« Simpsons: No God | Main | George W. Bush »

State of Denial

60 Minutes Interview of Bob Woodward about his new book State of Denial

Quicktime Video 10.2MB 12'53
Quicktime 7 required



Grand Jury testimony of Bob Woodward, longtime Washington Post editor and author of "State of Denial," leaked by Rove-ing reporter (humor).
It is posted at: Bob Woodward Tells Grand Jury Who Leaked First Woodward apologized to his executive editor at the paper for withholding information that a senior White House official had told him about a CIA operative, even as a questions about those leaks ballooned into a major scandal. “I hunkered down. I’m in the habit of keeping secrets,” Woodward said. “I didn’t want anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed.” Woodward's account of his surprise testimony to the Fitzgerald on November 14 makes it apparent he was the first journalist known to have learned the CIA person’s identity.
Bobbing and weaving, a tangled web we do. Book him, Danno. Please keep my identity a secret. Double super Secret. Middle-aged, Middle-of-the-road, Mid-Westerner

Woodward: Well Fitzgerald, the Washington Post gave me a job as for as long as I want.? Fitzgerald: Look Woodward, if you work at the Washington Post, you must know all the players. Woodward: I certainly do. Fitzgerald: Well you know I've never met the guys. You are under oath so you'll have to tell me their names, and then I'll know who's involved in the leaking of a CIA officer’s name. Woodward: Oh, I'll tell you their names, but you know it seems to me they give the players now-a-days very peculiar names. Fitzgerald: You mean funny names? Woodward: Strange names, pet Scooter and Deep Throat... Fitzgerald: Their brother Daffy. Woodward: Daffy Throat... Fitzgerald: And their French cousin. Woodward: French? Fitzgerald: Goofè. Woodward: Goofè Throat. Well, let's see, we have on the list, Who leaked the name of a CIA officer first, What leaked it second, I Don't Know leaked it third... Fitzgerald: That's what I want to find out. Woodward: I say Who leaked first, What leaked second, I Don't Know leaked third. Fitzgerald: Are you a government employee? Woodward: Yes. Fitzgerald: You gonna be a political consultant too? Woodward: Yes. Fitzgerald: And you don't know the fellows' names? Woodward: Well I should. Fitzgerald: Well then who leaked first? Woodward: Yes. Fitzgerald: I mean the fellow's name. Woodward: Who. Fitzgerald: The guy who leaked first. Woodward: Who. Fitzgerald: The first leaker. Woodward: Who. Fitzgerald: The guy who leaked first... Woodward: Who leaked on first! Fitzgerald: I'm asking YOU who leaked first. Woodward: That's the man's name. Fitzgerald: That's whose name? Woodward: Yes. Fitzgerald: Well go ahead and tell me. Woodward: That's it. Fitzgerald: That's who? Woodward: Yes.

We can only hope that Fitz doesn't fizzle.
I think Mr. Fitzgerald's motto should be: "If you do a white collar crime then you will serve blue collar time." Look where he lodged Judith Miller. A few months in a blue collar jail and she was ready to sing. Unfortunately, she says she forgot the words.

I work at a Barnes & Noble part-time, and this is FLYING off the shelves in a way Woodward's last two books did not.

A great sign.

Whats the possibility that the president will be impeached for this? This war qualifies as criminal negligence, and the number of victims is still rising.

Let's all keep in mind that (as Frank Rich pointed out in his NYT column) Woodward was, along with the rest of the MSM, one of Bush's chief choristers (see also Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media?).

Woodward will have to answer to history and his own pale conscience as to what took him so long to see truths that have been obvious to many of us for over three years. So congratulate him on getting the scales off his eyes, sure, and buy his book if you must. Just remember that a clearer vision has existed in a pocket of the media (see above) for much longer than Woodward's recent rendezvous with a reality that has been obvious to many here in the blogosphere ever since the Bushies made their first saber rattle back in 2002.

anton, i think this is the investigation that needs to happen to answer your question:

its been stonewalled by the republicans (especially pat roberts) for over 2 years now. the part that has been released (there at the bottom) seems pretty damning, though i havent read the actual reports.

"So congratulate him on getting the scales off his eyes, sure, and buy his book if you must. Just remember that a clearer vision has existed in a pocket of the media (see above) for much longer than Woodward's recent rendezvous with a reality that has been obvious to many here in the blogosphere ever since the Bushies made their first saber rattle back in 2002."

Precisely. For example, the "secret graph" showing "enemy attacks" has been included in one form or another in the Brooking's Institute "Iraq Index" for years! (see Some secret. The lowballing of the strength of the insurgency has also been OBVIOUS for years. Look at pages 16 and 17 of the Iraq Index and you see that the number of insurgents was originally estimated at ~5000, rose to 15-20,000 from 5/04 to 3/06 and finally to 20,000+ today (see p. 17). Amazingly, the number of insurgents "killed or detained" since "mission accomplished" sums to ~75,000 over the same period! (Sum up the bars in the graph on p. 16 of the Iraq index.) Conclusions: EITHER the administration has been lying systematically about the strength of the insurgency, OR more insurgents are being created than are being eliminated (or, most likely, it is a combination of both). It doesn't take a professional journalist to figure this out, but apparently it does take a professional "journalist" more than 3 years to figure it out.

Incidentally, when 60% of the population of a country feels that killing soldiers from a foreign army in place on their soil is justified, the foreign army is, BY DEFINITION, a hostile occupying power. It is also obvious that the longer we stay the more hostile will be our "hosts".

True Daily, but the importance of this book is precisely that Woodward was so close to the Bush Administration. I'm reading the book right now, and its very detailed. There is a lot in it that other writers simply would not have access to. This makes this author much more credible then many of the other critics that have written on this subject. The second point is that as you yourself say, this Author was a cheerleader for Bush, so his converion (if you want to call it that) makes this author that much more credible in his account. People can try to accuse him of being biased, but its hard to say that his bias is liberal.

The sad part is of course that Woodward is probably preaching to the converted. I mean who besides political junkies like up is going to buy this book? Joe sixpack cant even read, nevermind understand the implications of this book. So that kind of leaves us where we were before this was published...Sorry not to be optimistic, but my feeling is that come election-time none of this will matter. As always, americans vote with their wallets and their stomachs, and iraq war simply wont register that much until the (voting) middle class is effected by the war, which at the moment its not.

I am SURE that many, many military men surrounding bush (spits) have sworn an oath to protect and DEFEND the Constitution.

Why the FU*K don't they just DO IT?

Woodward's book is already old news. No lasting political harm will come of his enlightenments.

It's the titillating flirting by a Senator with a young male page that is making the news today. It certainly has stolen some thunder from Mr. Woodward.

Bribes and closed-door shenanigans may eventually be harmful to your political career but sexual peccadilloes will make a Senator run out the Capitol backdoor and out in the cold in just two days. Lesson from all this: When you want to get rid of a political foe it is far more expedient to get a Politician ousted for getting caught with his zipper unzipped. Saves time but defense lawyers will get paid handsomely either way.


Mike Whitney:

If Bush gets his come-uppence, then that's great, but let's not forget that the Washington Post has supported the war from the get-go. Woodward and his ilk (Tom Friedman and William Crystal) do not object to the war, just the CONDUCT of the war. If the "right" people die, then "no problem", the American overlords can get on with the critical task of extracting valuable resources without interruption.

This is the real "State of Denial"; the belief that it's okay to slaughter people and destroy their civilization to enhance the wealth and power of a handful of western elites. It's a crime for which Woodward is just as guilty as Bush.

Personally, I strongly believe that Woodward is still a Mavy Intelligence spook, following orders.

The only real significance of what he is writing is that it has his name on it. People mostly ignore the other sources mentioned here but Woodward has big name recognition. He is an establishment writer and carries weight as a result of that.

He was a spook following orders when he went for Nixon and he is a spook following orders now. Just as he was following orders when he wrote the first two Bushy books.

It certainly doesn't bother me that he's bashing the bush boy now, but I still see him as a well placed intelligence opperative, following someones' orders.

Too bad the internet wasn't around during the Nixon years, or Mr. Woodward could have just jerked himself off onto a computer screen about the crazy @#%! he read about going down at the Watergate Hotel. Could have saved himself all the pavement pounding, source checking, countless hair-graying matters of confidentiality and consequences, and frightful hours waiting in a dark parking garage. What a tool! What a cowardly tool that guy Woodward is!

Easy does it, gang: I'm not dissing any of Woodward's Nixon-era work; merely (and rather mildly, compare to, say, Arianna) stating the obvious about this particular case. Woodward was a pathbreaker in the Nixon era; today, he's a bandwagon-jumper.

Why make the point? I think fairness is at issue: Norm Jenson and Eric Alterman and all the other bloggers and journalists and commentators out there who saw the danger and madness in this Iraq fiasco from before it even began need to be validated before we fawn over a lately converted mainstream reporter.

Wow, Bob Woodward, it's fucking 2006...

Where were you and your ggggg-reat journalistic skills in 2002 when this very same Bush Administration was lying, fabricating, and cajoling the country into waging war in Iraq.

You wait FOUR FUCKING YEARS and the loss of countless lives, American and Iraqi, to FINALLY report on the mendacity and incompetence of the Bush Administration?

I'm sickened by the mainstream press and its gutless performance in 2002-2003 when it really mattered.

Now they are all trying to save their souls for beng such kow-towing sycophants.

I imagine Tim Russert, David Broder, Cokie Roberts, and all the other miserable shitbags in the press will all have hand-wringing and soul-saving anti-Bush sentiments now that it's safe to do so.

Norm Jenson and Eric Alterman and all the other bloggers and journalists and commentators out there who saw the danger and madness in this Iraq fiasco from before it even began need to be validated before we fawn over a lately converted mainstream reporter.

Back in 2002 there weren't many left-wing bloggers out there. The blogosphere was dominated by right-wing and libertarian bloggers who were all pro-Bush and for the war in Iraq. And boy, oh, boy were they arrogant assholes to say the least.

That's how I met Norm. He and I used to duke it out with all the hyperventilating right-wingers who called anyone who voiced opposition to Bush and the idea of invading Iraq "traitors," "America haters," "defeatists," "appeasers," and other similar pejoratives.

Wouldn't it be fun, Norm, to go back and read all their archives in 2002 to see how much shit they got wrong, these loudmouthed right-wing assholes?

Then compare it to how much we got right?

It would be a slaughter on our part, I imagine.

I sifted through my archives today to find all my predictions in 2002-2003. I am shocked by how much I got right.


Same here Mat. I was on a forum called galtsgulch which was pretty much 100% conservative, i finally gave up on the place after 2 years, by the time I left i was the only quasi-liberal left. Conservatives did own the blogg 3 years ago, its nice to see thigs have changed.


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives