Pincus denies being told anything of the sort by Woodward. Woodward is a liar.

i do not understand how reporters like Russert, Novak, Cooper and Miller could all have sat on their hands in the period leading up to the presidential election.

they all knew their source was someone in the President's extreme inner circle and had to have heard the President deny any knowledge.

how could they...and possibly Woodward ... remain silent about an issue that so questioned the President's credibility?

legal investigation or not...those so-called reporters tossed their journalistic principles aside when they did not pursue the matter on their own before November 2004.

Dear Editor:

I actually find it more disturbing that Woodward felt that Valerie Plame's name was leaked 'accidentally' as gossip. These are the men who are in charge of our country, our security, and our military. If they are gossiping with reporters about classified information, tht is horrifying. On top of that, many of them are lawyers, and should have a lot of practice at keeping confidences.

How does Woodward explain why LIbby would lie about something that's 'just gossip.'

In my opinion, it's all about agenda. It would be easier to dismiss Woodward's information if he seemed bent on taking on the administration as a whole. It's much easier to question the research of someone who had an agenda to begin with. But by playing coy, he's sidestepping accusations of intent, and comes off as merely looking for the 'truth' in all of this.

Woodward keeps saying there was no crime because Plame's identity was leaked "so casually".

I kept waiting for Larry King to ask him, don't you think you could have been used as a stooge by this administration, with whom you've become too imbedded?

Tom Shefchik

San Jose, CA

I gave Mr. Woodward the benefit of the doubt and tuned in to the beginning of the interview. I was able to hold out until the 2nd break. Unfortunately, Woodward was taking no responsibility and was trying out a new version of things implying that he needed to get to the bottom of everything before speaking up. Larry King tossed a couple of difficult questions at him, but neither followed up nor pushed him on the namby pamby answers.

I would have thought that Woodward would have been more prepared, his story more polished, but he just came off as having been caught and trying like crazy to look innocent and say, "trust me there's nothing here."

He did however manage to mention several of his books by name at least 6 times.

Woodward had a chance to take responsibility for his actions, apologize to his readers and admirers and lay out a plan to redeem himself. He chose to continue dissembling. It was a pathetic performance by what has become a pathetic excuse for a reporter. In my opinion, he no longer deserves our respect.

I think Woodward is functioning as a pawn (and perhaps a willing one). I'm curious about who's "playing" him. Just before Scooter's indictment, somebody was told (at least) one reporter that Woodward had a bombshell secret. Woodward said he didn't have even a firecracker but claimed someone from the CIA called him saying a reporter from the NY times was also claiming he had a bombshell. Somebody wanted wanted Woodward to come forward ASAP and say that he knew about Plame before Miller did. If he had done that, there would have been two definite consequences and one more possible consequence. It would have eliminated the claim that Scooter was the first leaker and it would have propped up the idea that Plame's job was widely known among reporters. And considering how a simple email spooked Fitz out of indicting Cheney, the aforementioned two consequences might have caused him to rethink or delay indicting Scooter.

Woodward says that since the leaker told him casually, it couldn't have been deliberate. That reminds me of a quote from a 90's movie, Basic Instinct.

"Did she tell you casually and make it seem irrelevant? Did she tell you in bed, Nick? That's what I'd do."

To me, Woodward lost his credibility with his story of hearing the death bed confessions of Bill Casey. It was then that, to me, he move to the status of literary hack. I don�t believe his new story. It�s my thought that he�s setting up things to sell his new book. He�s used his alleged position trusted as a insider too many times to take him seriously. I may be wrong, I admit I�ve been so before, but it seem all to convenient that the one person he claims to have told his story to, a seasoned reporter actively investigating the matter, can�t remember the conversation with Woodward about it. His story of trying to avoid having to testify before the grand jury suggests, since he could have like Judith Miller claimed the right of confidentiality, that he doesn�t have the conviction to defend the first amendment rights that are recognized by forty-nine states. Miller was willing to go to jail for that right. If he had joined the fight, maybe Judith would not have spent that time of incarceration and , having the support of the Post and Times put up a better fight for the freedom of the press. As I have said, I see him as a hack , whose credibility is suspect, or apparently someone without the courage to stand up for those things he has claimed to support in the past. If nothing else, I�m sure he will peddle yet another of his shallow, ninety day wonders, that will live on the best seller list for a month or so. Then we must remember that justice is a process, not a result. And Mr.Woodward (and maybe all of us) should take to heart the words in a lobby in Langley. �The Truth Will Make You Free�.

The question that always seems to not be asked by King when his buddy Woodward is a "guest", continually befuddles me. Why is it that Larry has he never asked him: "Bob, how is it that you happened to be at that meeting when deposed CIA push-over Tenent used "slam-dunk" to cheer-up Bush Inc. on existance of WMD? I mean, Bob, what kind of clearence do you actually have to be at such an important meeting and be able to take notes? I mean, Bob, what sort of meeting were you at when that White house official discussed Plame with you? Was it one of those passing-in-the-hall snickers or another one of those "note-taking deals? Really, Bob, why were you so cynical about Fitzgearld on my program the other night? Would you like to tell my audience about that one, or perhaps, take a call or perhaps travel to Mongolia to pay tribute to their 136 warriers taking bunk space as part of the Collalition of the Willing! Really Bob, somthing really smelly is going on here. Wanna' talk about it now or before you are indited?"