Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Washington Post rebukes Bob Woodward
Reuters via CNN ^ | November 20, 2005

Posted on 11/20/2005 5:28:55 PM PST by Daralundy

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Washington Post's ombudsman rebuked journalist Bob Woodward on Sunday for withholding what he knew about the CIA leak probe from his editor and for making public statements that were dismissive of the investigation without disclosing his own involvement.

One of the best-known investigative reporters in the United States, Woodward revealed last week that he testified under oath to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that a senior Bush administration official told him in mid-June 2003 about CIA operative Valerie Plame's position at the agency.

Fitzgerald announced a few days later in court papers that his two-year criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's identity would be going back before a federal grand jury, a sign he may seek new or revised charges.

The name of Woodward's source has yet to be made public and so far more than a dozen senior administration officials have denied any involvement in the leak.

Asked on "Fox News Sunday" if he ever spoke to Woodward about Plame, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "No, of course not." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued a similar denial through a spokesman on Saturday.

In a column highly critical of Woodward's conduct, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell said the newspaper took a "hit to its credibility" and called for more oversight of Woodward's work.

"He has to operate under the rules that govern the rest of the staff -- even if he's rich and famous," Howell wrote of Woodward, one of the two Washington Post reporters famed for coverage of the 1970s Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon.

Howell said Woodward committed a "deeply serious sin" by keeping Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie in the dark about his source for more than two years.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bobwoodward; cialeak; deborahhowell; leonarddownie; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; rebuke; socialistcrookalert; valerieplame; woodward; wp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last
To: Brilliant

This is quite a smack-down for one of the most famous reporters in the world.

Must be more to it.


21 posted on 11/20/2005 6:04:19 PM PST by JustDoItAlways
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Biblebelter
Journalists were not thought of as first class citizens and neither were athletes for that matter.

Add actors/actresses to your list too.

22 posted on 11/20/2005 6:09:33 PM PST by 1066AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Daralundy
Deborah Howell said the newspaper took a "hit to its credibility

Don't you have to have Credibility before you can lose it?? They know his testimony is going to sink Fitzmas.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

23 posted on 11/20/2005 6:11:10 PM PST by bray (Iraq, freed from Saddamn now Pray for Freedom from Mohammad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
Washington Post rebukes Bob Woodward

...Yeah, Right! ...this is just a CYA exercise...IF they meant it, they'd fire the guy..

24 posted on 11/20/2005 6:12:44 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Daralundy
In a column highly critical of Woodward's conduct, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell said the newspaper took a "hit to its credibility" and called for more oversight of Woodward's work.

Isn't that like some old, skanky diseased whore trying to protect/assert her "Virtue"?

That was lost LONG ago, sweetie....now; about that "'round the world"....

25 posted on 11/20/2005 6:17:08 PM PST by Itzlzha ("The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvey
What's he done of note since Watergate?

..interviewing the (recently :) dead. ..Bill Casey

26 posted on 11/20/2005 6:20:12 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: skinkinthegrass
..interviewing the (recently :) dead. ..Bill Casey

Ah, yes, I remember: "Come closer, son...I have something vitally important -- cough, cough -- to tell you..."

27 posted on 11/20/2005 6:22:29 PM PST by Salvey (ancest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Daralundy

If the whole damned lot of liberal reporters withheld evetrything they ever thought they knew, would a tree have fallen in the forest? Would a firefly have flown. Would an anything done anything other than what it would have done anyway. Useless lot, these mediapeckerheadedbasturds.


28 posted on 11/20/2005 6:23:37 PM PST by mathurine (ua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daralundy
It's beginning to sound like the head honchos at papers like the NY Times and the Washington Post think they are "Big Brother."
29 posted on 11/20/2005 6:23:54 PM PST by syriacus (I'll take our success at liberating Iraq, over the "world community's" success at containing Saddam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daralundy

From the article: "He made a mistake going on television, giving his opinions about the investigation. ... He shouldn't have been expressing those opinions," Downie added on CNN's "Reliable Sources."

Translated: He should only have been expressing opinions that would reflect negatively on Rove/Bush/Libby/Cheney. How dare he cross the MSM! How dare he say, based on his own knowledge and observations, that Fitzy was making much ado about nothing!

Woodward commits MSM heresy!


30 posted on 11/20/2005 7:03:52 PM PST by JustTheTruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TimeLord

Don't forget to add Ithaca, NY; Madison, WI; and the Peoples Democratic Republic of Arlington, VA to your list.


31 posted on 11/20/2005 7:04:49 PM PST by Natty Bumppo@frontier.net (Navy Air!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Daralundy

"Asked on "Fox News Sunday" if he ever spoke to Woodward about Plame, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "No, of course not." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued a similar denial through a spokesman on Saturday."

I gotta say- I was giggling at Rummy today. Of course, he was giggling when Wallace asked him about this. Did you hear what he said? He said that at first he refused any interviews with Woodward, then the President asked him to do them. Rummy agreed, but everything had to be on the record and he insisted on a transcript. Rummy said the transcripts prove he said nothing to Woodward. Good for Rummy!

Perhaps all Bush administration officials can take a lesson from Rummy. Every conversation is on the record and they must insist on a transcript!


32 posted on 11/20/2005 7:11:56 PM PST by KCRW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD

Leave out Rin Tin Tin and Lassie.


33 posted on 11/20/2005 7:27:30 PM PST by golfisnr1 (Democrats are like roaches, hard to get rid of.>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Daralundy
It's much too late in the game for the Washington Post to pretend to be calling for a higher moral standard among its editors and writers.

Besides, no one would believe them if they did!

34 posted on 11/20/2005 8:13:58 PM PST by muawiyah (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Woodward doesn't need the Washington Post. The Washington Post needs Woodward. Yes, he made comments on the subject, so what. He should say: "I don't think I should be discussing that?"

Woodward watched the game being played. Novak did it different. He wrote the article to cover his butt over what he saw as a Political Media plot.

I think Woodward did the right thing by waiting. It may get us to the truth. Wapo would have blown it.

35 posted on 11/20/2005 8:23:30 PM PST by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Daralundy
"He has to operate under the rules that govern the rest of the staff -- even if he's rich and famous," Howell wrote of Woodward....

Many of these "journalists" at the Wa Post don't like the sweetheart deal Woodward has where he basically gets to write books and make a bunch of money. They were ok with it as long as he criticized republicans. Now that he criticized Fitz instead of Bush, the jealousy is in the open for all to see.

36 posted on 11/20/2005 8:42:58 PM PST by double_down
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TimeLord

Credibility? That's a laugh!

On March 23rd The Washington Post joined with thirty five other media organisations in filing an Amici Curae brief in the US Appeals Court for the District of Columbia in defense of Judith Miller that claimed that Ms Plame did not qualify as a covert agent and that there was no crime in discussing her status. The brief was well reasoned and quite explicit. http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF

Now, Woodward is rebuked for not revealing that he was involved in something that the Washington Post pleaded before the court was nothing at all in the first place.


37 posted on 11/20/2005 9:03:58 PM PST by Wil H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: double_down
They were ok with it as long as he criticized republicans. Now that he criticized Fitz instead of Bush, the jealousy is in the open for all to see.

Obviously. But that is beneath. What is happening on the surface? Taken at face value, what is the meaning of the ombudsman's rebuke? Woodward shouldn't be discussing what everyone else is discussing? Just because he had one piece of inside information that is insignificant except for how the chronology happens to bear on the case?

38 posted on 11/20/2005 9:19:24 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Daralundy

If Judy Miller of the Times had done anything like this, she would have been, oops. Never mind!


39 posted on 11/20/2005 9:43:24 PM PST by tang-soo (Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks - Read Daniel Chapter 9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wil H
On March 23rd The Washington Post joined...that there was no crime in discussing her status. The brief was well reasoned and quite explicit.//Now, Woodward is rebuked for not revealing that he was involved in something that the Washington Post pleaded before the court was nothing at all in the first place.

LOL! ...It seems, Facts/Truth Still don't matter to the WaPo...except when its' convenient.

40 posted on 11/21/2005 3:28:03 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson