Preaching From the Gospel of Bob Woodward

The Federal Election Commission recently rejected a claim by the Republican National Committee and ruled that Twitter didn't violate campaign finance laws when it prevented users from sharing New York Post articles on the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop in 2020. The New York Times falsely claimed it was "unsubstantiated."

Liberal outlets often try to ignore conservative journalism, refusing to recognize facts and substance that they fear are damaging to Democrats. The closer the election gets, the more hypersensitive their censoring instincts become. They repeated Democrat claims of "Russian misinformation" and moved on.

This never happens to Bob Woodward, the "legend" of The Washington Post. He is, to liberals, the gold standard of information. He never commits misinformation. Nothing ever needs to be substantiated. No source ever needs to be identified. No "reconstructed conversation" is ever doubted. The Bible is treated less reverently than Woodward's latest gospel.

The alleged scripture this time around is that Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was so frightened by what former President Donald Trump might do in late 2020 and January 2021 that he had conversations with a general in China, advising him that if there was going to be some crazy nuclear attack from Trump, he would give the communists a heads-up.

Conservatives were immediately up in arms at the treasonous sound of this. But the first question should be: Can Woodward be trusted? Why does no one attempt to substantiate this before reporting it willy-nilly? Obviously, reporters attempted to follow up after this tidal wave hit the beach. But that's not the way Biden stories were treated. To report on Biden's lobbying exploits (not to mention the sex-and-drugs exploits) was perceived as some kind of repellent Trump-enabling act.

There are many reasons why Woodward's first draft of history should be questioned, starting with his incredibly opaque style of reporting, with some 200 interviewees behind a wall of anonymity.

Sometimes, Woodward's hot scoops crumble under scrutiny. In Woodward's 1987 book "Veil," he claimed that former CIA Director Bill Casey gave him a deathbed confession that he had known about the diversion of Iran arms sale money to the Nicaraguan anti-communist resistance. But Casey's daughter, Bernadette Casey Smith, said Woodward "never got the deathbed confession." Woodward quoted William Donnelly, CIA head of administration, in his defense: "Woodward probably found a way to sneak in." Probably?

This wasn't the only questionable hospital story in "Veil." Woodward also claimed that former President Ronald Reagan's recovery from his 1981 attempted assassination was poor. Reagan could "concentrate for only a few minutes at a time" and was able to "remain attentive only an hour or so a day." Reagan's physician, Dr. Daniel Ruge, told the Associated Press that Reagan's recovery was "superb." "I never saw anything like that ... it's certainly news to me, and I was there all the time."

The liberal media can't seem to recognize that Woodward's books have a strong bias depending on who is in power. Republicans are punished while Democrats get a softer touch. Woodward knows who buys his books, and they are not Republicans.

Almost any TV interview with Woodward displays his partisan tilt. In 1999, Woodward asserted on "Hardball" (when it aired on CNBC) that "Hillary (Clinton) went through her own Stations of the Cross in the Whitewater investigation, pre-Monica."

So Clinton suffered like Jesus being crucified. That's the liberal journalist attempting to use Catholic metaphors and failing badly. The gospel of Woodward finds gods in the strangest places -- gods who flagrantly lied their way through scandals while journalists kissed their cheeks like they were holy.

What is this article…part of the left’s campaign to whitewash Milley?

“Oh, we can’t be really sure it happened, blah, blah, nothing to see here.” So Woodward has suddenly decided to lie about an anti-Trump hero of the left? I don’t think so.

I think it is possible that Woodward thought this book would actually make Milley look good, saving us from the evil Trump. Remember, both the research and the publishing project were started long before the Afghanistan disaster. Maybe Woodward thought releasing it now would help Milley.

Bob Woodward, iirc, was part of the “pentagon papers” duo.
If he was, he should have been shot.

That’s all I will say.

Yes, I think the left will treat the Milley story exactly that way. "Trump was unstable, and a bigger enemy than the Chi-coms" is how the left is already spinning it.

One argument, of the two, is likely true.

Either Woodward is accurate in his reporting in which case Milley needs to be court martialed for treason (and Woodward needs to be jailed for suppression of evidence for the months that he had this info before he put it in print)?

Or Woodward is blowing smoke in which case he should be jailed for instigating a hoax against Milley (and Milley should sue Woodward and the WAPO for every penny that they have)?

But the third scenario will most likely occur, POTUS Trump will be blamed by Woodward and the DC deep state and be impeached for a third time.

Then there is the attraction that Pelosi and Schumer had in this love affair too!!!!

There are many reasons why Woodward's first draft of history should be questioned, starting with his incredibly opaque style of reporting, with some 200 interviewees behind a wall of anonymity.

Two hundred anonymous sources?! That's a license to fabricate.

In 1999, Woodward asserted on "Hardball" (when it aired on CNBC) that "Hillary (Clinton) went through her own Stations of the Cross in the Whitewater investigation, pre-Monica."

That's just LOL funny right there! Hillary Clinton? Stations of the Cross? The only gods she believes in are Hillary Clinton and Moloch.

Why would he make up such a damaging story? He didn’t…I suspect that he (and Milley) were so obsessed with their hatred of Trump that they actually believed revealing it would make them look good, like saviors of the country. What it did, of course, is reveal treason or possibly even treason and sedition.

Those sources are not going to remain anonymous long if this is treated as the treason that it is. All of these sources will be rushing forward to declare that they really had nothing to do with it, Milley had made them agree under duress (threats to their careers), and they told Woodward about it just wishing to clear their names. They’ll turn on him in a heartbeat if things get serious.

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.