.
Posted on 10/24/2004 12:19:13 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
The role of commander in chief is clearly one of the president's most important jobs. But a presidential campaign provides voters little opportunity to evaluate how a candidate would handle that role, particularly if the candidate isn't an incumbent.
At the end of last year, during 3 1/2 hours of interviews over two days, I asked President Bush hundreds of detailed questions about his actions and decisions during the 16-month run-up to the war in Iraq. His answers were published in my book "Plan of Attack." Beginning on June 16, I had discussions and meetings with Sen. John Kerry's senior foreign policy, communications and political advisers about interviewing the senator to find out how he might have acted on Iraq -- to ask him what he would have done at certain key points. Senior Kerry advisers initially seemed positive about such an interview. One aide told me, "The short answer is yes, it's going to happen."
In August, I was talking with Kerry's scheduler about possible dates. On Sept. 1, Kerry began his intense criticism of Bush's decisions in the Iraq war, saying "I would've done almost everything differently." A few days later, I provided the Kerry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations. The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
.
If I am not mistaken, Woodward is the editor......which brought my question.
Bob Woodward is a real creep.
Kerry THE COWARD has no plan for IRAQ:
This is a President Bush Talking Point.
Email this to:
I guess it wouldn't have been a rush to war if we took 16 months and one day...
Yeah, it's just the way the ball bounces when it comes to MSM. Kerry and the democRATS can do no wrong. He will get the endorsement of most liberal newspapers just because they HATE Bush so bad. But it doesn't matter how hard they try to swing the election towards Kerry, Bush is gonna win by a landslide! ;-]
The WaPo has already endorsed Kerry. They're more interested in being invited to state dinners and the increased social scene in Washington, than in staying alive or in the lives of the 50 million people who have been liberated. We all know where the WaPos stand.
Indecision on Iraq. Indecision on the terrorists.
That is his Plan he keeps talking about. Indecisiveness is KEY to his Plan.
I think this article, with its list of things Bush did or did not do, is really intended to point out Bush's failures. It's just that the only way he could do this was to start out by appearing to be down on John Kerry for not accepting the interview. By the time the reader completes the piece, he'll be ranting about Bush, not Kerry.
Question 23.
Why haven't you signed the SF180?
Why haven't you answered questions about your discharge?
ask Bob about those questions he left off the list:
Bob Woodward: woodwardb@washpost.com
Assistant managing editor, reporter
Best laugh I have had in a long time.
Well, permit me to say that this is a REALLY WIMPY HEADLINE, which does NOT inform readers that Kerry refused to talk about Iraq.
The article, too, is constructed so you have to read down into the third paragraph before you begin to understand what it is about--namely that Kerry dodged answering any questions.
I think Woodward let kerry off very easy with this.
"Would Kerry Have Done Things Differently?"
Why the title Bob? You asking us? It's your job to find out, your the reporter remember. The American public have been trying to figure that one out for quite some time. What's wrong, no deep throat to help you out.
Woodward should have blasted skerry for not doing the interview but he completely let him off the hook, just like the rest of the MSM. Worthless.
Portrait Of A True Leader!
The Post endorsed Kerry? And Kerry wouldn't answer Woodwards' questions? I'm cancelling my subscription.
Maybe he is just tired from all those flip-flops. Maybe he decided that it is easier to not answer than spend a lot of time flipping and flopping like a fish out of water.
At least Woodward brings a little bit of attention to this. John Kerry has gone through this election cycle without subjecting himself to anything more difficult than a Jon Stewart *ss-kissing interview for laughs. The press has ignored any vetting of this candidate: his 20+ year record in congress, his VVAW stuff, his many "plans", and all the lies he's been throwing about W.
Way to go, MSM. You've proven what you're good for: nothing.
I'm always skeptical of what Bob Woodward says or reports. I view him as someone who is more interested in promoting himself rather than being an honest reporter.
By the way, I am also skeptical of the Woodward and Bernstein claim of the real (not imaginary) existence of a "Deep Throat."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
