The more I hear, the more I distrust the Woodward book...

[Junkdrawer]

Seems to me the book's sensational anti-Bush charges are far out weighed by:

1.) It completely and thoroughly lets Bush off the hook for the decision to invade Iraq - a skeptical Bush is strong armed by Tenet

2.) It paints Bush as firmly in charge of the White House

3.) It moves the timeline of the invasion decision until AFTER congressional approval.

And what are the anti-Bush "hooks"?

1.) Bandar saw maps and was informed after Powell (denied on Larry King by Bandar himself)

2.) Bandar promises to lower the price of gas in an election year (how would this be proved, especially if it never happens?)

3.) Bush spent 700 million that wasn't approved by congress to plan the Iraq war. (Wouldn't the GAO have figured this out anyway?)


No, all in all, I think the Woodward book was a clever way to answer the "They Lied about WMD" charges. No sell.

[Toucano]

1. Woodward's book is an accurate account

of what the administration wanted him to know.

[boobooday]

3. Well you said it

Very succinctly. A perfect description.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[AngryAmish]

25. Bingo

On NPR yesterday they interviewed David Gergan (and others I think) about how Woodward gets his info. Essentially, he talks to the people involved. He kisses the ass of who talks to him and slams those who do not.

[xultar]

2. I agree!! At first I was excited then I thought, they are using Woodward

to put out their version of the Dirty Laundry first. They can build against it. The voters will forget. Kerry won't be able to use it.

GOP Wins.

[papau]

5. I agree - the pretend conflict is only half hearted today!

Woodward acts like he is "shocked" at the little bit of dust stirred up!

What a con!

:-(

[qb]

4. Depressing - just Karl Rove's SOP

Fortunate Son
The "Bush Knew" headlines
Now this.
Releasing damaging information early so they can shut it down fast and move on.

[G_j]

6. on NightLine is was said that

the WH website provides a link to the book as recommened reading or something to that effect :shrug:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

11. G_j correct & the WH ordered/approved its staff to be interviewed by

Woodward...they were told to cooperate fully with woodward for his book....i also do NOT trust Woodward NOR this book

[G_j]

13. I noticed they haven't started smearing him

since when does that happen with a messenger they don't like?

[riverwalker]

17. it is recommended by Whitehouse

someone had a link to the site. The book is there along with Karen Hughes book and Hannity's. :puke:

[freetobegay]

7. Here is some food for thought

Way back in the 70's it was unheard of that a President would do...

[Mandate My Ass]

8. Wasn't there a NYT article

from the spring of '01 in which Bush was quoted as saying, "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out" or something to that effect?

So, yes, when I was watching 60 minutes I got the distinct impression Woodward was lying about the timeline.

Time to go google.

I found it. Bush: "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out." He said it in March 2002. Yet Woodward claims they didn't begin planning to "take Saddam out" until the following year.

[Toucano]

15. That's not 100% accurate

Woodward says that Bush told Rummy to start the planning for the Iraq war around Thanksgiving 2001.

The decision to go to war, according to Woodward, was made in January 2003. Just weeks after the inspectors had been let back in, the decision was made.

Bush then pretended that Saddam could still avoid war by cooperating with the inspectors.

That's how I understand Woodwards claim, at least.

[Az]

9. It has to be mentioned

that Woodward keeps backpedaling whenever someone tries to use his words to nail the coffin down on Georgie. I get the feeling he is still in love with George.

[HFishbine]

10. You've read it,

I assume.

[LynneSin]

12. At first I was excited to buy the book

....but that whole "dirty laundry" concept is starting to bug me. I mean, what if they knew a slew of high profile books would come out against them (the Bush Administration) and so the Bush Admin. decided to use woodward to send out their modified version of it.

Clarke has nothing to gain from his book whereas Woodward is hoping to regain his notority.

Maybe I'll borrow Woodward's book from a library

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. Woodward on NPR this morning

clearly painting Bush as deceitful, especially regarding "have no war plans on my desk", which was literally true but a conceptual lie.
Woodward is out to paint Bush as a liar.

[Paradise]

16. You Got It! n/t

[riverwalker]

18. get John Dean's book first

it is essentially a primer in "How and Why to Impeach GW". I got the impression from Dean that he is saying "OK people, this is the law, this is how he broke it" now get out there and get it done.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. Anyone else catch this in the 60 minutes interview?

When Woodward was speaking of Hussein, he stated that Hussein was in bad shape, used language to the effect that he was "barely coherent" and that he wasn't really providing any good info on Iraq.

I think Woodward was setting it up for Bushco to claim Saddam would be unfit for any war crimes trial so that nothing that might be damagin to Poppy or Rummy could come out.

[Junkdrawer]

20. PS: And as for the God stuff, I think you will notice that Woodward...

carefully precludes an "I'm talking to God" claim and merely paints Bush as a man who prays for guidance. In middle America, that's a plus, not a minus.

[seabeyond]

21. i take back what i took back

talk about flip flop. i said woodward was on bush side

i believe he is in the fog of drunken power adn thought cutsey stories to pump bush, but reality in their stupidity, gives so much to puke the world

they are all surprised people are condemning or questioning their arrogance

so i was right the first time, bah ha ha ha

[Junkdrawer]

23. LOL: I was excited by the Woodward buzz at first too...

And let me be clear, the $700 million diversion is a scandal. The SA oil deal (IF it is ever proven) is a scandal. But I just cannot see Bush sitting with Tenet saying "I'd like to believe you, but how do I know you're telling me the truth". That sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would dream up.

[apnu]

22. odd that nobody mentioned anything about bi-partisanship.

Which as always been Woodward's thing. He takes the creed of journalism very seriously and attempts to present things at they are to him. He's not putting his personal view into the book, nor his personal politics. He lets those he interviewed sit there on their own merits, as a journalist should do, and let the reader make up his/her own mind with the content provided.

Yet I keep hearing on DU that Woodward let * off the hook simply because he didn't make any accusations. Woodward is a reporter, its not his job to make accusations Even though, journalism today is all about accusations, that's actually in violation of the creed (or oath some say) of journalism. He didn't partake in "yellow journalism" something the left and right have been guilty of for hundreds of years in America.

Give the guy a break and take his book as is and draw your own conclusions, don't burn his effigy because he didn't "go after" *. There are tons of other books out there for you to read if that gets your jollies off. Try "Dude, Where's My Country" by Michael Moore, "Lies" by Al Franken, "Bushwacked" by Molly Ivans, and "Worse than Watergate" by John Dean.

Of course, his other book about * is puzzling and you can dive around DU about it and find a ton of theories about that. But we'll never know what Woodward was thinking between these books until someone asks him. I don't know what to say on that, having not talked to or heard from Woodward on this. But I will still take his books at face value, and this current one has a bunch of information in it that scoops everybody which is why he's showing up everywhere with his stories.

[xxqqqzme]

26. woodward a journalist????

I'm Odette in 'Swan Lake'!

[Malva Zebrina]

24. first hint

for days we were told how the White HOuse was shaking in it's boots because of Woodward's book that was going to be released

Alert signs went up

and now we see it on the WH web site as recommended reading

I agree that:
.) It paints Bush as firmly in charge of the White House

and this is what this adolescent, less than intelligent man loves.

He is NOT in charge--I am convinced. He is too stupid to be in charge as eveidenced in the last press conference. HE is just stupid

What a sham we have for a country. What a bunch of slimey sleezeballs we have running this once proud country.