You become what you hate.

Editor:

Bob Woodward is a nice legend, but it's not true, it was never true. The "Deep Throat" conservative probably picked Woodward to do the expose, along with the other "sacred cow" Ben Bradlee.

There was a Republican gang-up to get Nixon out of the future, to make room for the die-hard right wingers: Cheney and Rumsfeld to be at the top.

Nixon's foreign policy was disasterous and cruel. His domestic policy, however, was moderate Republicanism. The right-wing group of that party was ascending in power already planning to put Reagan in the presidency. They had planned since the late 60's to take over the U.S. and pursue imperalism.

Woodward's adherence to Bush is obvious under the false guise of being a Democrat. When did he ever act like a Democrat? Furthermore, the Washington Post is frightening in its longtime bias against Democrats, against liberal thinking which is simply open and progressive.

Now, we know major newspapers are corporate dominated, and want the U.S. firmly on the right to benefit their companies, patriotically working against the rights of the average working American.

Bob Woodward and WaPo reflect the current administration's stench.

Oakland, CA

If I were Leonard Downie, my response to Woodward would've been the same as that of the Editor of the New Republic to Stephen Glass:

"You're fired. You have 30 minutes to clean out your desk. Leave everything except your law books. If you don't leave within that time frame, I will call security."

Bob Woodard is "rich and famous" or so says Deborah Howell, the Post's public ombudsman. In that description lies Bob's problem; he made/makes a lot of money. He hobnobs with the powerful. He is in a higher tax bracket, and I would guess he likes the Republican approach to wealth: more for us, and the rest of you slobs wait for the "trickle-down." Why would Bob expose corruption in an administration that continues to make him wealthier and provides him with ACCESS? For Bob its a win-win situation. 30 years and a lots of dollars later, Bob knows who butters his bread.

The fact that Bob Woodward is still seen as some kind of hero shows just how much American's reads. Which is not much.

The guy was a CIA briefing officer and worked on top secret communications on one of the most secret ships in the Navy. How convienant for him to happen to have access to top people at the FBI and "expose" the so called "Watergate" scandal.

He is and always has been a sham and anyone who believes him is an idiot and a dumbshit. To be shocked by him defending the most corrupt administration we've ever had is to prove my point above.

Thirty years ago, Bob Woodward symbolized the power of journalists to expose corrupt officials. Today he's a symbol again, this time of the power that officials have to corrupt journalism.

The consistently superior efforts of Joe Conason and Salon and some notable others notwithstanding, what hope is there for the future of journalism as a check against governmental misbehavior? The prevailing structures of corporate ownership, commercial interests, regulatory access and so on seem to stack the deck impossibly against the public.

Can existing journalistic institutions be redeemed, and what changes would be necessary or even possible? Or is the rise of citizen journoblogging our only hope?

The story of Woodward's progression through U.S. politics seems to echo the change in politics and culture itself. From muckraker to mud flinger. So many people, influential artists and politicians who started off as iconoclasts and voices of dissent, have fallen in love with their own power. Paul McCartney becomes Sir Paul McCartney. Hitchens becomes a bloated conservative pundit. Anti-war activist John Kerry becomes a timid, half-hearted democratic senator who couldn't rally the country against even the most insanely corrupt presidency possibly EVER. Even Nader fell in love with his own watchdog image.

And now this. To learn that the man who helped take down a corrupt president is now COLLUDING with a corrupt president. . . .

The post-WWII frenzy of American self-importance is, hopefully, coming to a dramatic conclusion. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but soon. What lessons will we take away from this? Maybe when historians talk about Woodward and his ilk, the entire stupid patriarchy, they'll have the good sense to tell the ENTIRE truth. For the sake of future generations I hope so.

My spiritual beliefs teach that we are responsible for our knowledge. I sincerely question how Woodward's chameleon type values work for him. He has not only let his employers down he has disgraced his profession. I heard a sound bite in which Burnstein tried to diplomatically explain this treachery... careful Carl, there may be too many fleas on this dog.

Dear Joe:

Thanks for your column. I read, with rolling eyes, of Woodward's claims that no damage was done by the "outing".

You don't have to be much of an expert in what intelligence work really means to understand that an "outing" doesn't have to expose James Bond in mid-microfilm-purchase to "damage national security".

For argument's sake, let's assume that Mrs. Wilson was among the least of the CIA's "assets". That she was an expert, for what it's worth, in one extremely minor African country of near-zero strategic or economic importance. That her main function was to sit in her cubicle, grinding through such chores as comparing all the stated outputs of that country's mines to stated purchases of same. Perhaps to see if any, ummm, copper ore was going astray. And perhaps financing some deputy minister's political base, say. Whatever. Most such work is very mechanical and dull paper research.

Her ability to do this job was much enhanced by her personal connections to a number of political and business figures in that country, from her days as "the wife of the American ambassador". From which position she can go to lots of dull parties when visiting, and make chitchat - about how the mine expansion is going and doesn't Mr. Mkende seem to be the Rising Star in the Party lately?

The personal connections occasionally turn up actual information and more often provide hints about things that are hard to read from satellite photos or mine output reports: the looks people get from other people, the size of entourage somebody showed up at a party with, the rumours that are flying around amongst the wives. Hints that help indicate who's gaining and losing power in the local politics.

Then she is outed. Sure, they knew before that she was the American Ambassador's Wife and not somebody to tell your secrets to. Some may have even known she had her own government job. But now, the difference is, nobody will speak to her AT ALL. No chitchat about how work is going, none about current rumour mills, people will flee corners of the room she strolls near.

Is the CIA much damaged? Of course not. One minor employee is less good at her job; has no personal connections any more, could be replaced by any data analyst that likes to read mining reports.

They can probably replace the resource in a few years, just slip another employee into the embassy social whirl and rotate back to the states after a few years to start a program of frequent return visits to Stay In Touch with friends. Hardly more than a few hundred thousands of salary dollars and a year or two before you're back up to the same information level.

Now then: at exactly what point would you arrest somebody if they broke into the CIA parking lot and started playing Demolition Derby with the Company cars: after $100,000? $200,000? Could Scooter and Bob just pop in to smash up a half-dozen Hummers and write it off to petty cash?

There's no need for professionally-aghast liberals to play this up as high treason and risk to life & limb; all they have to do is hold to the position that some significant damage was done to the CIA's capabilities in one area. Maybe the loss is almost meaningless; maybe Ghana becomes some kind of hotspot tomorrow and there we are, half-blind to the local political nuances when we need it most. It doesn't matter.

Damage was done. The CIA has a job to do, and a right to expect not be damaged that way without very good reason to sacrifice the asset - or just part of the asset's abilities. No good reason has been given. Case closed.