Oh, Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob...

So it seems Bob Woodward might be in a mess of trouble. Well, at least Jim Belushi will be happy. As I understand it--and the best information is to be found at firedoglake--Woodward is apparently concerned that Robert Redford hasn't played him in years. And worried that people will confuse him with the J.T. Walsh portrayal in the utterly bizarre Wired picture.

So, he's now saying that he knew Valerie Plame worked for the CIA months, nay years, before Douchebag For Liberty Robert Novak did, so there, neener. It's just that he didn't tell anybody because...well, actually I'm not too clear on that yet, hang on...oh right. Because:

Woodward stopped being a "journalist" in the true sense of the word long ago -- when he decided celebrity status and book sales meant more than the truth. He has gone from being -- well, whatever he was, to something much worse: an official peddler of lies told by powerful people to whitewash their criminal activities.

That's right. It's said that his colleagues at the Washington Post are not best pleased.

ETA: The Washington Monthly says

Did Woodward tell anyone about this conversation back when it happened? He didn't tell his editor, but he says he did tell fellow Post reporter Walter Pincus. Pincus, however, says Woodward is delusional: "Are you kidding?" he says. "I certainly would have remembered that."

ETA, again: As you can well imagine, to the far right, this new revelation means "Plamegate" is a nothing story (no matter what most Americans think) and that the left is in denial about this. Funny, you can pretty much predict that this is what any and all new revelations about "Plamegate" will mean to the far right. Up to and including Bush going on prime-time network television and announcing that yes, he lied, sent other people's children to die needlessly and directed the outing of Plame himself. I'd say they have property a little closer to that certain river in Egypt than we on the left do, but see for yourself.

ETA one more time: Hullabaloo reminds us to see the whole board. And also makes a convincing argument that while reporters and bloggers spin endless yarns about the journalists who didn't do their jobs, we may be ignoring the one who did: Matt Cooper.

He may not be to this scandal what, say Bob Woodward was to Watergate--and maybe he wouldn't want to be--but he deserves another look.

I can't tell you how impressed I continue to be with the elite journalists in this country. After finding out that top reporters from The NY Times, The Washington Post and NBC all withheld information from the public about their leaders, I can only wonder what else they may be keeping back because of their cozy relationships, book deals, or political sympathies. This is a crisis in journalism.

Matt Cooper was leaked to by Karl Rove in the summer of 2003 and he fought to keep from revealing his source. But he fulfilled his responsibility as a journalist by writing a story and it was the real story about what was going on. Here's the first paragraph of Cooper's first article on the subject back in 2003:

Has the Bush Administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium? Perhaps.

Matt Cooper, huh?