BS: 'Bush at War' Woodward's new book

Subject: BS: 'Bush at War' Woodward's new book
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Nov 02 - 10:33 AM

Is anyone reading the excerpts of Bob Woodward's new book that started yesterday in the Washington Post?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Bush at War' Woodward's new book
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Nov 02 - 12:58 PM

I'll take a look if I get the time....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Bush at War' Woodward's new book
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Nov 02 - 01:04 PM

I thought that for a group of people who spend so much time debating Bush and his wars, I thought it might be of interest to someone here. But I've been wrong about these things before. It looks like a very important current affairs book, and I may even break down and buy it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Bush at War' Woodward's new book
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 18 Nov 02 - 02:08 PM

I've just finished the second segment in today's paper, along with an amazing article that details what the CIA was doing during the same time period. I must say that Woodward, who has hated every Republican since Nixon (his meal ticket), has done what appears to be a rather complimentary work on Bush. It blows the hell out of the Harry Buffoon-te commentary, as both Rice and Powell are active part of the decision-making process, and on occasion, making their marks on his policies. And if the Dems had read this prior to the election, they wouldn't have been so suprised at the election results.

And in the second day's article, I only wish Woodward had identified some of the incredibly stupid reporters who were decrying the "quagmire" aspect of the Afghan war.

Finally, the corresponding CIA story is a "must read". The CIA agent's recommendation to ignore the command and control bombing, and just kill Taliban, brought the major portion of the conflict to a close in three days. His negotiations with a Taliban leader to switch sides for $50,000, was met with "I'll think about it". He calls up a JDAM bunker-buster delivered next to his cave and the Taliban settled for $40,000 and all his troops.

As one who had to deal with the Carter-Stanfield Turner days, I can only say "The Boys are Back in Town".

Subject: RE: BS: 'Bush at War' Woodward's new book
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 02 - 03:47 PM

When has Bush been anywhere near a war?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Bush at War' Woodward's new book
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 18 Nov 02 - 04:27 PM

(quote)
"As one who had to deal with the Carter-Stanfield Turner days, I can only say "The Boys are Back in Town".

Then God help us all.
I don't know to what capacity you "had to deal with the Carter-Turner days" , but one so well read must be acquainted with the CIA term-of-art "Blowback " as in the CIA's training of the Afghani-based mujahadeen ,the support for Saddam which is academic now ,and Reagan's turning tail after the Lebanon truck bombing of those 265 marines in their beds. Reagan's "Boys" certainly sent a clear message to the terrorists that the U.S. could *not* take a bloody nose and ,thus, terrorism grew emboldened as a direct result. As if the distraction of the Granada police action addressed this clear and present danger. Get real.
And lest we wax to proud from the Woodward piece on Bush, which I have yet to read , one should remember his piece about Reagan's hand-picked man for C.I.A. William Casey as outlned in "Veil" which the Repub's dismissed as fiction.

(quote)
"I must say that Woodward, who has hated every Republican..."

Oh get real. His "The Commanders" about the Bush,Sr. decision makers behind the Gulf War was no poisoned piece at all. Meanwhile more times than not it "takes" one from within one's party to blow the whistle when its called for.

Witness the career of journalist David Brock: He was 'the" darling of the Repubs and lauded with credability because of his admirable hatchet work reports on "liberals" during the Clinton investigative-mania Congress ( rom '94 to 2000 ) but when he then turned and began reporting out of school about the internal agendas of the right wing that supported his writing when it served them that ame right wing immediately stripped him of all of the redability they buttressed him with before.

(quote)
"...hated every Republican since Nixon (his meal ticket), ...

What unadulterated Bush-wallah. Too bad when your ox is gored by one of your own , but then whom better to know where the bodies are buried ? ;-)
I respect someone who does *not* withhold whitsle-blowing on thei so-called "meal ticket". It takes more guts to not pander to one's master when their doing wrong. It's called "integrity".
Repubs like to use that word alot until whenever its shown that one of their own is "integrity-challenged" ( I don't imagine you'd like a list ).

" ( Woodward)...has done what appears to be a rather complimentary work on Bush. "

I love this "What appears to be " line. I guess you still harbor suspicions that ol' Woodward may yet turn the other hand he's holding and balance his report ...starting with Bush's tin-eared " warmed-over "Supply-side" retreads Economic team whom are blasting up the Budget deficit just like it's the reagan 80's all over again. Guess where interest rates will be heading next once too much capital is drained away for the "Borrow & Spend " Repub's turn at the hog-trough. Wait for it. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Bush at War' Woodward's new book
From: kendall
Date: 18 Nov 02 - 04:46 PM

"The boys" are back in town. God help us. Did you see that arrogant bastard on 60 minutes? "I am the president, I don't feel that I have to explain anything." Remember Julius Caesar? When he decided to become King of the empire? Talk about out of touch.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Bush at War' Woodward's new book
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Nov 02 - 04:54 PM

Well Claymore, your interpretation of the articles is much different than mine. My interpretation of the articiles is that Woodward shows Bush to be a two dimensional moron, and a pretty dangerous one at that. I interpreted the articles as meaning that Condi Rice spoon feeds information to Bush in easily digestible chunks, and that Powell, if not incompetent, is at least mostly ineffective in the role of Secretary of State.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Bush at War' Woodward's new book
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 18 Nov 02 - 05:03 PM

Then you and Taliesn, need to have a long talk without my presence, get your stories straight, and then keep them as your little access to the revealed truth...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Bush at War' Woodward's new book
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Nov 02 - 05:41 PM

Actually Claymore, I don't exactly understand what tripped Taliesen's trigger there, but he does say he hasn't read the articles.

I hope we can at least agree that more than one interpretation of the articles is possible. BTW, I'm not in awe of the Woodstein twins, nor do I find them to beyond reproach on the scale of journalistic integrity. I think Woodward's ties to the Washington intelligence community has compromised his objectivity, and that those ties are pretty transparent in the current excerpts.

I also don't believe there is or was a Deep Throat, and that Woodstein manufactured a lot of other bullshit to make "All the President's Men" a better read.

And oh my GOD is Woodward a bad novelist.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Bush at War' Woodward's new book
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Nov 02 - 06:07 PM

The courteous thing to do is provide a link in the initial post. Both parts may be accessed by clicking here.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Bush at War' Woodward's new book
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 19 Nov 02 - 01:56 AM

"Bush at War"??---Try reading the G.W.Bush history of the Vietnam period as told by Linda McQuaig in the Toronto Star of November 17th----

Subject: RE: BS: 'Bush at War' Woodward's new book
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 01:39 AM

Thanks for the link kat. I watched the 60 minutes interview/promo and was curious about the "soundbites". Obviously, permission was granted for their use which makes me wonder about Woodward's objectivity and his closeness to this administration. I intend to read the excerpts now.

CB

Subject: RE: BS: 'Bush at War' Woodward's new book
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 09:16 AM

Woodward is the current master of access journalism. He sells his objectivity for access, it is as simple as that.

The excerpts demonstrate how little objectivity Woodward has, which also explains the fact that he only really has credibility with the right leaning "Washington insiders" and media whores. It is perfectly clear to anyone with any objectivity, that Woodward did the same for his Watergate stories. Like I said, he is too beholden to the Washington intelligence community for his stories. But they have fed and housed him well down the years. He has a comfortable life, is revered by some, has an ego the size of Pennsylvania, and the remoteness of Marlene Dietrich in the last decade of her life.

Not exactly journalism in the public interest, is it? But it is journalism in service to the king.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Bush at War' Woodward's new book
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 10:53 AM

An interesting contrast for those who aren't as privleged as Woodward and the Washington Post are in terms of access to those in power, from today's Boston Globe:

THE MEDIA

Pentagon drawing battle lines with press


By Mark Jurkowitz, Globe Staff, 11/20/2002

WASHINGTON - When Army Times writer Sean Naylor linked up with the 101st Airborne Division in Kandahar to cover the Afghanistan fighting, he found that instead of the traditional practice of being housed with the troops, reporters were ''quarantined'' in media tents. During USA Today reporter Andrea Stone's visits to Guantanamo, Cuba, she was never even allowed within shouting distance of the US-held detainees. And although he was traveling with US forces, San Diego Union-Tribune reporter James Crawley had to scan transcripts of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's Washington briefings to glean any hint of information about the Afghan war-related mission he was covering.

''People on the ship wanted to talk about it,'' he said. But ''everything was directed from the Pentagon. What do we need to do about it next time?''

That question was a rallying cry for the more than 100 journalists - many of them veterans of conflicts from Kosovo to Afghanistan - who gathered here last week for a conference sponsored by the two-month-old organization Military Reporters & Editors. With a potential war in Iraq on the horizon, the answer they heard was not reassuring. Given Afghanistan as an object lesson, the consensus was that Rumsfeld's Pentagon has taken the art of information control to new heights. And that isn't likely to change in any battle for Baghdad. (Although keynote speaker Bob Woodward of the Washington Post offered the distinctly dissenting view that there was no more than a 50-50 chance of conflict.)

Remainder of this very revealing article can be found here:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/324/living/Pentagon_drawing_battle_lines_with_press+.shtml

Sort of begs the question, what has Woodward been told by Bush administration "war cabinet principals" that the rest of the media covering the military and the war on Iraq haven't been?

Again--the problem is the journalists with the most clout with the power mongers are the ones telling the stories to us. They aren't serving the public interest, they are serving the interests of their political masters who grant them access, privleging them above all others. That is why Woodward's supposed expose of the the Iran Contra affair was a joke. Just not a funny one.

And really, who ever did believe that lame claim to the Casey deathbed confession?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Bush at War' Woodward's new book
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 11:08 PM

Perhaps, GUESTS should not start threads?