BushBot Bob Woodward should be FIRED!

There are so many questions that need to be asked...The ones that are important concern Rover...WHY...would Rover allow the person who brought down his idol Tricky Dick Criminal Nixon to have unprecidented access at the White house...What do they have on Woodward? He wrote a softball book on the chimp ..It can't just be the money....NOW...he is involved in the Plame leak...after going on many programs spouting the RePUG talking point that Fitzgerald had nothing!
HMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmWhat is Rover up to?

The cockroachs are coming out of hiding.

took off.

Methinks he's high behind remaking the M.E.

the spin job. Remaking history through his master's eyes.

Miller
Woodward
Gannon

They all catapult neocon propaganda for the Republican culture of corruption.

Woodward took down Nixon is because he was too LIBERAL for him! Nixon formed the EPA and brought peace to Vietnam, Woody couldn't stand for that.

That's not a dangerous precedent or anything :eyes:

I guess I musta missed the Bill of Rights burning party, because apparently it's now acceptable to be dragged in front of "the man" or losing your job for having the nerve of being an investigative reporter. Not to mention folks will be far less willing to to put their families in jeopardy by seeking a reporter to get info regarding corruption out, esp on a local scale.

Might as well just keep your mouth shut now, and that is just sad.

Yes Woodward is a whore now, but the average Joe doesn't have access to whatever "real reporter" database apparently some of you are using.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

LMAO

Do you find it helpful for a democracy to have a press that relies on confidential sources? How about if those confidential sources have knowledge of unethical behavior within the gov't, and still provide source material that isn't expressly intended to reveal that unethical act?

I think there's more to it than a simple, black/white, first ammendment issue here. In fact, if there is a first ammendment issue, it is with regard to the press being truly free of gov't interference.
The Professor

While this case in particular may be marred with bushbots and their masters, it's the precedent that is very disturbing.

I'd like to point out that Woodward did not publish Plame's name, he had more sense than that, unlike Novak (who is the person I assume you are referring to). As for Novak, one would think that in his mind he was imagining a grand CIA conspiricy against the administration, and felt it was his duty to expose it. We may not agree with that, and he certainly did more harm than good to his republican friends, but reporting is what reporters do.

There are REPORTERS ON THE PAYROLL! The use of anonymous sources has become the M.O. of the White House press office. The reporters AREN'T reporting the news. They're regurgitating press releases.

As to Novak (to whom i was not referring earlier), it is not the job of a reporter, or a op-ed writer (and he's really neither) to imagine things and "report" those musings. And, it's not the job of a reporter to muse on a conspiracy against the administration and protect them. The press is supposed to reveal information about the gov't to protect the people's interest, not the power structure's interest.

You have already made up your mind that there's a sacrosanct first ammendment issue here, and have chosen to ignore the details that lead to a more serious issue.
The Professor

Thanks
Chow

People forget that repubs won't be in control of the White House forever, and once you start making distinctions about who is a "real reporter" and who is not, you've destroyed the credibility of ALL reporters. I mean, is Novak on "the payroll"? Woodward?

The reporters who are willing to simply relay the "message" have already lost credibility. My deciding anything is irrelevant. You'll have to do far better than that to make your point valid.
The Professor

is he on "the payroll"? Doubt it. Is Woodward, the man who took down Nixon, on the Bush payroll? Doubt it. He has def lost his mind, but that's about it.

My original point is the insanity of scratching out the first amendment, and the trickle down of doing so. If you cannot see the serious danger in this, then you are lost.

to being one more liar of record.

certainly gives credence to the theory that Watergate was a "palace coup" in shich the neocons began their takeover of the repuke party.

I was reading the article in the Post today about Woodward's testimony regarding the Plame case, and I was struck by his sheer arrogance. Apparently Woodward regards Patrick Fitzgerald as a "junkyard dog" (the article's words, though not a direct quote)prosecutor and really sees the Plame case as much ado about nothing.

Frankly, from where I sit, Fitzgerald is the one with the sterling reputation here, and the fact that Woodward is making cheap shots at him speaks volumes. Woodward identifies with those he should be exposing -- a severe problem at the Post in general, given the tone of their coverage and op-eds. There are still a few brave souls with a moral compass there, but they do not dominate the paper.

:hurts: