Comments on: Is Woody Out? http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/ Firedoglake weblog Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:07:59 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: gman http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82716 gman Fri, 28 Apr 2006 04:08:03 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82716 <p>Excellent, fascinating analysis.<br /> Slightly OT: Does anyone think it’s possible that Robert Novak’s other source–besides Rove–is Woodward? He could be described, in Novak’s world anyway, as being “not a partisan guhnslinger.” After all, he helped bring down a Republican President.</p> Excellent, fascinating analysis.
Slightly OT: Does anyone think it’s possible that Robert Novak’s other source–besides Rove–is Woodward? He could be described, in Novak’s world anyway, as being “not a partisan guhnslinger.” After all, he helped bring down a Republican President.

]]> By: Pilgrim http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82679 Pilgrim Fri, 28 Apr 2006 03:29:49 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82679 <p>Heh, heh. Woodward called Fitzgerald a “junkyard dog.” Maybe he’ll have to deal with that “junkyard dog.”</p> Heh, heh. Woodward called Fitzgerald a “junkyard dog.” Maybe he’ll have to deal with that “junkyard dog.”

]]> By: aw http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82646 aw Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:53:31 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82646 <p>I wear a hearing aid. I also have a Tiffany clock that I received after ten years with my old company engraved with “What?”.</p> I wear a hearing aid. I also have a Tiffany clock that I received after ten years with my old company engraved with “What?”.

]]> By: vachon http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82524 vachon Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:17:19 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82524 <p>Wow! Great analysis. </p> <p>Unfortunately, I don’t see Woodward going anywhere. The rose may be off of Woodward’s bloom, but he still has immense credibility with the general public. The Post’s reputation isn’t precisely sterling these days, so imho, it’s better for the Post to be seen with him than without him.</p> Wow! Great analysis.

Unfortunately, I don’t see Woodward going anywhere. The rose may be off of Woodward’s bloom, but he still has immense credibility with the general public. The Post’s reputation isn’t precisely sterling these days, so imho, it’s better for the Post to be seen with him than without him.

]]> By: ccmask http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82369 ccmask Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:31:15 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82369 <p>Wondering-no. I answered you earlier. I have nothing for the 28th.</p> Wondering-no. I answered you earlier. I have nothing for the 28th.

]]> By: OtisIsHungry http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82368 OtisIsHungry Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:29:28 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82368 <p><i>Woodward, on the other hand, knew full well that his source had withheld relevant information from the Special Prosecutor, and agreed to keep silent about it. Woodward, in essence, witnessed a crime, and conspired with the criminal to keep the crime a secret.</i> </p> <p>I’m sorry but this is just wrong as a matter of law! It is not a crime to remain silent, even with knowledge of a crime, and Woodward simply had no duty to report to Fitz or the GJ, in the absence of a subpoena. </p> <p>Bilge 61- You make a good point about Woodward being a WaPo director, but he still has a right to remain silent. Maybe WaPo has a claim he violated a fiduciary interest, but there is NO CRIME.</p> Woodward, on the other hand, knew full well that his source had withheld relevant information from the Special Prosecutor, and agreed to keep silent about it. Woodward, in essence, witnessed a crime, and conspired with the criminal to keep the crime a secret.

I’m sorry but this is just wrong as a matter of law! It is not a crime to remain silent, even with knowledge of a crime, and Woodward simply had no duty to report to Fitz or the GJ, in the absence of a subpoena.

Bilge 61- You make a good point about Woodward being a WaPo director, but he still has a right to remain silent. Maybe WaPo has a claim he violated a fiduciary interest, but there is NO CRIME.

]]> By: tejanarusa http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82366 tejanarusa Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:28:17 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82366 <p>I’m confused - can’t seem to find the WaPo blog anymore. Haven’t been there for awhile. Where are Paul’s and fedupliars’ postings?</p> I’m confused – can’t seem to find the WaPo blog anymore. Haven’t been there for awhile. Where are Paul’s and fedupliars’ postings?

]]> By: p.lukasiak http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82348 p.lukasiak Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:15:01 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82348 <p><i> Or is Woodward a veritable Oracle, understood only by those wise enough to deign the meaning of his every utterance? </i></p> <p>actually, my understanding of Woodward’s relationship with the working reporters/editors at the post is pretty close to “Oracular”. Woodward spends most of his time working on his books….occasionally, he will deign to actually function as a Post “reporter”, and occasionally will “leak” story ideas/leads to Post reporters/editors. </p> <p>Indeed, much of the Post’s approach to Plamegate (like that moronic “good leak” editorial) may be due to Woodward’s WH access.</p> Or is Woodward a veritable Oracle, understood only by those wise enough to deign the meaning of his every utterance?

actually, my understanding of Woodward’s relationship with the working reporters/editors at the post is pretty close to “Oracular”. Woodward spends most of his time working on his books….occasionally, he will deign to actually function as a Post “reporter”, and occasionally will “leak” story ideas/leads to Post reporters/editors.

Indeed, much of the Post’s approach to Plamegate (like that moronic “good leak” editorial) may be due to Woodward’s WH access.

]]> By: Stephen Parrish, CPA http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82343 Stephen Parrish, CPA Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:12:50 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82343 <p>looseheadprop says:<br /> April 27th, 2006 at 3:14 pm </p> <p>I saw it; thank you very much for the wire to wire coverage!</p> looseheadprop says:
April 27th, 2006 at 3:14 pm

I saw it; thank you very much for the wire to wire coverage!

]]> By: Sonoma http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82329 Sonoma Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:05:32 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/#comment-82329 <p>p.lukasiak:</p> <p>Wasn’t talking about Plame? Says who? What kind of newsman wasn’t talking about that story? Or, for that matter, when did he stop talking about it? Immediately after he dropped his little nugget of information on Pincus? Can’t any of his colleagues at the Post recall even a single instance in which he was drawn into a discussion about Plame after Pincus wrote his account?</p> <p>Or is Woodward a veritable Oracle, understood only by those wise enough to deign the meaning of his every utterance?</p> p.lukasiak:

Wasn’t talking about Plame? Says who? What kind of newsman wasn’t talking about that story? Or, for that matter, when did he stop talking about it? Immediately after he dropped his little nugget of information on Pincus? Can’t any of his colleagues at the Post recall even a single instance in which he was drawn into a discussion about Plame after Pincus wrote his account?

Or is Woodward a veritable Oracle, understood only by those wise enough to deign the meaning of his every utterance?

]]>