On Larry King Thursday he put in a fiercely partisan performance on behalf of the Administration that's provided content for his last two best-sellers, taking on any panelist who deviated from GOP spin (transcript).

He cited highly classified information, which raises a number of disturbing questions - including who gave it to him and why. He also said, "I'm trying to do a book on the Bush second term. " Bob, it shows.

King's introduction cited Woodward's “remarkable access” in the Bush White House. But what's so remarkable? Woodward writes novelizations of government spin in a simple quid pro quo: He makes lots of money and his subjects get to see their stories, however fanciful, presented as page-turning fact. There's no proof his Tenet/Bush “slam-dunk” conversation ever took place, but it's a perfect example of how Woodward works: he got a best seller, Bush got a re-election, and Tenet got the Medal of Freedom.

Woodward began his performance Thursday by backstopping the Administration on the Harriet Miers nomination, and not-so-subtly echoing conservative contempt for federal judges. He then parroted spin as fact from the get-go when the Libby case came up, saying:

First of all this began not as somebody launching a smear campaign ... I'm quite confident we're going to find out that it started as a kind of gossip, as chatter and that somebody learned (Plame) had worked at the CIA and helped him get this job ...

Gee, it was just “gossip,” even though a) we now know it was Cheney who told Libby, and b) Josh Marshall has rightly pointed out that Libby had to know she was in the secret “operations” part of the CIA. Woodward went on:

... There's a lot of innocent actions in all of this but ... this is a junkyard dog prosecutor ...

Oh, that's all it is! Patrick Fitzgerald is Javert in a baseball jersey. But does the legendary hero of Watergate think perjury is wrong?

Some people kind of had convenient memories before the grand jury. “Technically” they might be able to be charged with perjury. But I don't see an underlying crime here.

Then Woodward went after Joe Wilson:

“.. (Wilson) came back (from Niger) and reported and Michael (Isikoff, a co-panelist) and others who have read the Senate Intelligence Committee on this know his report was very ambiguous.

“That report didn't go into all that,” protested Dodd, to which Woodward replied: “No,it did, I've got it in my pocket ...” When an incredulous King said “You walk around with this in your pocket?” he replied “Yes, yes, I knew I might be challenged.” In other words, he planned to attack the premise for Fitzgerald's indictments even before he went on-air, and planned to use the Republican-directed Senate Intelligence report to defend his position.

Unfortunately for Woodward, Isikoff then spoke up: “Actually we don't know exactly what Joe Wilson said ... he didn't actually write a written report. You know it was an oral debriefing ...” Later, Gergen suggested that indictments would raise questions about the rationale for war, and Woodward went to work for his cronies again, telling a clearly incredulous Gergen:

“... factually, David, I'm sorry. I don't know how this is about the build-up to the war.”

Woodward also emphasized that the effort to discredit Wilson took place after the war had started – as if somehow that meant it wasn't politically motivated, or a crime. After a few more feints, including a continued (if half-hearted) defense of Judith Miller (!), he made a remarkable assertion: that he had knew the contents of the CIA's damage assessment on the Plame outing, and that it wasn't all that bad.

They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger of any kind and there was just some embarrassment.

Much of this is factually questionable, especially given Ms. Wilson's report of murder threats. But it raises a far more serious issue: CIA damage assessments are highly classified documents. Either someone from this government leaked this very secret government information to a reporter again (if Woodward can still credibly be called a reporter), or Woodward isn't telling the truth. Either way, serious questions need to be asked.

Woodward ended with a note of profound human compassion for Libby, coupled with anger toward those who are reporting or discussing the story with dispassion or excitement:

... and you know, again, these are human beings. And what distresses me is, you know, so and so might be indicted and so and so is facing ...

Dodd exploded: “The president's father said, look, this is the most hideous form of treason. Trying – damage control to mention publicly ... the name of an overt or covert agent is terrible business.” Woodward's reply:

And it is not yet proven.

Which is actually not true. Perjury is "not yet proven" - the fact that Libby's the one who told the world about Plame is no longer questioned. No word of sympathy for Valerie Plame Wilson, or for the many Iraqi and American casualties created as a result of each “so and so's” actions, manipulations, and deceptions.

How can Woodward's changing positions be logically consistent? Ferreting out wrongdoing in the Nixon White House is heroic, but doing the same in the Bush White House is insensitivity built on technicality. Makes no sense – unless you consider that both moves were good for Woodward personally at the time. Ambition and greed have their own irrefutable logic.

Woodward is so deeply embedded with Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of the gang that their interests are now completely his. All of his books, all his past and future reporting, should be read in that light. Why would he serve his informant/benefactors so overtly now? Because they need him, and he needs them.

Cronies: When they turn, they turn in clusters.