Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bob Woodward is not on your side.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 12:25 PM
Original message
Bob Woodward is not on your side.
Edited on Thu Sep-28-06 12:27 PM by BuyingThyme
And he doesn't just happen to write books on the eves of elections.

You may recall that one of Bob's previous Bush books was literally promoted on the official White House website. Why do you suppose?

And don't forget his role in covering for Dick Cheney and Judy Miller. Why do you suppose?

Don't fall for any of this. Woodward works for this administration.

Welcome to October.

Surprise!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Finder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. I disagree. I think he is anti-corruption, pro-constitution...
and is outside the sphere of partisanship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Bullshit, he's a neocon. He's covered for this administration
throughout thick and thin. He lied in regard to the Plame investigation.

He just needs money to support his lifestyle and writing is how he gets it. He'll do whatever is necessary to get another paycheck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. You have a lot to learn about Bob Woodward.
Why do you suppose he called the imprisonment of Judy Miller a witch hunt, etc., while pretending to know nothing about it?

"Anti-corruption"? How 'bout Uncle Corruption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryOldDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Exactly
This is NOT the Bob Woodward of the Nixon years. If it had been, this administration would have been toast a couple of years back.

He has become one of the top apologists for Bushco, and I think it's a damned shame. He spent whatever credibility he had a couple of books back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Before he inserted himself into the Libby investigation,
he actually said he would take Miller's place in jail if he could.

As it turns out, he should have been in there with her.

Imagine what this guy was thinking at the time he said that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryOldDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Oh, I can just imagine....
...something along the lines of, "there but for the grace of God, go I," perhaps?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Finder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. I think he is subtle and documents the dots objectively...
for others to connect.

I think many journalists feel the same way about Judy Miller's jailing regardless of their political leanings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I think your perception is what makes him so dangerous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. he once was.
But no longer. Events have proven that to be the case. You simply cannot defend your statement, whereas the OP is has history on his side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. nope-he is one of their boys now
Edited on Thu Sep-28-06 12:37 PM by nam78_two
I don't think he and Bernstein have much to do with each other anymore...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Not when I saw him on CSPAN's
Washington Journal. He was pure neocon. He got seduced by Bushian attention. The Bushies welcomed him into their cabal, invited him to a few dinners, threw some meetings his way, and his panties were off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. That was 30 years ago. He's now a neo-con fuck
Constantly whoring for the war, worshipping Bush (read some of his latest drivel), oh and now that his glorious war isn't going so well, he's all like blaming it on the WH for not 'doing it properly', as if an illegal, immoral, war could be 'done properly'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
29. bob woodwards only loyalty is to his bank account.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. I agree, but he also may be worried he banked too much of his credibility
with the Bush family, and fears going under with them as they are close to being exposed - he needs to add some REAL credibility to his account before that happens.

Here's hoping there is SOME honest tidbit we can use in his latest attempt to downplay the fascist grabs of the BFEE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
6. No kidding- Bob Woodward is a neocon.
I believe a god damned thing he says, or writes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
11. But Bob really wants your money
I shelled out for that last book of his dammit, thinking it would be a revelation...it certainly was

And I know how the phrase goes:

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

He will not get another DIME of my money. And what did I do with "Plan of Attack" you may ask? Gave it more than it deserved...a burial in a hole in my back yard. So as not to confuse any anthropologists of the future, I took a Sharpie and wrote "piece of crap from a piece of shit" on the front cover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sequoia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. You're a riot!!! I can just see you doing it too!
I was always a little miffed that Bernstein didn't get the credit he deserved. Not one of "them" I guess. Just a "poor boy who's story's seldom told."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. I do stuff like this ALL the time...and since anthropology /archeology
are hard tasks I do not want any confusion over why they may have found this book buried...I mean, we could certainly use some more clues on lets say the building of the pyramids, the Nazca lines, the Stones of Baalbeck, Stonhenge, Atlantis and Camelot (where are they dang it!),Avebury, Rollright Stones, Easter Island, the Stones of Ica, crystal skulls, (stop me I could go on forever).

I want to make sure they know it is a crap book. I have buried stuff all over the place in my time, with notes and inside containers, with a note on even why I buried it in a specific container.

Sometimes you can have fun...weird fun is only in the eyes of the beholder. :)

Now, tell me what this primitive man was drawing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sequoia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. I'll have to sleep on it. Interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
13. Does it matter? There are much much much worse. (nt)
Edited on Thu Sep-28-06 12:48 PM by w4rma
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. I don't think there are any worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
18. Don't let Carl Bernstein hear you say that:
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/454151p-382164c.html

Former Washington Post reporter Bernstein - a featured player at Monday night's celeb-glutted dramatic reading of "All the President's Men" to raise money for the Naked Angels Theater Company - brought the show to a crashing halt after emcee Sam Seder, a host on the financially bankrupt Air America radio network, ranted about Bernstein's fellow Watergate sleuth.

"It's appropriate that Bob Woodward isn't here tonight," Seder sniped from the stage at Skylight Studios before slamming the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, and the news media in general, for allegedly being soft on the Bush White House.

—snipped—

With the performance of William Goldman's Oscar-winning screenplay well under way, Bernstein delayed his first line (as metropolitan editor Harry Rosenfeld) to announce: "I take vigorous exception to what was just said about my friend and colleague Bob Woodward."

Calling Seder's remarks "wholly inappropriate," Bernstein said: "Most of what we know about the Bush White House comes from Bob Woodward's reporting." As for the unraveling of the Watergate scandal and Richard Nixon's presidency, "We wouldn't even be here tonight if it weren't for Bob Woodward."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Finder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
19. Have you read his books? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Yes. Not all of them, but more than most I'd say.
As I recall, he's very good at quoting people who cannot speak (or write, or respond to family members).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
22. Bob Woodward is on Bob Woodward's side
I don't trust him for a second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaverhausen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
23. have you seen this about his appearance on 60 Minutes on SUnday?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/60minutes/main2047607.shtml

CBS) Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward tells Mike Wallace that the Bush administration has not told the truth regarding the level of violence, especially against U.S. troops, in Iraq. He also reveals key intelligence that predicts the insurgency will grow worse next year.

In Wallace’s interview with Woodward, to be broadcast on 60 Minutes this Sunday, Oct. 1, at 7 p.m. ET/PT, the reporter also claims that Henry Kissenger is among those advising Mr. Bush.

According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. "It’s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That's more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces," says Woodward.

morea the link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Is that news to anybody? No, it's a hook.
Edited on Thu Sep-28-06 01:30 PM by BuyingThyme
The lies are already out there.

Bob will explain why lying is so important to our president and our country. Bob will explain that sacrifices must be made. Bob will explain that the Vietnam lies were not big enough to lead our country to "victory." And Bob will explain that that "victory" can only be achieved through absolute "resolve."

Oh boy.

ON EDIT: resolve = lies
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
26. Mole ! Mole!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
27. kcik
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC