HYPOCRITTER: Plamegate: When Woodward Was NOT WORRIED About THREATS From The White House

[Segami]

HYPOCRITTER BUSHITE!







Bob Woodward's "I'm doing it for the kids" rationale for his interpretation of Gene Sperling's email as an attempt to chill his reporting is an about face from his previous posture when a White House engaged in real retaliation against any person who bucked the White House line. Specifically, in 2005 Woodward defended the Bush White House in extraordinary terms when they outed a covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame. See Why Is Bob Woodward Intent On Destroying His Reputation? and Woodward's Descent.

One of the interesting reactions to Woodward's defense of retaliation by the White House against Joe Wilson came from his Watergate reporting partner Carl Bernstein, as reported by Arianna Huffington:

I called Carl Bernstein to ask what he thought of his old partner's behavior. He was loyal as ever but he did say something very revealing -- and unintentionally damning. "This investigation," he told me, "has cast a constant searchlight that the White House can't turn off the way it has succeeded in turning off the press. So their methodology and their dishonesty and their disingenuousness -- particularly about how we went to war -- as well as their willingness to attack and rough up people who don't agree with them are now there for all to see. They can't turn off this searchlight, which is shining on a White House that runs a media apparatus so sophisticated in discrediting its critics it makes the Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Ziegler press shop look like a small-time operation." And these are the very thugs that Woodward was protecting while attacking the guy operating the searchlight. [Emphasis supplied.]


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/woodward-from-watergate-h_b_10773.html

It could be that Bob Woodward only cares now because he was the one getting pushback from the Obama White House (after all, why would the Bush Administration push back against Woodward? He was fawning in his coverage of the Bush Administration on Iraq prior to 2005—see, e.g., Bush at War ("[Woodward] is not analytical or critical, a skeptic of any sort or a questioner of any depth, and context is a concept as foreign to him as foreign policy. He only conveys an image the 'principals' on the inside, as Woodward loves to call them, want to reveal.&quot


Or it could be that he defended the Bush Administration on PlameGate because he was part of the scandal:

Bob Woodward apologized to The Washington Post yesterday for failing to reveal for more than two years that a senior Bush administration official had told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame, even as an investigation of who disclosed her identity mushroomed into a national scandal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111601286.html

cont'







http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/03/1190771/-Plamegate-When-Woodward-was-not-worried-about-threats-from-the-White-House

[Kolesar]

1. If he's washed up as a pundit, Pixar's hiring

Hey, somebody had to kick this thread!

[Buzz Clik]

2. He wasn't threatened.

Such incredible bullshit.