He also talks to people by telling them they won't be quoted and then he quotes them by saying things like "Oh, I was able to confirm what you said from other sources," so I quoted you.
And he's spent the last 30 years on TV, telling anybody who will listen that "No, this scandal/rumor/problem is not as big as MY story, Watergate."
His entire existence is tied to this one story - and now we find out he was just as dishonest in this story. And he's going to do or say whatever it takes to justify every word he's written about it for the last 30 years.
But he's in trouble now because we have access to information now -- and some people are going to be checking.
If you want my opinion, the reason it took him three days to come up with this LAME explanaton today in the Post it's because he thought Felt would die and couldn't refute a word he said so he spent 3 days "editing" the obituary and story he and Bradlee had written in anticipation of Felt's death.
What was lame about the Woodward piece in your view?
I know that one is controversial, but is it now beyond per adventure that he was lying? Is that now accepted as part of the historical record?
One very late, I completely agree with you, bump!
Could I have picked a worse week to be computer-less, and without FR?