Disgusting.
Woodward lies to the Washington Post and the public, gives them a bunch of explanations as to why he never told his own editors about his involvement in the Plame affair while running around the country opining on it, his explanations hold no water whatsoever (we've repeatedly proven that here), yet the Post is fine with Woodward's lies, and now says let's move on.
Disgusting.
Woodward's excuses for not telling his editor?
1. That he was afraid of Patrick Fitzgerald, when Patrick Fitzgerald wasn't even appointed yet, and wouldn't be appointed for another 6 months.So, basically, Woodward's explanation is a total lie. And the Washington Post is accepting it.
2. That he was afraid of all the journalists being subpoenaed, when no journalists had yet been subpoenaed, and wouldn't be subpoenaed for another year.
3. That he was afraid of going to jail, when he then offered to go to jail instead of Judith Miller.
4. That he was afraid of telling anyone at the Post, when in fact he now says he told another Post reporter, Walter Pincus, about what he knew, yet still didn't tell his editor. And Pincus says there's no way in hell Woodward ever told him this.
One of their top reporters ran around for 2 years lobbying for the Bush administration, attacking the special prosecutor, when that reporter has a personal stake in the story. A lesser reporter might have been confused about what to do. Bob Woodward knew exactly what he was doing and why it was wrong. It's a bit like Martha Stewart and insider trading. A lesser person might be confused about the rules. A woman who's chairman of a company knows damn well what the rules are.
Woodward knew exactly what he was doing. He did it for 2 years. And the Washington Post has no problem with it whatsoever.
Disgusting.
(Read our debunking of Woodward's lies here. Read the Washington Post's executive editor repeat Woodward's lies here.)
