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?

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

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.

When I heard Woodward weeks ago on CNN, predicting that there may well be no indictments and that Fitzgerald's case was flimsy, I was already furious. It seemed obvious to me then that he had become compromised. He lied outright when he said that he had no bombshell. It's astonishing to me that he lied in that way over network television to millions of viewers and can still believe that he has any credibility or career left.

I saw the shift from reporter with integrity to well paid flunkey begin a while ago and really blossom in his last book. It's a classic trajectory among successful journalists who have as much to do with the current decline of American democracy as any corrupt poltician.

Thank you for holding him accountable. It is what we must all keep doing. If the three branches of government are supposed to exert checks and balances on each other, so are newspapers, journalists and readers. Right here I want to begin a campaign to ask the Washington Post to fire Mr. Woodward.

In the meantime, the LA Times has fired one of its best columnists, Robert Scheer. Despite promises to retain a balanced paper, the publisher is making all the moves necessary to turn the LA Times into a right wing rag. I suggest a consumer boycott is called for now.

The main point that Mr. Conason seems to have missed in the column "Woodward's Disgrace" is that whatever fumbling and bumbling Woodward seems to have done, has brought about the creation of a new grand jury. I will make clear who I favor. I look forward to the end of this terrible Republican era. Bush is a destroyer. He has been stupidly wading through this world leaving many dead in his wake.

Is it not true that a new grand jury may produce more indictments; maybe a Rove. Maybe Cheney will have to resign. Perhaps Bush will have to be impeached. How low will the neocons be pulled? Part of the answer to that question lies in what this new grand jury determines.

A critical part of western civilization is the pulling down of people who have been idolized. They rise. They are loved and they are pulled down in disgrace. Bush is now standing beside the pedestal. Why tear down Woodward? He cannot be a fictional character from "All the President's Men". And what was he doing back then? He was carefully putting together proofs in his reporting at great personal risk. He is no super creature and he is no longer the young reporter of yesterday. Even then, he was not waving around a firebrand. He was investigating and reporting.

I have great respect for Mr. Conason's written work. He has a cherished place in the opposition to the idiocy that has been in power. Hopefully he will do as well as part of the group coming into power. That being said, let's not eat our own.

Sadly, this articles sums up my feelings exactly. If Bob Woodward had simply not told his editor, I would probaly have tried to rationalize his behavior. What puts him beyond the pale is his willingness to shill for the Bush White House by lying and trashing the investigation consistently in public forums. Both the NYTimes and the Washington Post need to re-examine this whole phenomenon of having media stars who see themselves as more important than the institutions they are a part of. People like Judith Miller and Bob Woodward who think they can operate under a different set of rules. I don't consider Woodward a journalist. He's no Carl Bernstein.