I wondered if Woodward had become a true supporter of Bush. He had been given unfettered access to the White House during critical times. His work up to this point put the White House in a positive light.

His new book is no surprise to those that know Woodwards style. During the Iran Contra scandal Woodward was thrown out of the hospital that CIA director Bob Casey was staying at. He was attempting to get into the room to ask Casey questions about what he knew. Even thought he couldn't get in it didn't stop Woodward. He shamelessly went on Sixty Minutes to tell of his "meeting" with Casey.

He is not a journalist although at one time he might have been. It was only a matter of time that he took advantage of his ties to create something like this. Woodward represents what is what is wrong with the media, totally devoid of integrity.

Posted by: Sean at October 1, 2006 11:58 AM

Let's see. Who to believe? A Pulitzer Prize winner like Bob Woodward who has no political agenda and has previously written positive books about the Bush administration, or an anonymous blogger.

Posted by: Sharon Cobb at October 1, 2006 7:32 PM

Sharon,

You don't have to believe "an anonymous bogger," because the anonymous blogger does what good bloggers do: he links to known source materials to prove his point.

The anonymous blogger linked to source materials to support two points of criticism of Woodward's book:

Criticism #1. Woodward claims the Bush administration kept "secret" something that, in fact, the administration released to the public online. To prove that point, the blogger linked to those documents, which were available to everyone via the Brookings Institution website.

Criticism #2. Woodward cherry-picked from the data he misleadlingingly claimed was "secret," and ignored data that undermined his book's central thesis. Again, to prove that point the blogger linked to those documents, and also reproduced the charts.

To borrow the structure of your comment,

Let's see. Who to believe? Bob Woodward, who has a book to sell and, although he has previously written positive books about the Bush administration, he and his publisher know that anti-Bush books may do better in the current political climate, or an anonymous blogger who has no book to sell but links to the data that Woodward lied about and/or cherry-picked from?

I don't believe "an anonymous blogger."

I believe the facts he linked to.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at October 2, 2006 8:20 AM

No political agenda my eye. Woodward stated this morning on the Today program that the NY Post, his employer, and the publisher specifically planned to hold this information until just before the election. This in response to Matt Lauer's question of why he would withhold such important information for such a long time. The clear implication being - people are dying, why aren't you up on the mountain top telling everyone. (The mountain top is Lauer's phrase.) I came away with the understanding that books sales and impacting the election were a higher priority than saving lives.

View it yourself at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032633/

Posted by: Kay Brooks at October 2, 2006 9:01 AM

Some might say that by holding this until before elections that Woodward is doing his very best to stop the killing--getting war-hungry Republicans with no plan for an end to Iraq out of office.

Posted by: brittney at October 2, 2006 1:21 PM

He's lying about the fact that we're losing in Iraq? Are you joking? The consensus view of the entire federal intelligence community is that we're losing in Iraq.

Posted by: fiend at October 3, 2006 10:05 AM

The consensus view of the enemy - al Qaeda - is that it (al Qaeda) is losing in both Iraq and Afghanistan: LINK.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at October 3, 2006 10:14 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments:

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):