Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Wordsmith
Well, obviously you've got a beef against Woodward, but here's a few more quotes from his book. Do you honestly believe that he could get away with so wildly misquoting the Administration, in a bestselling book featured at every major bookstore in the country, and that the WH wouldn't say a peep?

Lemme see. He claimed to get a hospital bed interview with William Casey - at a time that Casey was in a coma. He claims to be able to know what various figures are thinking. But, other than that, I have no reason to question the veracity of his books. /sarcasm

BTW, the White House has no need to refute Woodward's claims. To those who swallow Woodward's creative writing as fact, their denials won't matter, and to those who understand how thoroughly Woodward is discredited, no denial from the WH is needed.

63 posted on 03/14/2003 11:24:16 AM PST by dirtboy (The Pentagon thinks they can create TIA when they can't even keep track of their own contractors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]


To: dirtboy
Why do you think the White House keep inviting him back?
64 posted on 03/14/2003 11:25:17 AM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: dirtboy
Well, Fred Barnes thinks Woodward's book is based on fact. But I suppose the opinion of Barnes and The Weekly Standard doesn't score too highly for you either:

Fred Barnes: "Publication of any book by Woodward is a major event in the Washington political community--and not only because some top government players are boosted, others not. A question always lurks: Who talked to Woodward? The rule of thumb is that those who talk extensively and leak riveting information come off better than those who don't. Maybe, maybe not. But it's clear Woodward had, in writing "Bush at War," impressive access to the people he promotes--to Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, to Tenet and much of what his agency was doing, and to what went on in the meetings of the National Security Council, the realm of the president, Rice, and Hadley. Rumsfeld and Cheney were less helpful. Rumsfeld provided only an on-the-record interview, according to an aide. Cheney was not interviewed for the book."

"There's plenty of evidence of Woodward's reporting prowess in "Bush at War"--the inside details (Bush bench presses 205 pounds), the hidden fears (Bush aide Karl Rove worries Powell is protecting his moderate credentials at Bush's expense), the private conversations ("I hope you'll never lie to me," Bush tells Senate majority leader Tom Daschle on September 12, 2001), the interior conclusions of the players (Hadley "thought" Rumsfeld didn't take the CIA seriously enough), and so on. Woodward, famed for his investigative reporting that cracked open the Watergate scandal, is the best pure reporter of his generation, perhaps ever. He uncovers more things than anyone else in journalism--important things as well as trivial, and all interesting. For example, in "The Commanders," his book about the Gulf War in 1991, Woodward revealed the strong reluctance of Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State James Baker to go to war with Iraq."

I don't agree with Woodward's politics. But, as Barnes says, he's a crack reporter. And I don't think the WH would be silent on a book that is featured at EVERY major bookstore in the country if it was full of lies, on the assumption that "well, everyone knows Woodward is a liar anyway".

76 posted on 03/14/2003 11:37:01 AM PST by Wordsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson