Well, I'm not surprised that Howard Kurtz, in today's
Washington Post (registration required) would present Bob Woodward in a flattering light, but why would he softly revise this part of Woodward's narrative regarding what Downie knew, when he knew it, and why Woodward told him about it?
Kurtz, in today's paper, reports this about the point at which Woodward informed the Executive Editor, Leonard Downie, that he had spoken to an unnamed senior Bush administration official about Valerie Plame -
Downie concedes that months sometimes go by without any contact with Woodward, adding that they have now agreed to communicate more often. He says Woodward occasionally volunteers to break off from his book research to produce news stories for The Post, especially with material too timely to be held, and sometimes does so at Downie's request. In fact, it was when Downie asked Woodward to work on the CIA leak case last month that the reporter acknowledged that a senior administration official had told him in 2003 that Valerie Plame, the wife of White House critic Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA.
This writing makes it sound like Woodward informed Downie because Downie asked him to work on the CIA leak case.
In a November 17
Washington Post article, Kurtz wrote something different about this event -
Exactly what triggered Woodward's disclosure to Downie remains unclear. Woodward said yesterday that he was "quite aggressively reporting" a story related to the Plame case when he told Downie about his involvement as the term of Fitzgerald's grand jury was set to expire on Oct. 28.
In fact, according to Woodward himself on
Larry King Live on November 21, 2005, this is how it happened:
Note: Patrick Fitzgerald announced the Grand Jury indictment of Scooter Libby on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation of the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson's identity on October 28.
KING: When and why did you finally decide to disclose it to your editor?
WOODWARD: An excellent question. The week of the indictment I was working on something and learned another piece of this puzzle and I told Len Downie about it and I told him about the source and what had been disclosed to me and there was a sense before the indictment, well, this is kind of interesting but it's not clear what it means.
Then, the day of the indictment I read the charges against Libby and looked at the press conference by the special counsel and he said the first disclosure of all of this was on June 23rd, 2003 by Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff to "New York Times" reporter Judy Miller.
I went, whoa, because I knew I had learned about this in mid- June, a week, ten days before, so then I say something is up. There's a piece that the special counsel does not have in all of this.
I then went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode and called the source the beginning of the next week and said "Do you realize when we talked about this and exactly what was said?"
And the source in this case at this moment, it's a very interesting moment in all of this, said "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."
And so, I realized I was going to be dragged into this that I was the catalyst and then I asked the source "If you go to the prosecutor am I released to testify" and the source told me yes. So it is the reporting process that set all this in motion.
Woodward presents it on Larry King that he was working on something and learned additional information to what he already had known and so then told Downie.
Was Woodward working on an WaPo article or on his next book?
Another (first and untrue) version of Downie asking Woodward (according to Woodward on October 27, on a segment that was clipped and reaired on November 21 Larry King Live interview) had Downie asking Woodward if he knew something on or about October 27 (the day before the indictment was announced):
MICHAEL ISIKOFF, "NEWSWEEK": I talked to a source at the White House late this afternoon who told me that Bob is going to have a bombshell in tomorrow's paper identifying the Mr. X source who was behind the whole thing. So, I don't know maybe this Bob's opportunity.
KING: Come clean.
BOB WOODWARD: I wish I did have a bombshell. I don't even have a firecracker, I'm sorry. In fact I mean this tells you something about what's the atmosphere here. I got a call from somebody in the CIA saying he got a call from the best "New York Times" reporter on this saying exactly that I supposedly had a bombshell.
KING: And you (INAUDIBLE) tonight right?
WOODWARD: Finally, this went around that I was going to do tonight or in the paper. Finally, Len Downie who is the editor of "The Washington Post" called me and said, "I hear you have a bombshell. Would you let me in on that?"
KING: So now the rumors are about you?
WOODWARD: And I said I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't.
Of course I know that this last statement, made first in the series, is an out and out lie because Woodward has admitted so. According to both Woodward and Downie now, Downie was informed on or near October 27, just before the indictment was announced, that Woodward had information.
I find this whole gradual and soft revision of what Downie knew and when and why he knew it to be very fuzzy and disturbing, considering that the people we are referring to and who are recalling are a newspaper editor and an investigative journalist.
Why all the fuzziness? Is Woodward evasive because he's embarrassed? Is Downie revising a little because he wants to save the book deal and the relationship with Woodward?
What's going on here? Is Kurtz's reportage merely different versions of the same event or is it subtle revision? If it's a revision, why would Kurtz do this?
As far as I'm concerned, this little fuzziness in itself weakens Bob Woodward's credibility and brings his professionalism into question. I also feel that the Washington Post is jeopardizing its reputation with this wordplay.