You had to see Larry King tonight to participate. Well not really but it'll be more fun if you did.
Let me preface this by saying that I don't want our side to have a Fox News. All I ask is give it to me straight, and, yes, both sides of the story.
With that in mind, I was stunned tonight at Woodward's downright hostility toward the idea that anyone in Saint Dubya's White House might have done something wrong in the Plame affair.
I couldn't believe it. Among his observations: it was probably simply gossip; Wilson was "ambiguous"; Wilson wasn't credible; a seasoned prosecutor might decide to let perjury slide if there was no "underlying crime"; and that there was a CIA study that concluded "there was no damage at all done by the leak."
He even brought a copy of the Senate Intelligence report with him "in case I was challenged."
I'm perfectly willing to concede that any of this is possible, but was shocked that Woodward didn't mention or consider any alternatives. I swear, he sounded exactly like Fred Barnes or Brit Hume.
Thank God Woodward had his Woody on back in the day because what I saw tonight was a completely incurious and unskeptical reporter.
It is worth noting that Woodward is writing a book on Bush's second term and very likely enjoys special access and privileges in order to do so.
Far be it from an investigative reporter to rock the boat.
Anyone else see this? Agreement? Disagreement?
A fairly unbalanced journalist's take: Today on EWM, White House Sets Job Fair