1
   

The fall of Bob Woodward

 
 
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 06:55 pm
The fall of Bob Woodward
By James Carroll
November 21, 2005
Boston Globe

AT WHAT point does naiveté become something to be ashamed of? The revelation last week that Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward abetted the Bush administration's program of lies and character assassination left you feeling as if you, too, have been a coconspirator in the sleaze. Not that you were under any illusion about the turn Woodward's career took when he became a justifying megaphone for ''Washington insiders." Nor is it a surprise to find the dean of investigative journalism acting like every other self-protecting member of the establishment, since journalism itself has become a pillar of the governing power structure. But Woodward represented something more than all of this, and his quite American fall from grace (''The bigger they come") presents a challenge to your conscience.

''Watergate" is the most familiar word in the political lexicon. It means two things at once, referring first to the American low point, when the White House became a den of law breakers. You remember that the crimes of the Nixon cabal were meant to shore up the walls of deceit behind which the war in Vietnam was being fought. Lies and unjustified violence defined the nation's soul. But Watergate also became code for the most dramatic reiteration of national redemption, when diligent truth-seekers brought to light the methods and purposes of Nixon's band. The myth of American goodness depends on the conviction that, when the truth is finally apparent, the nation will act upon it. Watergate was the morality tale that made it so, and Bob Woodward, with his partner Carl Bernstein, was the moral hero. It is not too much to say that Woodward rescued your ability to believe in your country again.

The free press is an absolute value not only because the unfettered flow of information is essential to the republican system, nor only because the fourth estate serves as a check on the power of the other three, but because public expression is necessary for the communal self-awareness that keeps the body politic alive. You routinely turn to the newspaper each morning not only to learn what happened, but to stroke the otherwise intangible bond you share with the neighbors and strangers in whose company you will spend the day. Reading the morning paper is like tagging up, a literal ''touching wood," a dispelling of the darkness of night, all done in the knowledge that everyone else is doing the same thing, which gives you not only a place to start the day from, but a reassurance that you are not alone in your concern for the common good. The news media do for democracy what liturgy does for religion; what poetry does for experience; what gesture does for feeling. With words out of silence, the press tells you who you are.

And why shouldn't you be disturbed by Woodward's fall? As Watergate was about the war in Vietnam, so the Valerie Plame affair is about the war in Iraq. Woodward turns out to have been just another embedded reporter, doing the war-work of the Bush administration while pretending to be independent of it. But, speaking generally, the press has not been independent since the traumas of the autumn of 2001. Newsrooms were themselves targeted by the anthrax killer, and the fear that paralyzed the nation was felt as much by reporters as by anyone.

So also that season's grief. Like frightened and heart-sick scribes looking to Marines to protect them on the battlefield, and therefore unable to write critically about their protectors, the news media, with rare exceptions, simply embraced and passed along Bush's purposes and justifications, not matter how palpably dishonest. Judith Miller was the public captain of this enterprise, but Woodward was her secret co-captain. This time, he was his own Deep Throat.

Your naiveté consisted in the belief that, after Vietnam, your nation would never again embark on a criminal and unnecessary war. After a popular movement, inspired by tribunes of the free press, stopped the Vietnam War, you believed that the government would be responsive to the will of the people, forgetting that the people can surrender that will.

The finger-pointing in Washington now -- who voted for what, when and why -- is truly pointless. The merest glance back at the prewar debates shows that the justifications for war were all made of tissue. If the press treated them as substantial, that is because the nation itself, which still includes you, needed the tissue to cover its shame. The tissue of lies is yours.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,944 • Replies: 34
No top replies

 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 06:57 pm
Thanks, Bob Woodward. Our profession really needed this.
Another media star in bad role
By Randy Schultz
Palm Beach Post Editor of the Editorial Page
Sunday, November 20, 2005

Thanks, Bob Woodward. Our profession really needed this.

Three decades ago, Mr. Woodward exposed a presidential administration's secrets. Now, the Washington Post assistant managing editor and author has admitted that, in essence, he helped to protect an administration.

More from Opinion
•Sound off in the blog
• Columnists
• Editorials/Letters
• Don Wright cartoons


Last week, Mr. Woodward revealed that, in 2003, a Bush administration official had disclosed to him the identity of Valerie Plame. She was a covert CIA officer when her husband, Joseph Wilson, challenged the administration's false claim that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear weapons material from Niger. Not until late last month, however, did Mr. Woodward tell his boss that he had heard about Ms. Plame so long ago. Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie called it "a mistake."

Well, yes. As other reporters went before the special prosecutor and the scandal grew and the vice president's chief of staff was indicted and resigned, Mr. Woodward stayed silent, withholding information that still might affect the case. As he went on television to criticize the special prosecutor, viewers and readers didn't know that Mr. Woodward was part of the story.

Mr. Woodward says he didn't want to be subpoenaed, though he now has testified. He says he wanted to protect a source, who still doesn't want to be identified. What Bob Woodward doesn't say is how much he has changed in 33 years, and not for the better.

No longer the outsider of Watergate

When the Nixon White House broke into the Watergate, Mr. Woodward was a general assignment reporter. He and Carl Bernstein broke the story that changed history because they were outside the capital press corps Establishment, most of which bought the White House's story that Watergate was a "third-rate burglary."

Since then, Mr. Woodward has become the consummate insider. Though he still works for the Post, his reputation comes from books about the powerful in Washington. He rarely breaks stories in the paper that tell the public what the powerful are doing when it matters. He practices what critics call "stenographer journalism," quoting people at great length without offering context, perspective or scrutiny. By saving the best for his books, readers of the paper don't know what he learned until it's too late.

Plan of Attack, for example, showed that President Bush began working to invade Iraq months before he began seeking authorization. That information might have affected public opinion and the debate in Congress, but the book didn't come out until long after Mr. Bush had invaded. Mr. Woodward did what he never would have done during Watergate: He sat on a story.

He's done it again, and this time the story is about him. To me, Mr. Woodward wanted to knock down the leak story to keep special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald away from Mr. Woodward and his source. He did everything but call it a third-rate leak.

Reporters got bigger than the readers

The New York Times must be happy. The paper still is taking justified criticism after former reporter Judith Miller got off the leash and became part of the Valerie Plame story. Like Mr. Woodward, Ms. Miller deceived her editors and held back information from readers because she wanted to protect a member of the Bush administration who had been a source. Mr. Woodward's disclosure shifts the focus to the Post, at least for now.

But my profession still looks bad. Management allowed these stars to become bigger than the papers, and let down the readers in the process. Protecting sources is an honored principle of journalism. In the Plame case, however, the sources were not gutsy, midlevel career civil servants who had information the public needed to know. The sources were political appointees who wanted to head off criticism as President Bush's case for invading Iraq collapsed.

All good reporters cultivate access, get leaks and trade information back and forth with sources. We get used regularly by people who want certain stories in the paper. That's all right, if we know the person's motivation and the story checks out. Reporting has killed a lot of good stories.

The system breaks down when readers come second. Mr. Woodward and Ms. Miller put their access to the White House first. As usual, the coverup is the problem in the Plame case. Usually, though, the newspaper isn't part of the coverup.
---------------------------------------------------------

Find this article at:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2005/11/20/a1e_schultzcol_1120.html
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 07:30 am
Good article BBB, thanks. I agree with the author, we were willfully misled into a war based on shaky intelligence which no one challenged very much. (or at least a good of Americans were)

I also agree about Woodward, he sure has went from a prince to a toad from his cowardly actions of keeping silent about his part in this yet still going around bad mouthing the prosecutor and the whole investigation itself. To top it all off even his claim of protecting his sources rings hollow considering he did testify in the end without getting one of those many mentioned waivers.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 08:35 am
revel wrote:
Good article BBB, thanks. I agree with the author, we were willfully misled into a war based on shaky intelligence which no one challenged very much. (or at least a good of Americans were)

I also agree about Woodward, he sure has went from a prince to a toad from his cowardly actions of keeping silent about his part in this yet still going around bad mouthing the prosecutor and the whole investigation itself. To top it all off even his claim of protecting his sources rings hollow considering he did testify in the end without getting one of those many mentioned waivers.


The looney left Smile They've gone from drinking the KoolAid to bathing in it.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:07 am
Rather than just making snide remarks, why don't you try saying something of substance for a change?

Since you bolded "without getting one those many mentioned waivers" I assume you have information that Bob Woodward got permission from his source before talking to Fitzgerold?

Quote:
Mr. Woodward says he didn't want to be subpoenaed, though he now has testified. He says he wanted to protect a source, who still doesn't want to be identified. What Bob Woodward doesn't say is how much he has changed in 33 years, and not for the better
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:34 am
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:38 am
revel wrote:

Quote:
Mr. Woodward says he didn't want to be subpoenaed, though he now has testified. He says he wanted to protect a source, who still doesn't want to be identified. What Bob Woodward doesn't say is how much he has changed in 33 years, and not for the better


Revel:

Thank you for clearing that up.

for a moment there, I thought JustWonders had a point. But as you showed, she does not.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:38 am
Quote:
Rather than just making snide remarks, why don't you try saying something of substance for a change?


Yeah, good luck with that one

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 11:16 am
BBB
My main criticism of Bob Woodward is that he has a conflict of interest with the Washington Post and it's readers. He holds the title of Assistant Managing Editor. He appears not to do much actual work to maintain that title. Instead, he mainly writes books. He has not been required to obey the Post's rules re journalists for many years. He passes along some information to the Post for it's stories. He sometimes conceals information from the Post to save for the books he writes. The Plame issue is only one example.

It appears that the Post keeps Woodward on it's management staff because of his gravitas. I think Woodward should resign from the Post if he cannot decide whether he is one of it's active journalists or primarily an author in business for himself. It is the only way he can recover from his self-inflicted wounds and restore the integrity of the Washington Post.

Woodward wrote all of the books listed in the article below while on the payroll of the Washington Post.Books

Woodward has co-authored or authored ten #1 national best-selling nonfiction books, more than any other contemporary American writer. They are:

All the President's Men (1974) about Richard Nixon and Watergate
The Final Days (1976) about Nixon's resignation
The Brethren (1979) about the United States Supreme Court in the Warren Burger years
Wired (1984) on the comedian John Belushi and the Hollywood drug culture
Veil (1987) about the CIA's "secret wars" during the reign of William J. Casey
The Commanders (1991) on The Pentagon, the first Bush administration and the Gulf War
The Agenda (1994) about Bill Clinton's first term
Shadow (1999) on the legacy of Watergate
Bush at War (2002) about the path to war with Afghanistan following September 11
Plan of Attack (2004) about how and why President Bush decided to go to war with Iraq
Woodward's two other books, also national best-sellers, are:

The Choice (1996) about Clinton's re-election bid
Maestro (2000) about Fed chairman Alan Greenspan
Woodward's newest book, The Secret Man (2005) about Deep Throat revealed as Mark Felt. The book was written in only 10 days, to capitalize on the unexpected admission by Felt, as Deep Throat.
Newsweek magazine has excerpted five of Woodward's books in cover stories; 60 Minutes has done segments on five; and three have been made into movies.


Woodward lives in the Georgetown section of Washington. He is married to Elsa Walsh, a writer for The New Yorker, and has two daughters.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 12:14 pm
Plame's Husband Urges 'Washington Post' Probe of Woodward
Plame's Husband Urges 'Washington Post' Probe of Woodward
By Joe Strupp
Published: November 22, 2005 12:00 PM ET
NEW YORK

Joseph Wilson, the husband of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, urged The Washington Post on Monday night to investigate the conduct of Bob Woodward and his role in the leaking of Plame's name to the news media, according to The Boston Globe.

Speaking at Northeastern University, Wilson called on the Post to conduct an inquiry similar to the one The New York Times recently undertook related to its reporter, Judith Miller, the Globe reported today.

"I think it would be useful for The Washington Post to do an inquiry, like The New York Times," Wilson said during the event at Northeastern's Blackman Auditorium, according to the Globe.

Woodward revealed last week that a White House official had disclosed Plame's identity to him in 2003, just weeks before columnist Robert Novak revealed the name in print. The Post also has revealed that Woodward failed to tell his editors of the information until last month.

The Globe said Wilson, a former ambassador and diplomat, spoke in front of several hundred Northeastern students and later signed copies of his book about the leaking of his wife's identity.

Wilson also told the Boston paper that he and his wife had different reactions to the leak when it occurred. "Initially, he cursed and ranted privately about the disclosure," the Globe reported. "Valerie, on the other hand, said she felt like she had been kicked in the stomach," Wilson told the paper. But, it reported, "She moved quickly to salvage what operations and relationships she could."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Strupp ([email protected]) is a senior editor at E&P.

Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001526314
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 12:19 pm
Did anyone watch the Woodward interview on Larry King last night?
I watched part of it - he's too annoying <IMNSHO> to take a full hour of - so I kept switching over to Celebrity Poker Cool

Anyone <who wasn't paid to do so> make it all the way through?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 12:27 pm
ehbeth
ehBeth wrote:
Did anyone watch the Woodward interview on Larry King last night?
I watched part of it - he's too annoying <IMNSHO> to take a full hour of - so I kept switching over to Celebrity Poker Cool

Anyone <who wasn't paid to do so> make it all the way through?


I caught the last half hour. I've never seen Woodward so uneasy during an interview.

See my opinion of Woodward's actions and what he should do on page 1 of this thread.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 12:28 pm
revel wrote:
Rather than just making snide remarks, why don't you try saying something of substance for a change?

Since you bolded "without getting one those many mentioned waivers" I assume you have information that Bob Woodward got permission from his source before talking to Fitzgerold?

Quote:
Mr. Woodward says he didn't want to be subpoenaed, though he now has testified. He says he wanted to protect a source, who still doesn't want to be identified. What Bob Woodward doesn't say is how much he has changed in 33 years, and not for the better


Woodward was given permission to testify, but not given permission to disclose his source's identity to the general public.

Quote:
Mr. Woodward said he provided sworn testimony to Mr. Fitzgerald on Monday, only after his original source went to the prosecutor to disclose their two-year-old conversation. But because Mr. Woodward said that source had still not authorized him to disclose his or her name, he set off a frantic new round of guessing about who that source might be and a wave of public denials by spokesmen for possible suspects.


LINK
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 12:41 pm
The Astonishing Amorality of Woodward: Take Two
The Astonishing Amorality of Woodward: Take Two
RJ Eskow
11.22.2005

Bob Woodward's amorality was displayed again on Larry King Live last night. His bloodless performance raised the question: Is there an XYY chromosome for journalists? Here are some hightlights:

On why he felt justified in saying during his last Larry King appearance that "he didn't have a bombshell," despite the later revelation that he knew of Valerie Plame's identity before any other journalist: ... a source had, when I asked about Joe Wilson, told me that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst.

At that point and on your show I didn't know what that meant at all because it was such a casual offhand remark.

In other words, a crime lacks significance if, in his opinion, it was performed "casually" or "offhandedly." And note the use of the phrase "WMD analyst," as if it she just had that famous "desk job" the slime machine kept telling us about, and not a covert operative's role. "On your show," says Woodward, "I didn't know what that meant" -- even though by the time he was "on your show" it was widely known that Plame had been covert and that indictments had been handed down.

But it's the implication that any act performed "casually" is acceptable that creeps me out. Paging Mr. Bundy ...

In response to King's comment/question, "But should you -- you later apologized. Should you have told your editor?": Yes ... (but) I was trying to avoid being subpoenaed ... Um, isn't that the same as saying "I didn't want to get caught?" What am I missing here?

Out of context, in order to repeat the discredited falsehood that the original crime was not serious: "... (Fitzgerald) did not indict anybody for the underlying crime, so he seems to at least at this point agree with that point." What Woodward does not say - lying again by omission - is that Fitzgerald explicitly addressed this point in his statement when he indicted Libby, saying that the obstruction of justice prevented him from properly investigating the underlying crime.

Then there was this astonishing exchange:

KING: In retrospect, Bob, could you have said on the show that night, well to you and your viewers I do have some information, I'm working on it, something was said to me but I can't reveal it? That would have covered this whole thing.

WOODWARD: But that's always the case. That's always the case and that would be, you know, well what is it? You would have asked me what are you working on? Is it bigger than a breadbox? Is it a bombshell? Is it a firecracker? Is it a stick of dynamite and so forth?

In other words, deceit by omission was OK...

King did a good job with his buddy Woodward, and there's more good material in the interview. But it is this next response that tells us all we need to know about Bob Woodward. Larry King read at length from the Post ombudsman's piece, which said "Last week we found out that he (Woodward) kept the kind of information from Downie, the editor that it is a deeply serious sin not to disclose to a boss. That kind can get a good reporter in the dog house for a long time." King asked, "Why didn't you tell him?"

Woodward's response: "Because I, you know, I was focused on getting the book done."

Downie, fire this guy.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 03:58 pm
I liked Larry King more last night than I've liked him in years - he was actually questions that weren't full of fluff and feathers. Answers would have been helpful <in the portions I watched>
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 04:24 pm
bethie

My take exactly. And Woodward was, as BBB describes it, uncomfortable.

It's the first worthwhile minutes I've seen King do in a long time. For some weird reason, he stopped kissing ass in that interview. Perhaps some old reporter's instincts were engaged.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 04:29 pm
or perhaps he felt used by Woodward the last time he appeared on the show.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 05:04 pm
revel wrote:
Rather than just making snide remarks, why don't you try saying something of substance for a change?

Since you bolded "without getting one those many mentioned waivers" I assume you have information that Bob Woodward got permission from his source before talking to Fitzgerold?

Quote:
Mr. Woodward says he didn't want to be subpoenaed, though he now has testified. He says he wanted to protect a source, who still doesn't want to be identified. What Bob Woodward doesn't say is how much he has changed in 33 years, and not for the better


Why don't you check your sources or try posting factual statements for a change?

When Woodward was asked by Larry King last night whether he'd gotten waivers to testify, he said not only had he gotten waivers, he'd been encouraged to testify truthfully by everyone involved in the case, including WH officials.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2005 07:08 am
I stand corrected.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2005 10:30 am
transcript of Larry King-Bob Woodward interview 11/21/05
CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Interview With Bob Woodward
Aired November 21, 2005 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

LARRY KING, CNN HOST: Tonight, exclusive Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Bob Woodward, caught up in the CIA leak controversy. What did he know about Joe Wilson's wife Valerie Plame? When did he know it and why didn't he tell his boss for more than two years; Bob Woodward for the hour next on LARRY KING LIVE.
Good evening. Tonight, we welcome Bob Woodward for one of his many appearances to LARRY KING LIVE at our request and he did accept almost immediately.

The assistant managing editor, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, has two number one "New York Times" best sellers. His books have included "The Secret Man," the story of Watergate's Deep Throat and "Plan of Attack." He's currently writing another book.

A little background on November 14th Bob Woodward gave a sworn deposition to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in connection with the public disclosure of the identity of the CIA officer Valerie Plame.

The deposition focused on small portions of interviews that Woodward had done with what he characterizes as three current or former Bush administration officials.

The interviews in question were conducted in June of 2003. Woodward says it was in mid-June that one of those officials told him that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

The hottest parlor game in Washington is trying to guess the identity of the still confidential source. That source has released Woodward to talk to Special Counsel Fitzgerald but not to publicly disclose his or her identity.

This program has come into question because on the night of October 27th in response to rumors that he'd have a bombshell he was on this program. Michael Isikoff of "Newsweek" said the following, watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, "NEWSWEEK": I talked to a source at the White House late this afternoon who told me that Bob is going to have a bombshell in tomorrow's paper identifying the Mr. X source who was behind the whole thing. So, I don't know maybe this Bob's opportunity.

KING: Come clean.

BOB WOODWARD: I wish I did have a bombshell. I don't even have a firecracker, I'm sorry. In fact I mean this tells you something about what's the atmosphere here. I got a call from somebody in the CIA saying he got a call from the best "New York Times" reporter on this saying exactly that I supposedly had a bombshell.

KING: And you (INAUDIBLE) tonight right?

WOODWARD: Finally, this went around that I was going to do tonight or in the paper. Finally, Len Downie who is the editor of "The Washington Post" called me and said, "I hear you have a bombshell. Would you let me in on that?"

KING: So now the rumors are about you?

WOODWARD: And I said I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Okay, Robert, what were you not telling us that night?

WOODWARD: Well, first of all, I was telling you the exact truth that I did not have a bombshell or any story for the next day's paper. I did know that back, you know, over two years ago at the end of a very long interview, substantive interview for my book "Plan of Attack" a source had, when I asked about Joe Wilson, told me that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst. At that point and on your show I didn't know what that meant at all because it was such a casual offhand remark.

KING: But should you -- you later apologized. Should you have told your editor?

WOODWARD: Yes. I have a great relationship with Len Downie, the editor of the Post and I was trying to avoid being subpoenaed and I should have, as I have many, many times, taken him into my confidence and I did not.

KING: But did you also know when you came on and these may be difficult things for investigative journalists that you had to talk about the Plame case and yet you knew you couldn't say certain things about it or wouldn't say certain things about it?

WOODWARD: That's true. But every time somebody appears on your show talking about the news or giving some sort of analysis there are going to be things that they can't talk about. It's not at all unusual. There are all kinds of things.

I'm working on a book, "Bush's Second Term." I'm trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together. There are things I know that I'm just not going to talk about involving that research.

So, it's an ongoing process and to take a snapshot, which is fair, when that was asked of me I knew in the back of my mind how offhand and casual this was and I was trying to make the underlying point, which I think is very important that it seemed to me there was no crime, underlying crime in this investigation.

In fact, the very next day when the Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald announced he was indicting Libby for perjury, he did not indict anybody for the underlying crime, so he seems to at least at this point agree with that point.

So, I don't find it unusual. I don't find it uncomfortable going back to the Clinton years or all kinds of things we've talked about. I try to give as much information as I can but it is inevitable, if I'm doing my job trying to dig into what's going on in the Bush administration, what is the nature of this war, what is the CIA up to that there are going to be things I know that we can't talk about or I'm not going to bring up most certainly.

KING: In retrospect, Bob, could you have said on the show that night, well to you and your viewers I do have some information, I'm working on it, something was said to me but I can't reveal it? That would have covered this whole thing.

WOODWARD: But that's always the case. That's always the case and that would be, you know, well what is it? You would have asked me what are you working on? Is it bigger than a breadbox? Is it a bombshell? Is it a firecracker? Is it a stick of dynamite and so forth?

That is the nature of this kind of reporting. Remember, I'm trying to figure out what goes on in a very closed secretive White House and have had some success at doing that because of the process, "The Washington Post" giving me time to do these in-depth examinations or books.

KING: Last week the Post ombudsman, Deborah Howell, said "Last week we found out that he (Woodward) kept the kind of information from Downie, the editor that it is a deeply serious sin not to disclose to a boss. That kind can get a good reporter in the dog house for a long time." Why didn't you tell him?

WOODWARD: Because I, you know, I was focused on getting the book done. You know the significance of this is yet to be determined and what's the good news in all of this is when it all comes out, and hopefully it will come out, people will see how casual and offhand this was.

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, small piece of the puzzle I acknowledge, is that that was not the case. So, I'm trying to find out and focus on immense questions about are we going to go to war in Iraq? How are we going to do it? What is the nature of Powell's position? What did Cheney do? What was the CIA's role? How good was the intelligence on all of this?

I think at this point I was learning things like that the CIA Director George Tenet went in and told the president the intelligence on WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk. That was new. That was the basis of this incredibly critical decision the president and his war cabinet were making on do we invade Iraq?

KING: When and why did you finally decide to disclose it to your editor?

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.

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.

I then went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode and called the source the beginning of the next week and said "Do you realize when we talked about this and exactly what was said?"

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."

And so, I realized I was going to be dragged into this that I was the catalyst and then I asked the source "If you go to the prosecutor am I released to testify" and the source told me yes. So it is the reporting process that set all this in motion.

KING: Did you also ask -- I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt. Did you ask the source...

WOODWARD: No.

KING: ...then in view of that why can't I announce your name to the public?

WOODWARD: I did later in the week and the source said no.

KING: We'll take a break.

WOODWARD: And I would love to. OK.

KING: We'll take a break. We'll come right back with Bob Woodward.

As we go to break here is the editor of "The Washington Post" Len Downie. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD KURTZ, "RELIABLE SOURCES": Deborah Howell, the Post ombudsman writes this morning that the paper took a hit to its credibility and that the Woodward episode put the Post in a terrible light. Do you disagree with that?

LEN DOWNIE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Oh, I think that's for other people to judge and for time to tell but certainly Bob made a mistake and a mistake that he's apologized for and also he made a mistake going on television giving his opinions about the investigation. Whether or not he was holding this secret he shouldn't have been expressing those opinions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATRICK FITZGERALD, SPECIAL COUNSEL IN CIA LEAK INVESTIGATION: Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July, 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14, 2003 but Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA.

Several other reporters were told. In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: And that, Bob, is when you jumped right?

WOODWARD: Yes, exactly and this is where reporting, just like this prosecutor here every bit of information I have he's trying to find out what happened. A reporter, it's not always a straight line from A to B to C and I did jump and I thought what is the significance of this? What is my obligation to get information out to the public?

And that's why I went to my source. And also in that press conference Patrick Fitzgerald said something that really kind of struck me. He said that truth is the engine of the judicial system. And when I testified to him under oath this came up and I said "I like to think that in my business journalism that truth is also one of the engines. At least it's what we aspire to."

And so there is this moment when I realized I have a piece of something. I truly don't know what it means but then I go in a mode where actually some people said, you know, why did you do this? Why not stay out of it? Why get involved?

And all of the juices, my wife Elsa told me this is you could almost just almost hear it the reporting news juices running. And so, I started talking to people and I talked to the source and that process now led us, you know, what a couple of weeks later we know a lot more about this case. And that's what we do in journalism. We try to get more out and this has happened in this case.

KING: Mr. Downie said you should not have given your opinion. Was he correct?

WOODWARD: Yes. I think I was a little hyper and a lot of pent up frustrations that night. And as you have pointed out a number of times, I tend to be very neutral, overly neutral and I think I should find ways of expressing myself that don't look like I'm making a judgment or voicing an opinion but offering analysis or hopefully some new facts.

KING: Do you have concerns about why this source doesn't want he or her to be known for us to know him or her? Wouldn't that concern you?

WOODWARD: Sure, always.

KING: In this truth and nothing to hide government?

WOODWARD: I would love it but here is the issue. The public rightly and passionately wants to know what's going on in government behind the scenes. What's the real story?

I've spent my life trying to find out what's really hidden, what's in the bottom of the barrel? To get what's in the bottom of the barrel you have to establish relationships of confidentiality with people at all levels of government.

You have to establish relationships of trust and then those people will provide you with information and evidence so you can get to the better version, what Carl Bernstein and I used to call the best obtainable version of the truth.

KING: But when you are in that position it's obvious you can also be used for example.

WOODWARD: Sure.

KING: Bob, I'll tell you this and what you release don't mention me will be beneficial to me and you like it because I'm telling you something I didn't tell him, so it's quid pro quo.

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.

So, everyone in the end, you can't do this for a daily newspaper story, pretty much gets their point of view out.

KING: But don't you have to in that sense sort of like him? He's given you three hours. He'll help you with the next book. Doesn't that give him an edge with you?

WOODWARD: He is giving his position. You know an edge in what sense do you mean an edge?

KING: Well he's not going to come out looking terrible because you want him for your next book and you'd like to have that in.

WOODWARD: But, you know, I would never compromise. You know, if I may, I brought some headlines in "The Washington Post." Do these make any sense?

KING: I think so. Hold them up a little.

WOODWARD: Yes, OK.

KING: Or you can read them.

WOODWARD: Yes, OK, this is November, 2002 before -- as the book "Bush at War" came out about the war in Afghanistan, "A struggle for the president's heart and mind" -- struggle. It explains in great detail how Powell had different positions. There was immense tension and difficulties in the war council.

Let's see this is the second part of that series, "Doubts and Debate Before Victory Over the Taliban," doubts and debate. Now, anyone who knows anything about the Bush administration they'd rather keep doubts and debate off stage. I bring them on stage in this book.

You know I don't want to go on but "The New York Times" front page when the book "Plan of Attack" came out last year, "Airing of Powell's Misgivings Tests Cabinet Ties" and says the book jolted the White House and aggravated long festering tensions in the Bush cabinet.

So, I'm not compromising anything and anyone who looks at the books or the coverage will see that it has some pretty tough stuff in it. At the same time, the president or others get to express their point of view.

KING: Let me get a break.

WOODWARD: I believe that's journalism.

KING: We'll come right back with a man who some think when they see journalism in the dictionary get his picture, Bob Woodward. Don't go away. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If during the course of the public trial information comes out with regard to other people who have leaked, the source of the leak or other people who have disclosed Ms. Plame's identity, would this then reverberate back to you since you have been studying this if new information is forthcoming during the course of the trial?

FITZGERALD: If I can take it with -- answer your question with a bucket of cold water and say let's not read too much into it. Any new information that would ever come to light while the investigation open -- is open would be handled by our investigative team concerning these facts.

So, if there's anything that we haven't learned yet that we learn that should be addressed we will address it but I don't want to create any great expectations out there by giving sort of a general answer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WOODWARD: There's a lot of innocent actions in all of this but what has happened this prosecutor, I mean I used to call Mike Isikoff when he worked at "The Washington Post" the junkyard dog. Well, this is a junkyard dog prosecutor and he goes everywhere and asks every question and turns over rocks and rocks under rocks and so forth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: And, Bob, adding to that on NPR this summer you said, "I think when all the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great." Have you changed your mind?

WOODWARD: You know it's an ongoing story but just let me take what I said to you on the eve of these indictments of Scooter Libby. I called him the junkyard prosecutor. I think that's a term I shouldn't use because it's easily ripped out of context.

Mike Isikoff was there. Mike Isikoff I hired at "The Washington Post" many years ago. I used to laugh and call him a junkyard dog reporter as a compliment because he never gives up. And here on the eve of this indictment I'm saying this prosecutor looks everywhere, looks under every rock.

Well the irony is the next day I learned that he was missing a significant piece that -- or it might be a significant piece and it involved me so I'm one of the rocks he never turned over in an interesting way. And, as people have rightly written, so, you know, what do we know about this? It went on for two years. A piece was missed.

KING: But you still wouldn't -- you still wouldn't say you think the consequences are not great.

WOODWARD: Could be that the consequences are not great. Certainly the charge against Scooter Libby is about as serious as you can get.

KING: Sure.

WOODWARD: But the issue was there some sort of conspiracy or organized effort or effort by one person to out, to disclose publicly that Joe Wilson's wife was an undercover operative I haven't yet seen evidence of that. Now, in this case we all get surprised me at the top of the list.

KING: Doesn't it appear a little that way though when your other source won't let it be public who he or she is? That sounds conspiratorial.

WOODWARD: It may be but I pressed that source as much as you can and I'm not going to -- if you remember back into Watergate and Mark Felt, the number two in the FBI who was the source "Deep Throat" we kept that secret for 33 years because the source insisted upon it.

And what does that mean just in the practical world? That I can go around and get information from people and they know they're going to be protected. I'm not going to go out and risk that and do something.

You know I am protecting not a person but a relationship and the information I get for my newspaper and books and that's the vital lifeline. Now, if we want to come up with a system that prevents people from providing that information, you know, what are we going to do? I mean take the yard off junkyard, it will be junk because our portrait of government will be false.

KING: Didn't you once call Fitzgerald though disgraceful?

WOODWARD: No. I said it is disgraceful that we have an investigation where reporters are being subpoenaed and jailed.

KING: Oh.

WOODWARD: And again I should find words that say I hate it. I don't like it. I think it is not good public policy. I think people really do need to know what's going on in government and if this is going to become a habit watch out.

KING: We'll be right back with Bob Woodward on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE.

Jerry Seinfeld will be with us tomorrow night and Wednesday night Judge Stephen Breyer of the United States Supreme Court.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back with Bob Woodward of the "Washington Post," who's currently writing another book on this administration.

You got a working title yet, by the way?

WOODWARD: I do not. Have to see, you know, what's the -- a lot of it's about Iraq, obviously. But it's not even a year into this second term.

KING: OK. Your source, did the source indicate whether Mrs. Plame was an undercover agent or a desk analyst?

WOODWARD: Good question. And specifically said that -- the source did -- that she was a WMD, weapons of mass destruction, analyst. Now, I've been covering the CIA for over three decades, and analysts, except -- in fact, I don't even know of a case. Maybe there are cases. But they're not undercover. They are people who take other information and analyze it.

And so -- and if you were there at this moment in mid-June when this was said, there was no suggestion that it was sensitive, that it was secret.

KING: How did it even come up?

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.

I learned that that ambassador's name was Joe Wilson, which was, you know, Wilson eventually surfaced...

KING: I see.

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.

KING: All right.

WOODWARD: One of those things. And so I -- I didn't think much of it.

KING: What did Libby say when you were with him? Was that a more complete discussion?

WOODWARD: No. Now this is what's interesting. And I had two -- one phone conversation and one long interview with Libby during this period. I had questioned lists that had hundreds of questions, one of them Joe Wilson's wife. I had no recollection at all that I asked about Joe Wilson's wife. I'm taking extensive notes. Libby said nothing about Joe Wilson's wife or about this in any way at that time.

So if he was involved in something like this, at least he decided -- when I say this, somehow outing her -- he decided not to converse with me about it. But because it's on a question list, and this is why Fitzgerald was turning over every rock.

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.

KING: There's been some criticism as to why you agreed to submit written questions to Vice President Cheney, which is normally not your bag. Why?

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...

KING: ... did you meet with Cheney?

WOODWARD: Not in this period.

KING: Did you meet with him for the other book, though? It wasn't just rigid questions, or was it?

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.

KING: We'll be right back with more of Bob Woodward. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TED WELLS, LEWIS LIBBY'S ATTORNEY: Mr. Libby is very grateful to Bob Woodward for coming forth and telling the truth. We are also very grateful for Mr. Woodward's source, who permitted Mr. Woodward to come forward. All we want in this case is for the truth to come out.

And we urge all reporters who have relevant information to do like Mr. Woodward did today and come forward with the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: That was Scooter Libby's attorney, Ted Wells.

Two questions. What do you feel like, being involved in a story, rather than covering it? Because that's what this is. And number two does Libby know who your source is?

WOODWARD: I don't know the answer to the second question, what Libby knows about this. You know, you get gratitude from people, and from strange places, and then there is the same, beware of what you wish for.

And sometimes -- that's a lawyer defending Libby, and that's our system. And, you know, don't be surprised if I get denounced by them at some point in this. That happens in journalism, but I am strictly in the middle. I don't wear a uniform. I'm not red state or blue state in this.

I did provide information in this case about Libby.

KING: What was that like, by the way? What was it like to be deposed?

WOODWARD: No, that's a good question. I guess it was just a week ago. It was in the offices of Wilmer Cutler, a law firm here in Washington, and my lawyer, Howard Shapiro, a former FBI general counsel, somebody I would turn to again, a superb lawyer.

And it was in a conference room, court reporter. I'm sworn. This is like the grand jury. Patrick Fitzgerald is there.

The head FBI agent, and one of Fitzgerald's deputies. Howard Shapiro on my right, Eric Lieberman, one of "The Post" attorneys, Bill Murphy, my assistant who happens to be a lawyer, an old army JAG lawyer, and a woman, named Jacqueline Moyer (ph) from Wilmer Cutler.

So, we're there. It's Patrick Fitzgerald is a very direct questioner. He had lots of--he questioned. He would check it off.

KING: Any you refused to answer?

WOODWARD: No, nothing. I was able to answer every question. And I'm grateful that Howard Shapiro and he -- you know, this is a classic awful situation that has sent one reporter to jail, and lots of hand wringing, and doubts within news organizations, "New York Times" and Time Magazine."

In a way I think, because they went first, we were able to learn some lessons here. Namely, get releases from everyone. I got specific releases directed to me waving all confidentiality, and not just saying you can testify, saying, we request you testify.

This is from the unnamed source, this is from White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and from Scooter Libby.

KING: What would you have done if the source had said don't tell them, and you were subpoenaed to deposition. Would you refuse?

WOODWARD: That is a situation I have not had to deal with in this case. But of course, when I went into my aggressive reporting mode, I didn't know exactly what was going to happen.

Now, if I hadn't done that, and the source had said, keep quiet, it's confidential. Then the special counsel in this case, Fitzgerald, wouldn't have known, I guess, and I would have stayed out of it.

You know, I don't like this is a mighty uncomfortable situation, but think how much more we now know about this story, just in the last week.

And yes, some people are unhappy, and angry about my role, but you know, you keep running into situations as a reporter, where you're going to go. And it may be a little rough for awhile, but you're still doing your job.

KING: Back with more of Bob Woodward of "The Washington Post" don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back with Bob Woodward.

With all those people at the deposition, do you feel that one of them might leak? Hey, it's Washington.

WOODWARD: Yes. That's quite possible. And that's something you have to deal with. My lawyers aren't going to, and I'm not going to do it. You know, we --the publisher of "The Post," Bo Jones, talked to recently and as we were going through this.

He's the one who as publisher in representing the business side and the news side reports to him, he raised the flag highest in our internal discussions about protecting confidential sources. He used to be "The Post" general counsel. He's a lawyer, and he knows that you have to protect those sources, at all costs.

KING: Does Mr. Downey know your new source? The source not yet named?

WOODWARD: Does he know who it is? Yes, he does.

KING: As Ben Bradlee knew in the Watergate.

WOODWARD: That's exactly right.

KING: If you had...

WOODWARD: Hopefully, this isn't going...

KING: I'm sorry go ahead.

WOODWARD: Hopefully, this isn't going to be 33 years until we find out exactly what happened.

KING: What if someone else finds it out? Fair game?

WOODWARD: That's fair game.

KING: If you had to do it all over, what would you change? Obviously you would tell Downey.

WOODWARD: Yes.

KING: What else?

WOODWARD: And then as he has said, as Len has said, we would have worked. And, you know, it's a matter of record, and it's a matter of my sworn testimony.

I made efforts to get the source, this year, earlier, and last year, to give me some information about this so I could put something in the newspaper or a book. So, I could get information out, and totally failed.

So, Len has acknowledged if he knew, there would have been nothing different in all of this. Len is not--Ben Bradlee's predecessor was a very colorful figure well know. Len is less so, but is--and it's not my nature, but I'll say this. He's the best newspaper person in the country. And he was one of our editors on Watergate 30 years ago.

And so I've known him through, you know, presidencies, Iran- Contra, all the Clinton scandals, you name it. And somebody I totally trust. He's a busy man. And I should have made the contact and told him about this.

KING: Would he...

WOODWARD: But I'm not sure anything would be different.

KING: What happens if another "Post" reporter finds out who it is? Would Downie prevent him from printing it?

WOODWARD: You know, he -- I think Len has said he would not, if it was independently established. People spent -- I hate to keep going back to this -- 33 years trying to figure out who Deep Throat was. They wrote articles, books, TV specials about it, and so forth.

And I was never delighted that people were trying to chase down that source; I'm not delighted in this case. But it's part of the process. KING: Doesn't it, just emotionally -- I've known you a long time -- give you any inertia? Don't you want to say it? I mean, isn't there...

(LAUGHTER)

No, no, I'm not kidding.

WOODWARD: Good try. Good try.

KING: No, no, everybody wants to say over the back fence, "Did you hear?" Who doesn't want to do that?

WOODWARD: Yes. But this isn't a back fence issue. This is about -- you know, if I treated it that way, no one would trust me. And I'm not treating it that way. I'm treating it with the utmost seriousness.

And what I was going to say about the special counsel, Fitzgerald, is that he and Howard Shapiro found a path through all of this where I could answer all the questions, provide what information and evidence I had to the special counsel, and he never asked about something that had to do with confidential conversations on other issues, on matters unrelated to this investigation.

So, quite frankly, I was astounded that we were able to do this, because other people got in this confrontation with him. He was quite respectful of the First Amendment. And he has said publicly he's not looking for a First Amendment showdown. Well, he demonstrated that.

So his -- there was a balancing that went on here, quite frankly. And this is -- this is part of the learning for me, that I did not think was possible. But in this case, it worked.

KING: We'll be back with our remaining moments with Bob Woodward right after this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEONARD DOWNIE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, WASHINGTON POST: Bob has become very famous, and it's difficult to cope with that kind of fame, I think, for anybody. But also give him extraordinary access. I think if you just look at his books and look at his work product in the newspaper, you'll see that he plays it straight. He reveals things about the inner workings of the administration that people need to know that no other reporter reveals, and he does it in a straight and accurate and fair way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: In our remaining moments, do you think your reputation's been harmed?

WOODWARD: I mean, that's for other people to judge. KING: Do you think so?

WOODWARD: You know, I -- I think the biggest mistake you can make in this sort of situation as a reporter is to worry about yourself. And the issue here is what happened, what can I aggressively push to get in the newspaper or a book, and then in the end, you can deal with this.

Thirty-three years ago during Nixon and Watergate, I was 29- years-old. And there was a daily drumbeat denouncing Carl Bernstein and myself and saying the stories are lies, they're fabrications, they're untrue. That we're using anonymous sources and that there's some political motive and so forth. And that was -- that's how I got into this business, and -- and Ben Bradlee, the editor just, you know, "Be cool. Stick to it."

KING: And by the way, have you talked to him?

WOODWARD: Pardon? Yes.

KING: Was he supportive?

WOODWARD: He takes -- I mean, I'm going to quote him. This is the way Ben talks. He said, "Woodward doesn't have to tell anyone every goddamn thing he knows." And the -- you know, I -- I disagree with that. If Ben were around and I would have told him, and I should have told Len in this case.

But the -- you know, the issue of what's this about looms really large. And I remember, because it's seared in my head, going back to Watergate. Katharine Graham once asked about when are we going to find out the truth? When is everything going to come out?

And I said, "Never."

And she looked at me with this glare and this sense of pain. And she said, "Never? Don't tell me never."

And that was not a threat. That was a statement of purpose.

KING: And I'll ask it. When is this whole thing going to end?

WOODWARD: I don't know. We'll keep chipping at it and running at it. And people will write things, and there will be controversy. And welcome to American journalism.

KING: Do you still feel sorry about Judy Miller?

WOODWARD: Sure. I mean, she -- I don't know all the facts in that case. And so I'm -- you know, and there's more that have come out, and so forth. And I'm -- you know, the reporters -- and when I say, "Don't think about yourself," I mean the other reporters, also. What's the story? What can we tell people about this?

And then I go back to Bradlee again. He said, "The truth emerges." KING: Thanks very much, Bob, as always. Always good having you with us.

WOODWARD: Thanks.

KING: And we appreciate your coming here tonight.

Bob Woodward of the "Washington Post." Still lots more to learn. And we're going to do our best to try to find out all we can. And Woodward will be on the scene, as well. Bob Woodward.

Tomorrow night, Jerry Seinfeld is our special guest. And on Wednesday night, Judge Stephen Breyer, justice, United States Supreme Court.

Right now, our supreme pleasure to turn the podium over to Anderson Cooper and "ANDERSON COOPER 360." See you tomorrow.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The fall of Bob Woodward
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/21/2025 at 07:52:45