_Roses]

3. sounds like it

nt

[DeepModem Mom]

21. Do we know if Woodward has "lawyered up"? nt

[DemoTex]

24. Maybe even a conspiracy to obstruct justice ..

:popcorn:

[trrll]

49. No

It is only obstruction of justice if he lied or tried to hide data. He has no legal obligation to come forward in the absence of a subpoena, although he might be said to have had a professional obligation to report the conversation (hence the apology)--in which case he would surely have gotten a subpoena.

[newyawker99]

52. Hi trrll!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[oregonindy]

4. definitely pre-meditated obstruction of justice at the very least

[maximovich]

10. He Admits to It Too (nt)

[Spazito]

5. LOL, who's going to buy he was trying to protect his sources and

that's why he inappropriately failed to inform his 'bosses'. He was protecting his own ass, full stop, imo.

[acmavm]

6. Quit lying and making excuses Woody. Slither over to your pal Judy's

so you can have a mutual pity party 'cuz you both got caught.

[bunkerbuster1]

8. I do not want to visualize those two

doin' the nasty nasty.

[Connie_Corleone]

7. I don't want to see his face on TV talking about this case anymore!

[NNN0LHI]

9. If Woodward wanted out of this why did he have his ugly ass on Larry King?

I remember him pooh poohing the damn Libby indictment like it was a fucking parking ticket or something. What a no good prick.

Don

[Spazito]

13. Exactly!

His pitiful excuses don't stand up even to the most superficial of examinations.

[Stephanie]

22. There you go.

His excuse doesn't wash. If you want to stay out of it, stay out of it. Don't attempt to spin the story while hiding your role in it.

[Al-CIAda]

36. A glaring and simple fact that belies this latest excuse. -eom

[BJW]

38. I remember this to and thought WTF???

[Caution]

11. Maybe he should apologize to Don Rumsfeld for practically fingering him

In the Washington Post article:

According to his statement, Woodward also testified about a third unnamed source. He told Fitzgerald that he does not recall discussing Plame with this person when they spoke on June 20, 2003.

Bob Woodward interviewed Don Rumsfeld this same day:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040419-secdef1361.html

[radio4progressives]

33. Thanks! I just finished reading this interview w/Woody and Rummy

No mention of anything related to Wilson, Plame, Niger (yellow cade) or even WMD's for that matter.

wonder if all of that was redacted/deleted from this version of the interview?

But it is an interesting insight as to the mindset linked to the genesis of the Iraq war plans when Bush asks Rummy (right after getting apppointed Secretary of Defense in early 2001 - months before 9/11) "What kind of a war plan do you have for Iraq?"

[Caution]

35. more likely "off the record"

discussion. Just not a part of the formal interview.

[Pithy Cherub]

12. Icarus Woodward flew a wee bit too close to the sun. He's melting.

He and Judy... signing a book near you, "If I only had a Brain..."

Fitzgerald just poured sunlight all over this despicable miscreant perpetrating a journalistic train wreck.

Woodward needs to resign or begin negotiations on HIS retirement.

[Beetwasher]

14. The Vile Scumbag Didn't Say Anything Because Cheney Would Have Him Killed

He was protecting Cheney. That's my guess.

[punpirate]

15. What's so damned funny about this...

... lame excuse is that one of Woodward's own sources went to Fitzgerald voluntarily and told Fitzgerald that he'd passed the information on to Woodward. Ah, well. Just inside-the-Beltway stuff, nothing for us hicks to be interested in. :)

[qanda]

16. What a liar!!!!

[Norquist Nemesis]

17. They should fire him

He has now put the reputation of the WP front and center.

[pdxmom]

18. I have less of a problem with him protecting sources than I

do with the fact that he was here, there and everywhere on the airwaves commenting on this case, when all the while, he's obviously smack in the middle of it.

I'm sick of these reporters playing both sides of the fence, then hiding behind the first amendment to protect THEMSELVES, not their sources.

[WiseButAngrySara]

23. Exactly! Well said. ....n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

32. And, I Still Don't Get The Whole Protecting Of Sources. . .

. . .when there's even a possibility that those sources are BREAKING THE LAW! This protecting of sources is being used as if someone in the gov't is blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, not perpetrating the wrongdoing themselves. It's using apples to justify eating nails. There is no relationship between these two extremes.
The Professor

[pdxmom]

43. To a degree, I do understand protecting a "source". For

example, some of these stories out there where the journalist follows a drug addict. These people are breaking the law, but I see the need to protect the source in order to get the story. Without protection of sources, even in instances of law breaking, we might not learn a lot of things we've learned about.

That said, I think most of these reporters have gone past protecting their sources. They have actively enabled them to continue with their lies, and have abetted them, in my opinion, in continuing to break the law.

[ProfessorGAC]

45. But, What Is He Following A Drug Addict For?

If it's to expose police corruption, then the crime committed by gov't is the story. There's no story in the fact that there are drug addicts. Right? Everyone already knows that. That isn't news.

The news is in the corruption. If a reporter is following a drug addict around to get a story about the mean streets, that's just ridiculous too! It's not news. It's grandstanding.

I see your point, but in your example, it would appear the only valid reason to do what your hypothetical reporter is doing is to expose something way bigger than a junkie.
The Professor

[pdxmom]

47. Oh, sorry. I should have been more clear. I was thinking of

an example from way-back-when. I remember as a teen, the first stories that were out in the papers regarding the "drug scene". Exposing what life on the streets as a junkie was like, etc.

They made an impact on me.

[ProfessorGAC]

48. Seems Kind Of Cheap Journalism To Me

What real public interest is served by that? And, i think that's where i coming from. Protection of sources should always be done for the purpose of serving the maximum public interest. Always!

Protecting a source who is not the one exposing public corruption, but rather a participant in said corruption is done to protect one's own career. It doesn't serve the public interest.

Woodward was protecting his sources in the interest of Bob Woodward's career. That's it.
The Professor

[pdxmom]

50. I agree with that completely. That was where I came from

originally. There can be stories that expose criminal behavior, done in the public interest, without exposing sources that may have engaged in criminal activity.

Woodward's only reason for keeping his mouth shut was to protect Woodward. It was very self-serving.

[BJW]

41. Exactly--Pretending Objectivity While Spinning Madly..

he should be forced to give all monies he made to some Iraqi war casualty foundation or to the V.A., at the least!

[pdxmom]

44. This whole thing has lost him what small shreds of credibility

he may have had left over from Watergate.

At one time, he really was one of the greatest. But I think the money and power and rubbing elbows with the likes of Bushco have turned him into just another neocon mouthpiece.

[second edition]

19. I've lost all repect for this man. What has his motivation? $$$$ n/t

[Imagine My Surprise]

26. Reminds me of the likes of David Horowitz...

some people -- consumer advocates, reporters, et al -- were at one time on the just end of the spectrum. But something happens -- god knows what -- that seems to send them over to the "other side"; this seems to have happened to Woodward. I haven't respected him for a LONG time. Once again, I seem to be a bit ahead of the curve.

[BJW]

42. the practice of embedding journalists

has been going on for a long time now--get them hooked by feelingg like they're part of the "in" crowd, that they're special, continue luring with lucrative financial deals, develop a "special" relationship and then use that relationship to "willingly" manipulate them.

[BJW]

40. Well, I suspect that he has strong feelings

for Israel, and about the Middle East, and Arabs, that have colored his decisions and caused bias in his reporting.

[Oreo]

20. Wouldn't it be fantastic

If Woodward was complicit in bringing down a second President? Granted he's on the wrong side now but it would be poetic.

[Oilwellian]

27. Woodward and All The President's Men

The irony is superb. :D

[autorank]

25. Excellent Post!!! (no pun intended) "I'm sorry but it's not my fault"

Give this guy some tissue and a ticket to the Oprah Show.

What a panzy!



"I hunkered down. I'm in the habit of keeping secrets. I didn't
want anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed."

Three bogus excuses. If I were his boss I'd fire him immediately.

[WiseButAngrySara]

28. Look at these recent AOL Poll results: Woodward, Miller and their ilk

have contributed greatly to these current opinions, and IMO it can only get worse after WaPo Woodwards' revelations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5358969

Results as of 10:30 am today:

Do you feel you were misled on the war?

Yes, deliberately 65%
No 25%
Yes, but not deliberately 10%

Total Votes: 243,068

How important is it to debate the reasons we went to war?

Very 66%
Not at all 24%
Somewhat 10%

Total Votes: 241,505

Does the media provide a balanced view of the situation in Iraq?

No 71%
Yes 29%

Total Votes: 187,585

Does the government provide a balanced view of the situation in Iraq?

No 82%
Yes 18%

Total Votes: 188,895

[WiseButAngrySara]

29. K and R. Did Woodward commit Obstruction Justice? I say YES.

What do DUer attorney's or legal eagles say?

[Nimrod2005]

30. Now, he can share a cell with Scooter...

[Tom Joad]

31. A journalistic crime. Keeping the public uninformed.

[Festivito]

34. God, self, family, America, the world, all suck hind teat.

Job 1 is for his pension.

Now, I'll not be sure whether he tells the truth or some fabrication that's had enough time to be tested and constructed.

Someone should take his Post and jam it.

[BJW]

37. He Should Donate all the Money he's Made

engaging in punditry in MSM on this issue!!!!!

An apology isn't enough--he should donate the money he's made since that time to Iraqi War Victims foundation or to V.A. programs.

What an a-hole.

[tgnyc]

39. How about apologizing to the United States, fucker?

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. Absolutely outrageous

What a slime.

He should be cashiered immediately.

[high density]

51. Woodward is on the Douchebag of Liberty list with Novak, IMHO.

What a dirtbag. After what Woodward supposedly did in the 1970s I just can't believe what this guy is today.

[WinkyDink]

53. Accessory after the fact, as well.

Really.

[benburch]

54. BZZZT! We Disrupt This Thread For An Important Announcement!

[tsuki]

55. Not enough. Fire him. Protecting sources are one thing. Trying

to kill a story because you are ass deep in it, well, that's another thing.