Bob Woodward's "State of Denial"

[AbeFroman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ld/mideast/iraq

 

 

Sounds like this book is going to reveal a whole bunch of things the Bush administration is attempting to cover-up about Iraq. I'm so surprised.

[NorthSideSox72]

Having read Bush at War and Plan of Attack, I'll definitely be curious to read this one. Woodward seems to have a gift for relaying events and images on the political hot stove without much bias, but still makes it fascinating.

[southsider2k5]

So lets see, a book attacking Bush, acusations of price fixing at the pump, Clinton/Gore on the warpath... Yup it must be election time.

[NorthSideSox72]

So lets see, a book attacking Bush, acusations of price fixing at the pump, Clinton/Gore on the warpath... Yup it must be election time.

Absolutely. I think I said the same thing a couple weeks ago when BushCo ratcheted up the war drums.

[Balta1701]

Absolutely. I think I said the same thing a couple weeks ago when BushCo ratcheted up the war drums.

"We must legalize torture and suspend Habeus Corpus before it's too late."

 

So...just on the book...I think it is probably worth noting that this is the same Bob Woodward who wrote the at least much more balanced, if not somewhat pro-Bush book "Bush at War" a few years ago. If he's become this much more shrill...then his analysis of this administration has really, really changed.

[NorthSideSox72]

"We must legalize torture and suspend Habeus Corpus before it's too late."

 

So...just on the book...I think it is probably worth noting that this is the same Bob Woodward who wrote the at least much more balanced, if not somewhat pro-Bush book "Bush at War" a few years ago. If he's become this much more shrill...then his analysis of this administration has really, really changed.

I posted that earlier... about his previous books. I don't think he is any more shrill - its being publicized by the newspaper he works for, and who therefore can pretty much publicize his work any way they want to. His books are just that much more of a big deal now. If anyone is being shrill, I'll point at the Washington Post.

 

Then again, maybe he'll go Clancy and walk off the ledge because he got so full of himself.

[southsider2k5]

Absolutely. I think I said the same thing a couple weeks ago when BushCo ratcheted up the war drums.

 

Absolutely. I just wanted to make sure someone noted the other side of this... as usual, it was me.

[EvilMonkey]

Absolutely. I just wanted to make sure someone noted the other side of this... as usual, it was me.

You forgot to mention that it is gonna get airtime on 60 minutes.

[kapkomet]

You forgot to mention that it is gonna get airtime on 60 minutes.

You don't say? Gee, I'm shocked.

[Texsox]

I feel the need to point out that the two major political parties have tried to make this a Coke vs. Pepsi world. To blindly boo or cheer based on team uniforms is a grave disservice to America. The first party faithfulls to clean up their party will be in power a long time, but both are afraid. Dems have to clean up Dems and GOPs need to clean up GOPs.

[Cknolls]

FWIW. Here is a story about Woody I came across.

Woodward [Michael Ledeen]

 

There doesn't seem to be much interest in Woodward's book here, and for good reason. Anyone who thinks he knows what other people are thinking, especially in situations he didn't witness—which is after all what most all Woodward books are all about—is not to be taken seriously. I haven't read a Woodward book since I reviewed his thing on Casey, which famously contained an account of a sort of conversation he claimed he had with the stroke-stricken director of central intelligence in the hospital. Woodward was scheduled to go on Nightline, and earlier that day Ted Koppel called me and asked what I would ask Woodward. "Ask him to describe the room," I said. "You know, what was Casey wearing? Were there lots of flowers? What color were his pajamas, that sort of thing..." And Koppel did. And Woodward froze, deer-in-the-headlights. Then he said he couldn't discuss it because it would "reveal sources."

 

He couldn't discuss it because he wasn't there. He was the source himself.

 

I'm not going to read this one either

[Balta1701]

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: He is terrific. He’s a great journalist, and I look forward to reading it. He’s talking about a pretty complex set of discussions about military issues and diplomatic issues, and I’m sure it will be — be fantastic. [CNN, 4/25/04]

 

DAN BARTLETT: I think Bob Woodward has done a pretty — particularly good job of describing how complicated of a process it is for a commander in chief to do two real important but sometimes conflicting responsibilities. [CNN, 4/25/04]

 

BARTLETT: We’re urging people to buy the book. What this book does is show a president who was asking the right questions and showing prudence as well as resolve during very difficult times. This book undermines a lot of the critics’ charges. [Washington Post, 4/21/04]

 

JOHN KING, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: But what is most striking is that, here at the White House, they say read the book. They believe it shows — it paints the picture of a president who asks the right questions, the tough questions, before going to war and then decided that he was right in launching that war. [CNN, 4/19/04]

[IggyD]

I feel the need to point out that the two major political parties have tried to make this a Coke vs. Pepsi world. To blindly boo or cheer based on team uniforms is a grave disservice to America. The first party faithfulls to clean up their party will be in power a long time, but both are afraid. Dems have to clean up Dems and GOPs need to clean up GOPs.

 

 

Well said Texsox....