I dunno..but Woodward not looking good in Larry King Interview/Repeat

[KoKo]

tonight. It kind of looks like he's revealing who he "REALLY WORKS FOR."

He mentioned James Baker, III.

Anyone watching this? Woodward is very CLEVER. Most of the "short interviews" have us DU'ers falling over him in ecstasy because he seems to be telling the TRUTH...which is what we've waited for.

Yet...in a full hour interview he seems to have lots of "holes" in his book...in that ...WHO or WHOM is Woodward WORKING FOR in his BOOKS?

I think that's important for us to think about...as good as his book sounds and as much as the MSM has made of his "Book 3" ...we need to remember "Books 1 and 2" and how Woodward gave them "cover" until he "pulled plug" in Book 3.

Woodward says he's just a Reporter and so Books 1 and 2 were just reporting where we were at that time and that Book 3 shows his information where he finally makes a "CONCLUSION!"

"There's a bridge for sale in Brooklyn, NY for Sale, Bob, if you expect us to believe how innocent a "reporter" you are that you are the "ULTIMATE" in discussing the BUSH CRIMES...that WE, GRUNGY AMERICANS KNEW ......way long before you DID...because we READ and READ and READ!

Something's FISHY about Woodward.

[tridim]

1. Completely disagree.. Woodward has been devastating to BushCo

Going on a week now. He's destroying them, delivering one knockout punch after another.

[KoKo]

2. Is he Pontius Pilate "Washing his hands" of what was going to happen

to Jesus anyway? :shrug: Sort of sounds like it.... Woodward is just a "Ruhporrrtorr" he don't know nothin' from nothin'.

[morningglory]

17. Ruporder... (to my ear) : )

[MadMaddie]

3. I wonder if he was trying to relive his Watergate days....?

Is it possible he played the administration like a fine violin? Got in with the crowd....wrote two books that praised the administration to ensure he was considered "in" and then as the war is souring and the truth is coming out he decided to write this book?

He is cunning....and I wouldn't put this past him....but I don't necessarily trust him...

[KoKo]

4. Plus he mentioned his "researcher" Bob Murphey about 6 times...

Who knew that Woodward had an "assistant/researcher" on his book?

He's so powerful and rich and famous he can hire an "assistant" he has to mention 6 times?

:eyes: And, yes....I do know that "Big Wig" Novelists/Biographers do from time to time employ "researchers." But, you gotta be BIG to do that....and does that make Bob a CEO?

[snowbear]

5. To each his own KoKo.. I thought he was AWESOME !!!

But hey.. everyone has their opinions!

[KoKo]

7. Yeah...no problem...I just had antennae

"on fire" but I respect what you say.

[Erika]

6. He sounds like a reporter of 35 years who has seen it all

His reputataion has never been impugned except by Bushbots. His book is #1 on Amazon.

He thinks of W as an optimist with no connection to reality. That's how many of us see W.

[Garbo 2004]

19. Actually, Woodward's had credibility issues in the past. That deathbed

"interview" with William Casey, for one example, in "Veil." Woodward claims he sneaked into Casey's guarded hospital room and got coherent info from a guy who couldn't speak. He's had people questioning his veracity long before there were "Bushbots."

Woodward also was the guy who was publicly saying the Plame case was much ado about nothing, that no national security concerns existed and no harm resulted. Although the CIA and a three judge panel had concluded otherwise, the CIA enough to refer the matter to the DOJ and the judges concluding that there were serious national security issues and repercussions that warranted forcing Cooper and Miller to talk or be held in contempt of court. Right before Libby's indictment Woodward was on Larry King singing that song (he'd previously made the rounds of other media outlets with his same message). What Woodward failed to disclose even to his own bosses at the WaPo was that he'd been leaked the Plame info in June 2003. His own subsequent explanations for not coming forward with that bit of info only until after Libby was indicted and his stated actions even then were at best frankly not entirely credible in themselves.

Frank Rich's December 2005 take on that episode and Woodward's "Plan of Attack": http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/120405Z.shtml

Woodward's impugned his own rep with his previous hagiographies of the Bush White House, his defense of the Plame leaks, and if he simply views Bush as an "optimist" who's just a tad out of touch.

[Ninja Jordan]

8. an aside: how can one 'not look good' in a Larry King interview LOL

the guy is the softest interviewer around...

[Jackpine Radical]

9. Fishy? What's fishy

about the CIA? I think they bring him in to do the ax jobs.

[KoKo]

10. Good Point..

have read much speculation on that with Woodward. What I saw kind of made me go closer to that way....than the way he and the media are leading me.....

[Jackpine Radical]

13. Neither he nor the media have much interest in leading you

in the direction of the actual story.

Lookit--I think that momma quail has a broken wing.

[KoKo]

14. yep...gotcha about "momma quail."

I grew up in rural America...gotcha.

[fuzzyball]

11. Woodward's #1 priority----------> SELL BOOKs........enuff said

[bluestateguy]

12. Woodward goes which way the wind blows

when the wind was blowing for Bush the "popular wartime president", Woodward writes puff piece books. When the wind is blowing against the Baby Bush, Woodward writes hard-hitting books. Either way, he sells books, makes lots of money, and is guaranteed more book contracts in the future.

[leftofthedial]

15. he is not an honest broker

[calimary]

16. Sorry, I'm not falling over in ecstasy over this guy. Just because this

particular book starts to tell some truths about bush does NOT in ANY way redeem Bob Woodward in my eyes. He still had his presidential kneepads glued on for the first two books, and just because this one's a little different doesn't earn him a "get out of jail free" card from me.

I read the lead-in article in "Newsweek" - the first "Newsweek" I've purchased in a long time - and wasn't impressed. He's quoted as saying when you go back and plow the same field again, you find new things. Bullshit. That stuff was ALL THERE back then. He was being a fawning stenographer, because he DID know which way the wind was blowing, and he wanted to be invited into the "in crowd." He describes staff meetings with bush, in the new book, as taking on an aura of a "royal court" where everybody presents his lordship with lots of happy talk and upbeat assessments, and said majesty can leave the room in a great mood and slap people on the back and talk about taking aim on Iran next and joke with the back-slappee that they'd rather hold out for Cuba because of the rum and the cigars and because the women are prettier. Har-de-har-har. Lots of fun, frat-boy, locker-room towel-snapping crap. And Woodward wanted to play, because that was the way to the inside, to get in with the "in crowd" (or the PERCEIVED "in crowd"), so he was MORE than willing to suspend his objectivity and play along.

But he wants us to believe that he only found out about this overwhelming, overriding arrogance, this treating bush meetings as though they were "royal courts," this duplicity, this across-the-board deceit, only just LATELY? What, he just rolled off the turnip truck or something? This wasn't self-evident APLENTY when he was there for interviews the previous two rounds? That he couldn't possibly have gotten at least some of this earlier, played devil's advocate, asked some tough questions, gotten a glimpse?

It's true - WE who wanted to look deeper than the carefully-spun party line DID know the truth. We who weren't paid princely sums for publishing advances on books chronicling the goings-on in the highest-level inner circles DID know the truth. Because we read and read and read. And researched and researched and researched. And took OUR intel from other sources than the carefully-spun one-sided party line. We knew. Why the fuck didn't he? Because he was only going for a limited view. If he even entertained the idea that what they were up to wasn't on the up-n-up, did he even think to pursue it? No. Because he didn't want to get the kind of obscenity-laced phone calls and hang-ups from cheney that he got for this book. Because he wanted them to like him and let him in. So when he noted that meetings with bush took on an air of a "royal court," HE was part of enabling that. HE was responsible for playing along, playing into it, and feeding the myth.

He's got a LONG way to go to redeem himself from all those earlier sins. And I'm no grieving Gold Star Mother. I'd doubt there'd be ANY way for any of these coddling courtiers to redeem themselves if their enabling of this war and all its carnage and death and destruction had cost the life of someone I loved. All that wreckage and bloodshed is on Woodward's hands, too. Just as it is on the hands of EVERYBODY who made excuses for this regime and its war, or was in position to stop it or slow it down and failed to do so.

With apologies to "Blazing Saddles," Mongo NOT impressed.

[zann725]

18. Totally agree. He's NOT the Woodward of Watergate days, & hasn't been

for some time. If he ever was. That "Deepthroat" revalation of that old man was even NOT very convincing as the REAL "Deepthroat." Just a hoax.

And the CNN interview told nothing new. The books sounds like nothing new, except that Woodward now WANTS to lean toward the winners, and away from the losers (even though he still is "tight" with them).