Bob Woodward Throws Spit Ball at Bush Administration, Former Bush Counsel Whacks It Over Left Field Fence [Mrs. R.]

For your amusement.

From C-Span's American Perspectives: Government & Secrecy which aired 1//27/07 (taped at the University of Michigan earlier this month).

Video link: Go to clip segment 2:26:52 to access the following exchange.

(This is a three hour video, so to quickly access this particular clip segment once realPlayer opens, enter Ctrl+E to bring up the realPlayer "Seek to" dialog box, then enter the hour, minutes, and seconds of this clip: 2:26:52, then click the "Seek" button).

 

Uh, yes, real quickly for Brad...     That rarely does the rubber meet the road, uh, so clearly...     When you said how and why the president got there - made his decision - is the president's business and kind of no one else's business.   (Referring to the process by which the president and vice president formulate policy based on the information received from unnamed sources/advisors - and the need, as expressed by fellow panelist and former Bush counsel Bradford Berenson, for the identities of these sources/advisors to be protected).   I don't know how you can say that when, I mean, most of us would be out of business.     Not only do we try to ruh-port what the decisions are, but how you get there...     Because we have learned over the decades that how you get there tells an awful lot about the final decision and who people are and what positions they take.     And you, you want to take Tom's Cone of Silence and say it's only the president's business.   (Referring to fellow panelist Thomas Blanton's assertion that the conspiracy of secrecy in the Bush White House is reminiscent of the Cone of Silence employed in the '60s TV show "Get Smart", speaking as if this fictional sitcom device had some basis in reality, even suggesting that the Cone of Silence mentality may have been responsible for the war in Iraq. Seek clip 2:25:02) (Woop, woop, woop, woop, woop...)   I can't believe your position is that extreme...

 

Former Associate Counsel to President Bush Bradford Berenson responds:

 

Well, let me...let me offer two responses.       First, I'm not saying that that's true for all time.   (Referring to the implication that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have no intentions of ever revealing any information on unidentified sources/advisors who counsel them).   Obviously, we arrive at a certain point in time under the Presidential Records Act and the rest of the legal regime we're operating under where we do get to see the inner workings inside the Oval Office in, in quite a bit of of detail.     Um, the difference is between doing that as a matter of history and doing that in real time while the rough and tumble of short-term politics is going on.     But let me turn, let me turn the question back at you and really at the journalist panel because we don't get to see how and why you prepare your stories.     In fact, you all fight extremely vigorously to keep from all of us the identity of your unnamed sources for the stories that you write.     It's not that that information wouldn't be interesting or wouldn't be valuable to the public in evaluating, uh, the genesis of the story and the motivations behind it and, frankly, it's credibility.     Uh, the entire journalistic history of the Valerie Plame affair would have been very different if we had all known right from the get-go that Richard Armitage was the original source of that name.   (Ouch).   The reason that you protect your need to keep the "how" and "why" and invite us just to read the story is because that it facilitates your ability to report and thereby protects the public interest...     In exactly the same way that the president keeping those kind of consultations confidential protects his ability to govern and thereby protects the public interest, as well.

 

No response from Woodward. No attempt to respond from Woodward.

Bradford Berenson for president in '08!

 

Comments

[Ray G]

Pow!

[Dan Collins]

Thanks. You made my day, Mrs. R.

[WA]

That was brilliant. As an attorney, you just live for moments like that.

[Scrapiron]

The media got a good whack for their ignorance. I can't figure out how the MSM has degressed in reporting the 'news' to lying 99% of the time, and they have the guts to try and pass it off as news. The downfall of the honest press has happened in my lifetime and has resulted from their involvement in, not reporting on, politics.

[TT]

Bob Woodward is a washed-up has-been who yearns for the spot light of yesteryear. Most of his stuff is filled with innuendo and “unnamed” sources.

It’s good to see Woodward's amateur “Max Smart” debating tricks blow up in his face. Maybe Woodturd should dial his secret shoe phone and get another “breaking” story from one of his many “unnamed” sources.

[Jeff H]

Has anyone checked Woodward's shorts for that brick he most assuredly shit right after that exchange?

[Jeff H]

And no, I'm not volunteering to check...

[Mrs. R.]

Jeff, had only the camera been focused on Woodward during that exchange, we might have been able to determine the exact moment of impact.

[Jeff H]

Funny, Mrs. R. But seriously, I'm reminded of one of the more obscure--and quite frankly disgusting--things about death: at the moment of death, all muscles in the body obviously relax, including the sphincter.

Thus, when Woodward's ideological screen died...

[Yolo Cowboy]

Oh yea? Well, well, I've got a Pulitzer! And I have Barbara Streisand's private Myspace page.

[Amador]

Can't get the link, wish I could, but the fact remains.
Woody is a world class wanker.
The awful truth is that foolish journalists actually believe their sources are more important than those used by the president. Like the presidency is just a brass ring position for the cunning and popular.
Considering that, I believe a full body ass kicking is necessary for all journalists. Anybody got a rope for my truck ?

[Purple Avenger]

No response from Woodward.

When you've just been SLAM DUNKED what can you do except STFU?

[owlbear1]

So stupid it stunned.

[DaveG]

The reason that you protect your need to keep the "how" and "why" and invite us just to read the story is because that it facilitates your ability to report and thereby protects the public interest...

Brad was being kind here. The real reason the "how" and "why" are kept secret has nothing to do with the ability to report. The real reason those are secret is to facilitiate the ability to obfuscate, exaggerate, tell lies of both omission and commission (aka spin), and to hide the agendas and biases of these so-called sources.

[John from WuzzaDem]

Amen, DaveG.

[DocAmazing]

Uh, maybe 'cause we taxpayers are paying the President, and we therefore have grounds to ask WTF he's up to, while reporters are in the private sector?

Maybe it's 'cause the President's decisions have force of law, while the doings of a reporter are just influence on public opinion (if the reporter's lucky)?

Might those be the responses that were so obvious that Woodward didn't even need to make them?

[Mrs. R.]

DocAmazing must be here from SadlyNo which linked the post but had no real response to Mr. Berenson's points other than labeling him a "torture lawyer" and suggesting that the media has no influence whatsoever on politics and policy.

[terra firma]

Might those be the responses that were so obvious that Woodward didn't even need to make them?

Nice try.

[John from WuzzaDem]

Might those be the responses that were so obvious that Woodward didn't even need to make them?

This must have been the first time you ever saw or heard Bob Woodward - he's never shy about responding, even when he's make a total ass of himself by suggesting that this is the first administration to keep information confidential, or that their reasons for doing so have no merit other than...let's see, how did your hero put it?

Oh, yeah - "notorious, creepy secrecy about its decision-making process."

Yes, as a taxpayer you have the right to ask "WTF" your president is up to, but the final decision about what you get to see is up to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government you pay for. If you don't like the answer, you can do something about it.

Oh, sorry, you are doing something - you're commenting on this blog. My bad. Fight the power, dude!

[Hackwhacker]

Ah! I've stumbled into the wingnut echo chamber!

[Mrs. R.]

Whoa, Hackwhacker, ease up with the zingers.

[JannyMae]

I checked out Hackwhacker's moonbat echo chamber. Not too many echoes (comments) there, though.

I tried to drop a comment, but the blogger, "word verification," system no workie right now.

A word of advice to the little fellow, if he comes back:

If you're going to 'diss' someone (i.e. Greta Van Susteren) it's a good practice to at least spell their name right. Otherwise you look stupid.

[Hackwhacker]

Whoa, JannyMae, ease up with the zingers.

[Mrs. R.]

Not only does Hackwhacker formulate echo chamber theory, he proves it, as well.

Kudos, Hackwhacker!

[Hackwhacker]

Thank you, Mrs. R.!

[John from WuzzaDem]

Hey, ease up on Hackwhacker, I'm sure he's tired after working so hard on his "Faux News" post.

Seriously, dude - you talk about "whacking hacks", and on the first page of your blog you're posting about "Faux News" (blowing the lid off the conservative myth that Greta Van Susteren is a deep thinker), linking a WaPo article to back up your claims about Iraq, and giving Glenn Greenwald a hand-job. All within a few posts.

You should take a nap.

[Hackwhacker]

Thank you, John from WuzzaDem! zzzzzzz

[JannyMae]

Whoa, JannyMae, ease up with the zingers.

Posted by: Hackwhacker

Whoa, hackwhacker, ease up on the unoriginality.

If this was an, "echo chamber," there would be no dissenting viewpoints allowed...like so many of the liberal sites.

...but you knew that, didn't you?

[Jay B]

I'll play!

Here's the difference between the government's "right" to keep shit secret and the press' "right" to use anonymous sources: The public's right to know.

The press, as it was set up through the first amendment as a kind of defacto check against the government, may indeed use anonymous sources (although I wish they wouldn't) in an effort to inform the public on matters which would otherwise be hidden from view (which is bad, if you believe that the public should be an informed one). Has this been abused? Yes. Should that mean that the government should be able to compel journalists to reveal their sources? No, IF you believe that whistleblowers perform a function in society.

The government, however operates under a different standard by definition and necessity. As public employees, everything they do should be open to our scrutiny. This is why, of course, we have things like the Freedom of Information Act, a gallery in the House of Representatives, open meeting requirements, financial contribution records, and the Congressional Record -- among other things.

Why a conservative would think that a President should be exempt from public oversight is beyond me. But I'm interested enough to ask why you think an unaccountable, secretive Executive -- a protection not even afforded a CEO in a publically traded company -- is a good thing for the public.

[JannyMae]

Jay, I would ask you why you think it's a good idea for, "the public," which would undoubtedly include enemies of the United States of America, has a right to know our military and tactical secrets, to the point where the Executive Branch of government has NO RIGHT to withhold information that could be damaging to our national security.

That's what we are talking about here, Jay. We are not talking about the President of the United States being, "exempt from public oversight." We are talking about his right to maintain secrecy in the interest of national security.

We are not talking about the President having the privilege to HIDE information that IS NOT damaging to our national security.

There is a vast difference between those two things, a difference which apparently eludes liberals.

[John from WuzzaDem]

No offense, but you're either illiterate, a dumbass, or both. Where exactly do you see anyone saying the President should be exempt from public oversight?

Even Berenson says "we arrive at a certain point in time under the Presidential Records Act and the rest of the legal regime we're operating under where we do get to see the inner workings inside the Oval Office in, in quite a bit of of detail.

And I said in an earlier comment that the final decision about what you get to see is up to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government you pay for.

Once again, if you don't like the answer, or if you think someone's hiding something that you have a right to know, you have recourse.

No one here is advocating a curtailing of the freedom of the press. In fact,you yourself say you wish they wouldn't use anonymous sources, but Berenson says "The reason that you protect your need to keep the "how" and "why" and invite us just to read the story is because that it facilitates your ability to report and thereby protects the public interest."

Sounds like he's all for the press protecting their sources. So where are the torches and pitchforks?

Oh, and thanks for playing.

[Thom]

You said:

Yes, as a taxpayer you have the right to ask "WTF" your president is up to, but the final decision about what you get to see is up to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government you pay for. If you don't like the answer, you can do something about it.

Mindnumbing gibberish aside, what in god's name does that have to do with the idiotic comparison of journos having anon. sources and government keeping secrets from citizens?

This is satire, isn't it?

[Thom]

And the silliness of the Armitage thing is astounding. Are you asserting that two people couldn't possibly leak the same info? Or more? What?

[Thom]

JannyMae

Jay, I would ask you why you think it's a good idea for, "the public," which would undoubtedly include enemies of the United States of America, has a right to know our military and tactical secrets, to the point where the Executive Branch of government has NO RIGHT to withhold information that could be damaging to our national security.

Jay didn't say that. But you knew that didn't you...

That's what we are talking about here, Jay. We are not talking about the President of the United States being, "exempt from public oversight." We are talking about his right to maintain secrecy in the interest of national security.

We are not talking about the President having the privilege to HIDE information that IS NOT damaging to our national security.

There is a vast difference between those two things, a difference which apparently eludes liberals.

And here's what seems to elude folks like you: What you maintain here requires complete trust that people in the government won't lie. Ever. Repub. or Dem. If they say it's national securtiy, even if it's not, we just have to trust them.

It seems so anti-independent. Almost momma-boyish. I don't get it.

[Jay B]

Where exactly do you see anyone saying the President should be exempt from public oversight?

You're kidding right? It's been the stated policy of the Bush/Cheney strategy. It's why Cheney fought the release of the atendee list of his Energy Task Force meeting right from the start. It's why they've made a fetish of signing statements. It's why he thinks he's the Decider.

Your quoting of the lawyer:"we arrive at a certain point in time under the Presidential Records Act and the rest of the legal regime we're operating under where we do get to see the inner workings inside the Oval Office in, in quite a bit of of detail

Would be a meaningful statement if it were true in real time. The Bush Administration, beyond national security issues, has basically stonewalled the public on things like:

Air quality. They deleted cautionary information and added reassuring language to an EPA statement that declared the air and water outside the ground zero area in New York to be safe just days after 9/11.

Automotive safety: A key provision in a landmark auto safety law passed in the wake of the 2000 Ford/Firestone tire tragedies is supposed to give auto safety regulators and consumers an "early warning" about a dangerous defect and save lives. But the new rule announced by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will keep important information, such as consumer complaints to manufacturers and warranty claims, secret.

Food safety: The Department of Agriculture has refused to give Public Citizen information about how the agency decides if another country’s food inspection system is "equivalent" to U.S. standards.

Hell, he even retroactively claims secrecy for others:

The twelve-year restriction period for the papers of former President Reagan and his Vice President, George H.W. Bush, expired on the same day George W. Bush took office. But instead of permitting the Archives to release approximately 68,000 pages of previously restricted Reagan records that would otherwise have been opened to the public in February 2001, the White House ordered the Archives three times to postpone the release of the materials. Then, on November 1, 2001, President Bush issued an executive order that purports to make fundamental changes in the Presidential Records Act.

Under the executive order, if a former President or Vice President—or even a member of his family—objects to the release of any document on the ground of "executive privilege," the Archives is forbidden to release the document to the public. The same is true if the incumbent President asserts "executive privilege." The effect is to replace the Presidential Records Act’s limited 12-year restriction period with a potentially indefinite limitation on access.

So if I'm illiterate or a dumbass, at least I'm not a credulous stooge willing to think it's all A-OK because they say so.

That's what we are talking about here, Jay. We are not talking about the President of the United States being, "exempt from public oversight." We are talking about his right to maintain secrecy in the interest of national security.

What exactly was the national security angle on Cheney's Energy Task Force meeting? Or the release of Reagan's papers? It's nice that so many of you prefer to take the word of the Executive Branch, but no matter the party of the administration, its word has proven to be spectacularly unreliable.

[Jay B]

Sorry, the source of the materials I cited: Public Citizen. Really, even if you think it's some commiepinkoliberal conspiracy, they have citations. It's not their 'opinion'. It's documented.

But whatever, right?

[Mrs. R.]

Look, guys, sometimes our guys get smacked, sometimes your guys get smacked. Woodward got smacked. In the real world, things like that can happen.

(It's not like he didn't ask for it).

Nothing you say or do can undo the smack. And, oftentimes, jumping up and down, crying, just makes it worse.

Get over it and move on.

[John from WuzzaDem]

You're kidding right? It's been the stated policy of the Bush/Cheney strategy.

Nice strawman. I don't know if you noticed, but Bush and Cheney aren't blogging here. You said:

Why a conservative would think that a President should be exempt from public oversight is beyond me.

I tell you that's not our position and you start talking about the administration's position. Give me a break.

So if I'm illiterate or a dumbass, at least I'm not a credulous stooge willing to think it's all A-OK because they say so.

Once again, you're basing that asinine statement on what? My being a conservative? Of course, that makes me a "Bush-bot" in your mind, I suppose.

I'm not the one who thinks government secrecy is the specialty of one political party, but I suppose if I read the links at "bushsecrecy.org", I'll learn that this is "the most secretive administration in this country's history", right? Wake up.

NO ONE should automatically trust the government. We have checks and balances because power does indeed corrupt, and that's true no matter which party is in power, or at least in the majority.

Is that clear enough?

[John from WuzzaDem]

what in god's name does that have to do with the idiotic comparison of journos having anon. sources and government keeping secrets from citizens?

Commenter says, "We taxpayers are paying the President, and we therefore have grounds to ask WTF he's up to."

I say, "Yes, but the final decision about what you get to see is up to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government you pay for."

You: "What does that have to do with the post?"

Okely dokely.

[DocAmazing]

Just want to see if I've got this straight:

Oilman vice-president holding secret meetings with oilmen = national security.

Whistleblower identities being protected from reprisal by journalists = "innuendo and 'unnamed' sources".

Comparison between protected First Amendment activities and Oval Office cover-up attempts = clever argumentation and a darn good analogy.

Failure to respond to a breathtakingly stupid comparison by a noted right-wing lawyer and hypersalivator = stunned speechlessness due to the manifest rightness of the argument.

Just want to update my Wingnut-English dictionary. Thanks for the clarifications.

[John from WuzzaDem]

Just want to see if I've got this straight:

Oilman vice-president holding secret meetings with oilmen = national security.

Riiiiight, right, I get it - the whole "conservatives don't understand 'nuance'" schtick. I don't see any mention of 'oilmen' in the post, so you might want to re-read it and comment on something that's actually there.

Whistleblower identities being protected from reprisal by journalists = "innuendo and 'unnamed' sources".

Once again, you might want to read the post again, as even the "right-wing lawyer and hypersalivator" apparently believes that the press's use of anonymous sources is often in the best interest of the public.

Comparison between protected First Amendment activities and Oval Office cover-up attempts = clever argumentation and a darn good analogy.

Oval Office cover-up attempts? Again, not in the post, but feel free to keep pulling things out of your ass - it must be awfully crowded in there.

Failure to respond to a breathtakingly stupid comparison by a noted right-wing lawyer and hypersalivator = stunned speechlessness due to the manifest rightness of the argument.

Yeah, just one more example of the famous Bob Woodward 'non-response response', right?

Just want to update my Wingnut-English dictionary.

You might want to put that away and pick up something that helps with reading comprehension.

[Mrs. R.]

Doc Amazing,

What do First Amendment rights have to do with journalist fabricating, twisting, misrepresenting, or withholding facts that are relevant to the stories they pass off as unvarnished truth?

It's a shame that liberals, who see bogeymen around every corner, aren't the least bit concerned about the dangers associated with a press corrupted by so many secrets and so many lies.

Then, you have the gall to act as if it is the Left that upholds and defends our freedoms of the press - while you're all busy doing whatever you can to underminine our military men and women (during war time, no less) every chance you get.

What a sad, pathetic joke liberals have become.

[Mrs. R.]

BTW, DocNotSoAmazing, I'd love to see you and your friends live three or four months without the benefits of one stinking drop of oil, or even one of the multitude of consumer goods and energy sources that are derived from/associated with petroleum and petroleum byproducts.

I'll bet you don't even have a clue what life would be like, much less the fortitude to withstand it - or care what suffering it would cause others if we all had to do without it.

It would make a terrorist attack look like a day at the park.

[Mrs. R.]

Doc NSA,

In case you're wondering what I've done - and what you were wondering was deleted because it was so obnoxious - you're an idiot to even challenge someone you know nothing about with such childish taunts.

As for you maintaining your lifestyle without the benefit of oil and petroleum byproducts by simply riding your bike to work, you really don't have a clue, do you?

[Stillers]

As for you maintaining your lifestyle without the benefit of oil and petroleum byproducts by simply riding your bike to work, you really don't have a clue, do you?

Maybe his bike tires are made from hemp?? You all do know that debating moonbats is similar to pissing in a gale force wind. Just saying. Amusing read though. ;-)

[Buzz LightYear]

I'm an astronaut!

[Mrs. R.]

You all do know that debating moonbats is similar to pissing in a gale force wind.

Yeah, I know...But just when I thought that I was out, they pulled me back in.

[Jeff H]

JayB (is that "BJ" backwards? If so, is it in the Kama Sutra?): "The press, as it was set up through the first amendment..."

So, the press was "set up" by the First Amendment? Original concept, that...

[PlainBill]

Jeff H.

There's that reading comprehension thing again.

"The press, as it was set up through the first amendment as a kind of defacto check against the government"

Good example of trying to win an argument by imcomplete quoting, though. That's lesson plan 2 from Moonbat U., isn't it? "When you're losing ground, misquote, take out of context, or shout."

[PlainBill]

Jeff H.

After a moment or two for reflection (and finishing the glass of wine), I realize that my comment might not be clear.

I think that dropping down to the moonbat's level is counter-productive. I actually agree with the complete point, that freedom of speech is proscribed from governmental interfereance as a check on the government.

To argue against JayB's statement on the grounds that the Constitution creates no legal office of the press would be one thing, but to take a partial phrase out of context and run with unwarranted assumptions about the thinking implied by that fragment is simply a cheap shot.

Not that there's anything wrong with a cheap shot or two, as long as they're backed up with some thought.