What's wrong with Bob Woodward?

[quaoar]

Good piece from the Village Voice by Sydney Schanberg. He talks about how Woodward went on the Larry King show on CNN and said the CIA leak scandal was much ado about nothing.

http://villagevoice.com/news/0546,schanberg,70021,6.html

Is this the same Bob Woodward whose Watergate scoops were dismissed by Richard Nixon's press secretary, the late Ron Ziegler, as piddling stories about a "third-rate burglary"? Doesn't Woodward remember the reaction by many in the White House press corps, who initially sneered at the story and brushed it off as the fevered product of two lowly cityside reporters covering crime and the courts—which is what Woodward and Bernstein were at the time?

I wish I were wrong, but to me Woodward sounds as if he has come a long way from those shoe-leather days—and maybe on a path that does not become him. He sounds, I think, like those detractors in 1972, as they pooh-poohed the scandal that unraveled the Nixon presidency— the scandal that Woodward and Bernstein doggedly uncovered.

< snip >

It is clear that Fitzgerald does not share Woodward's view that this scandal grew out of idle chitchat and wasn't really a campaign to "out" a CIA operative and punish her husband for challenging the president's weapons-of-mass-destruction rationale for going to war against Iraq.

I wonder what Woodward's newsroom colleagues at The Washington Post think of his put-down of this investigation, especially the reporters—Dana Priest, Walter Pincus, Barton Gellman, Jim VandeHei, and others—who have been doing such an impressive job of digging deep and informing the public about the White House machinations and the larger Iraq story. I doubt they're throwing him any parties.

[second edition]

1. Woodward has been supportive of Bush from the beginning of

his presidency. I don't want to think that Woodward sold out for exclusives with Bush, but I don't know what else to think.

[calimary]

12. And let me tell you how easy it is to be taken in. Almost happened to me

once - with none other than Ronald Reagan.

I was working at an LA station that was part of a small but significant radio network - as in - it had other stations in all the best markets, so it got a lot of bang for the buck. It also had a longtime "vice president" cocktail-party-circuit shmoozer type guy who set up this junket for all of us. The general managers, news directors (myself for one) and public affairs directors were all invited, so off we went. We made the rounds of Capitol Hill, doing the meet-n-greet with our various senate and house reps. But the crown jewel of the tour was a private "press conference" with Reagan, set up by this longtime "vice president" company shmoozer.

I think I've told this story here before, so forgive me if you find it repetitive. But it's important here to enlarge upon the main point.

So there we were, having filed into this little "audience with the pope" room, where Reagan was to give us about 15 minutes. I decided since I'd probably never have another opportunity like this one, being in L.A. all the time, I'd try to get my question in with the MAYBE half-dozen questions our group would be allowed to ask. I grabbed a seat along the center aisle, a couple of rows back, going up the steps, so, in effect, I was actually eyeball-to-eyeball with whomever was standing at the podium down front. This was strategic, so he couldn't help but see me if my hand went up. And sure enough, out he comes, makes a few opening blathers about the economy and other meaningless pablum, and then says he'll take our questions. And my hand shot up. As I'd hoped, he did see me first and he did call on me.

I wanted to ask him about a then-highly controversial schmuck in his cabinet - the Interior Secretary man-weasel james watt, whose every pronouncement and action had stirred up a firestorm of criticism. I wanted to know why we'd never heard anything about him from Reagan (who at the time had yet to make any comments about this 6th-century jerk he had working for him) and, considering the polls and other public opinion gauges that showed people just did not like james watt, why he continued to stand by this man. Reagan answered a completely meaningless few sentences of predictable drivel, but the point was, this was the first time he ever went on record about his embattled Secretary of the Interior (who later had to resign because he was such a world-class thoughtless asshole). So, I had my soundbites, but I had a lot more. Like a cold sweat.

The protocol demanded that we stand up to address the president when called upon. So I did. First of all, I was terribly intimidated facing him one-on-one like that, in front of all those other people. Then, he turned on that "Reagan charm." His head tilted, and he started bobbling it a little the way he always did in that folksy-old-uncle-sitting-by-the-fireside-telling-family-yarns-to-the-little-kids style of his. There was that little crooked smile and the aw-shucks demeanor, and the way he'd sort of bob and shake his head as he spoke, all crinkle-eyed and benign.

It was ASTONISHING. I tell you, sure as I'm sitting here writing this, I have NEVER felt anything like that. I felt as though somebody had switched a HUGE vacuum cleaner on HIGH, and stuck the hose straight into my face. I swear to you, with that "charm" working on me, full-tilt like that, I physically felt as though I needed to brace myself against the back of the chair in front of me, to avoid being sucked down into the drain by him. It was an actual, physical, tangible force. Magnetic like nothing I've ever felt before. I remember feeling as though I really needed to resist, HARD, while the vacuum remained on, otherwise I really would get sucked in. I had to make quite a deliberate effort to fight it off. By the time I sat back down again and he'd moved onto the next questioner, I was literally exhausted. Just DRAINED. I was out of breath, and all sweaty, like I'd just run several blocks.

I will NEVER forget that as long as I live. I could NOT believe the power he had, and it's not something I willingly gave over to him, either, because I was NOT a Reagan fan by ANY means, and prided myself on being resistant to his various "charms." I'd just never faced him up close.

So, I can see how woodward could, and clearly WAS, completely taken in by this. The flattery of that close access, and the close contact, sitting there at bush's elbow in the holy-of-holies, taking notes on stuff that nobody else was hearing or was close enough to hear - george is speaking JUST TO MEEEEEE!!!! Sigh... - and I tell you, sure as I'm sitting here, if you are NOT of a mind to resist it, deliberately and actively, you can and, as we can see from woodward's case, DO get sucked straight down in. I suspect that, up close, bush probably has some of that same aw-shucks "charm." He's said to have tremendous charisma in person, from what I've read. And especially if you go in with what you think is an "open mind" rather than a quest to poke holes or get to the bottom of something, or advance YOUR OWN AGENDA and not just "innocently" try to discover what theirs is (like we didn't already KNOW!), as woodward evidently did, you're sucker-punched. You've lost before you even speak your first word.

And I think they knew that when they allowed him in there.

Besides, who better to "take under your wing" and "reprogram" than one of the very icons of the Watergate truth-seekers. They completely neutralized bob woodward when they did that.

[quaoar]

14. So, did you ever get to ask your question?

Did he respond?

Long ago when I was in journalism school, a wise old professor told us how it was that he kept his perspective while in the presence of famous people, senators, presidents, etc. He said he would always make a point of watching powerful politicians as they walked into the men's room. He said watching someone go into the men's room to take a leak reminded him that that senator was no different than he was.

On the first day of class in another journalism class, everybody took their seats in the back of the room. The front rows were empty. The professor bellowed out for everyone to move down to the from immediately. "Journalists sit on the front row," he shouted. I have never forgotten that. The message was simple --- Never be intimidated by power -- you are just as powerful.

[calimary]

15. Yes. I did get my question asked. He answered in meaningless drivel,

and frankly, I'd expected him to say the bullshit-type things he did say. But the point was more to GET HIM TO SAY IT, or to say ANYTHING about that watt creep. Before that point, I hadn't seen anything, and james watt was rapidly turning into a huge boil on Reagan's ass with large numbers of the people. I asked basically "why do you continue to support this man when the polls show so many Americans don't?" He started with the predictably worthless "well, I have utter confidence ... blah-blah-blah..." which, to my amusement, seemed actually to verify something Reagan didn't intend. When he said he thought watt was doing a great job furthering the Royal-We agenda (and the public strongly didn't approve), it then followed that the public therefore does not approve of Reagan's Royal-We dictates, either.

You may be too young to remember but there came a point in the Reagan years when james watt put his foot in his mouth one too many times, and embarrassed himself beyond redemption. BIG public outcry that couldn't be blown off any longer and he had to resign.

And yes, that lesson about imagining whichever intimidating person it is - sitting on the commode, is a most valuable and famous bit of advice, as it deserves to be. I use it myself when needed, and have taught my kids about it. But that's how powerful Reagan's je-ne-sais-quoi was. One heckuva vivid memory to this very day.

[quaoar]

21. Not quite that young, I'm afraid

I only wish I was too young to remember him. Today he seems more like a clown than a dangerous fanatic. That shows the difference between the Reagan and Bush Administrations -- Reagan did not set out to dismantle society. A lot of what Watt tried to do was checked by the Democrats in Congress. If he was interior secretary today he would be strip-mining in Yellowstone and clearcutting in Yosemite.

Probably the most intimidating moment I ever had as a reporter was when I was an intern covering Washington for a small paper in Mississippi. I was in the House gallery and Trent Lott -- who was then still a congressman representing the Mississippi Gulf Coast region -- looked up and saw me, pointed at me and told me to come down and see him in the cloak room. My first thought was, "Oh shit, what have I done?" I thought I was going to get my ass chewed on the House floor. When I talked to him it turned out he just wanted to tell me about this bill he just got passed to allow dredging in a ship channel on the coast.

[cantstandbush]

23. Woodward is a neocon. Need i say more? n/t

[still_one]

2. he is a whore who is upset because he white washed

and justified bush going to war, and now realizes that he was fed a bunch of lies, and doesn't want to admit he screwed up

[ChiciB1]

10. TWO Peas In A Pod!!!!

We MUST realize that it takes "integrity" to admit you may have been wrong!

Neither he nor THE Boy King Wonder undestand the concept! Nor do most of the other "corrupt ones!"

[jobycom]

3. I haven't read Woodward's book, but it seems to paint a different picture

than Fitzgerald's investigation on the leadup to Iraq. If Woodward is right, Bush took charge and pushed for the invasion, and there was great debate on many issues. If Fitzgerald is right, the WHIG group was in lock-step to sell the invasion, even coordinating their lies to do so. In other words, the WHIG story is the one Woodward printed.

So Woodward may be defending his book, and his view of how things happened, and therefore rejecting Fitzgerald's implications that the WHIG was manipulating public opinion--even using Woodward to do it.

[peacetalksforall]

4. He morphed in to a pimp for the right. He has no credibility with me.

[Missy M]

9. I give him no credibility either. I think the Plame affair and the

lead up to the war, based on lies, is much bigger than Nixon and Watergate. Perhaps Woodward's ego is such that he doesn't want something to be bigger than Watergate, the story that made him a hero. He does seem to be a cheerleader for the Bush Administration.

[belle]

30. Maybe that's it. Depressing thought.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

5. Everyone who posted here is right

Woodward has lost any credibility he ever had in his pursuit to be a 'celebrity' author. He sacrificed his journalistic integrity in a minute for the big bucks, the acclaim, the ongoing book contracts, and - above all else - the access.

He sold out all his readers for access to people who lied to him, and then he helped propogate those lies, under the shield of "journalistic integrity."

"Whore" is far too good a word for Bob Woodward.

"Collaborator" is a better one.

[calimary]

6. bob woodward has sold his soul to the devil. That's what's wrong with him.

Note the quote at the top of this link -
a media marketplace that long ago concluded having access to power is more important than speaking truth to it. —Newsweek's Christopher Dickey, October 2005 essay

That's it, in a nutshell. He sold his soul for access. He forgets that he doesn't therefore work FOR bush, he still works for the Washington Post, and purportedly therefore, works for the people - whose education he either enables or disables by way of his reporting. If he's nothing more than a stenographer (which he HAS become) then the people don't get squat as far as truth or illumination of the dark crevices. If he's truly a journalist, his work will shine a light into the cockroach nests and his readers will be more informed for it.

It was a brilliant tactic for the rovians and whoever else decided to let him into the inner sanctum for the sake of his "writing a book" and the ever-popular "witnessing to history." Then, they had him on a pin like a bug in a specimen collection. He got in, and got his precious access. He also knew the unspoken deal - you have to behave yourself or we'll yank your all-access backstage pass permanently. You wanna write yer book? Then you know what to do, bob (wink-wink, nudge-nudge). He wasn't about to pee in his own picklebarrel, because he didn't want to lose that. In doing so, he gave into the siren song, and was bewitched. It's a shame, really. He's made a Faustian deal. And all for a couple of books that weren't all that great.

[melissinha]

7. Bernstein sees the parallels

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001391666

"But what the Plame leak investigation has unveiled is what the press should have been focusing on long before and without let up--how we went to war, the dishonesty involved in that process in terms of what the president and vice-president told the American people and the Congress, and the routine smearing by members of the Bush administration of people who questioned their actions and motives."

Addressed in this previous post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1883968

He definitely isn't dismissing anything here and is addressing the true issue at hand.... the coverup.... It just floors me that they can claim withholding intelligence from Congress with the "classified" excuse but can flippantly reveal classified information that furthers their objectives (crippling the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction unit of the CIA).

[rodeodance]

11. he made a Right turn seveal years ago.

[radio4progressives]

16. Woodward was a Republican during Watergate...

That was revealed in the film: "All the Presidents Men", when Woodward and Bernstein were in the thick of it, interviewing WH staffers - during one interview the staffer premises her remarks by say that she is a lifelong Republican, just as she is about to spill the beans... when she says that, Woodward (played by Robert Redford)says: "So am I" - this revelation was apparently a stunning revelation to Bernstein (played by Hoffman) who does a double take and stares hard at Redford, letting that information soak in.

Later I learned that Woodward worked with Navel Intelligence just before he took the job with the 'Post, and many people i know believe that he was still an intel operative while working at the paper, obviously working to oust Nixon.

Now, I can't answer the obvious question. It would be a huge leap of faith for me to say that I believe Woodward's job was to oust Nixon.
The dots just don't connect for me. And frankly after Watergate, I didn't exactly follow Woodwards's career. I have no idea what investigative work (if any) he did on the Iran Contra affair or the BCCI investigations that Kerry tried so hard to get investigated and prosecuted. I recall he tried to get his name in the headlines around Casey's death - but it was weird and I recall he was marginalized.

I just don't know what he's about but I do know that I don't trust him.

I certainly won't be buying and reading his version of the tales of the crypt vol ii when he's done. I'm certain he signed a secrecy oath and that he won't be giving readers anything important that isn't already be written regarding the Bush/Cheney administration, their decisions to go to war etc.

Maybe I'll prove to be wrong, but something tells me not to hold my breath.

[AntiFascist]

26. That's really interesting!!!111

because hasn't it also been revealed that Bush I, previously with the CIA, also turned against Nixon before his resignation? Could it be that Nixon was too successful with the peace process in relation to China and, as was pointed out in another thread, neocons may have had other plans for China which were later executed? Namely: keep China a totalitarian state, maintain the tension with Taiwan, introduce Capitalism, but foster corporatism and use it as a cheap military-industrial manufacturer, providing weapons that would be sold to Middle-Eastern entities who would later become our enemies?

I don't mean to defend Nixon. Certainly anyone who feels they are above the law in dealing with their adversaries needs to face the consequences.

[ChiciB1]

8. Woodward Went To Far Side!!

Rarely do you see Bernstein and Woodward together anymore.

I've noticed that Woodward changed a long time ago. For what reason I don't know, however I think the bulk of the turn-around came during Clinton.

That was about the time Tweety got so vociferous too!!

[xxqqqzme]

13. nothing - he's a ass*ole

once an ass*ole, always an ass*ole.

[WI_DEM]

17. corporate whore

he's been in it only for the $$$ for many years now.

I'm actually happy he got screwed on "Deep Throat" he had been milking that for years.

[...of J.Temperance]

18. Bob Woodward has ALWAYS had his head up the Repuke ass

Woodward is NO hero. The Watergate stuff was ACTUALLY Carl Bernstein, HE was the hero...Woodward just kind of tagged along like the whore he was and still is.

Bob Woodward is obviously also the bastard twin of Bill Kristol.

Here's Bobby:




Here's Billy:

[Cha]

19. Yes, and a lot of us on DU said

that a long time ago..nice others are noticing.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. If bush shit cantalopes .......

Woodward's nose would be yellow.

But he doesn't.

And his isn't.

Brown .......

[mitchum]

22. Woodward has ALWAYS been a spook!

[H2O Man]

29. Correct.

Woodward was in Naval Intelligence in the 1960s. This is not speculation, nor is it any secret. It is part of his biography.

While serving as an officer in naval intelligence, Woodward had a connection to the White House. This resulted in his becoming associated with a high-ranking FBI official, Mark Felt, who had also been associated with ONI.

Woodward has said that Felt directed him to a career in journalism. This is odd, because Felt had as much hostility for the press as does Cheney. And Woodward, who had little talent in the field of journalism, got some cushy jobs.

[upi402]

24. If * took a hard left...

Woodward's nose would be broke.

[cry baby]

25. THE ANSWER HERE:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

He says that Woodward has testified that someone high up told him about Plame a month before it went public. Read what Josh says at the above link.

WaPo article here will be in tomorrow's paper: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501857.html?nav=rss_politics/administration

[BigYawn]

27. If Scooter Libby is the only one Fitz can indict, then Woodward may be

proven right. No one knows yet for sure if more indictments
are coming down the pike.

[tsuki]

28. Is this multiple choice? Then my answer is (D) All of the Above.

31. We are being screwed over by the administration and the media

Instead of the way they would do it in China for instance, where they force newspapers to print what they want, here in America, since they can't force the media, they just pay them off, or take away their funds. Do you want to eat or do you want to starve?

Government funds scientists too, they have to go along to get along. I bet some other countries are just laughing at our hypocrisy, free country ha ha ha.

[Jacobin]

32. I am getting REALLY pissed at everyone DISSING Woodward!!!

Look, he's having a hard time, okay.

He's going through his transition to his real gender and lord knows going through that is absolute HELL.

I for one would be grateful to you DUers if you would just LIGHTEN UP about poor Bob....er Judy.


OKAY?????????????????????????????????????