I've been wondering whether Woodward's lack of candor and his sour grapes attitude about Fitzgerald's investigation might have been because his narrative didn't quite match up with Fitzgerald's, which might compromise both the "integrity" and sales of his book.

Also, could Woodward's revelation be relevant to Novak's statement that he couldn't tell his own story yet because Fitzgerald had left something on the table?

Would that all the media accomplices to the Bush Administration's lies were exposed as Woodward has been. He sure ain't the only one.

If the Doctor were still around, he might suggest Ibogaine. There are Ibogaine clinics in Canada that could help Woodward. Maybe his friends should kidnap him and airlift him across the border in a hockey bag and get him into a program. He would spend a night or two shivering in a cold sweat assaulted by psychedelic visions of his past transgressions and end up with a deeper understanding of the emotional issues underlying the need to feel special that caused his tragic fall from journalistic hero to White House catamite.

I keep reading that Woodward has "apologized" for his television appearances in which he criticized Fitzgerald without divulging his own role in this case. I submit this apology will not be complete until he appears on "Fresh Air" and discusses how he deceived its viewers -- until he appears on "Larry King" and "The Daily Show" and every other program on which he deliberately tried to steer us wrong. It is his viewers and readers to whom he owes an apology, and he's been so omnipresent in media this past summer that he'll have a lot of work to do to reach them all.

Sir:

Mr Downie reassures us that Bob Woodward, 'Did not lie'. Oh, for joy. I am much relieved. Mr Downie needs to take off his spinning goggles and remember lies of ommission are as bad as as untruthful as...well, fiddling of pre-war intelligence by neo-con gremlins. at present, Mr Woodward has all the class of Bill Clinton trying to convince his fellow Americans that blow jobs don't count. Mr. Woodward's strident comments through national broadcasters denegrading and playing down the importance of Fitzgerald's investigation, reeks of someone trying to cover his Pulitzer Prize winning rear. His 'I didn't want to be subpeoned' excuse is more than revolting, it's cowardly.

I have long been an admirer of Mr Woodward. I am on the left/center end of political debate. I despise this war and the administration that 'massaged the message' to draw the world into it. I have never voted Republican in my life. I think of Rush Limbaugh as a kind of pond scum. (just to establish my credentials as a proper lefty) But if Mr Downie doesn't have the stomach to tell it straight to the American people, then I will. Mr Woodward, no matter how many times you slice it, you're a liar. And you have betrayed us all. Please leave the building.

Jon Steele

1. Was it one mistake or two, from what I can tell, the paper goes from zero to two randomly.

2. Could Woodward or someone else explain the Post's policy for other writers in the past 5 years as a comparison point for understanding the response to the criticisms at hand--same reprimand? different? why?

3. I must be obtuse, because I'm not seeing the parallels of integrity from Watergate that the Post's editorial does--I don't think either of them was writing a book back then, as reporting, and holding things back for publication--was I wrong? Does Woodward have a contract on this topic for publication? We should know now.

4. Compare and contrast Woodward and Miller on this story--how should the Post be proud of the tradition at your paper versus hers?

5. By the way, still looking to cling to Woodward as a hero in his field--sadly disappointed that perhaps he lost his way.

Extremely disappointed on this subject. FYI, as opposed to Woodward, I want to make clear that I have no involvement in this other than watching and reading--seriously, what a joke he has become.

I think it unfortunate that a once courageous reporter has allowed himself to be so compromised.It looks like he got sucked into the GOP machine.

This is a reporter who exposed corruption in our government at the highest level. By doing so he made a name, a career, and a reputation for himself. Now he ruins it all by protecting corruption at the highest levels of government. By being scared of losing what he had, he seems to have lost it all. Fear is a powerful emotion, but it certainly not an excuse.

Bob Woodward made a decision to protect his source, and as a result, the public is still being jerked around by more lies.

Woodward waiting until after the indictment smells of cronyism! The fact that he has been part of the Bush �inner circle� for so many years has clouded his judgment, as well as his cronies at the Post. It appears he has made the same mistake that Judy Miller did, falling in love with power. When the love of power forsakes the love of truth, the public suffers.

Woodward�s argument of �protecting sources� should not apply when those sources are the very ones who mislead us into war. Sources like these, who needs enemies?

I am sad and disappointed by Woodward's revelations that he, too, is in on the coverup. Such a change from 35 years ago!

From Fitzgerald's point of view, Woodward had evidence relevant to an ongoing investigation, knew the evidence was wanted by the prosecutor, and yet refused to divulge it, and hid his connections to it (until forced to reveal it.) Doesn't this paint Woodward not just as a coward, fearful of having to divulge his sources or face jail time, but worse, a co-conspirator?

If Fitzgerald decides to pursue a theory of criminal conspiracy to reveal Plame's name, or a conspiracy to cover up the release of Plame's name, isn't Bob part of the conspiracy now? (And not just passively, refusing to tell what he knows, but also actively, in his comments on CNN and NPR?!)

SHAME on you, Bob!