White House nervous about Bob Woodward's upcoming book

[Hamlette]

according to Tucker Carlson on Chris Matthews just now.

Apparently, the book will provide Colin Powell with cover to separate himself from the neocons.

Don't you think the WH knows what Woodward is going to say?

What was Woodward's position on the war with Iraq? What is his position on the neocons?

Could this be another Bush bashing book? How is the WH gonna criticize Woodward?

Could be better news than Clarke (who did not vote for Bush so the RW will spin as he's a Dem.)

Book comes out April 2004.

[buycitgo]

1. would be a surprise to me

Woodward has ties to intel.......worked for ONI during his time inservice

some think he was part of CIA plot which REALLY was behind watergate

ok, including Liddy, but hey

also, his Bush at War was a total suckpiece, for which they gave him MORE access to PDBs and other top secret stuff than they gave the 911 commission!!!!!!!!!!

that last, according to Begala on Crossfire

so, I wonder about Tucker, that ASS

hope he's right, though, surely I do

[wryter2000]

2. Don't fall for the partisan crap from them

The question still remains...what statement of fact that Clarke has issued have they rebutted? He said that there weren't any high level meetings re: AQ and OBL until 8/01. Have they produced evidence that there were any? He said that they weren't interested in Afghanistan...that there weren't any good targets. Didn't Rummy confirm that in the hearings? He said that right after 9/11 they wanted to go into Iraq. Didn't Powell confirm that to Lehrer on Fri?

And all this has confirmation in what Rand Beers and Paul O'Neill said. And it's confirmed by even the most casual observation of WH behavior. Let's hope Woodward is more confirmation, but we don't need it.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

9. Clarke "first principles meeting on al Qaeda was on Sept. 4th" 9/4/01

1 week before the WTC/Pentagon attacks...1 fucking meeting :grr: :grr: :grr:

[librechik]

3. yay!

applause for the return of a real journalist! (if true)

This will make a big impression since Woody is now infamous for being a lapdog for Shrub.

BTW, telling the truth about Bush is not bashing. If it hurts, that's not OUR fault!

[peacetalksforall]

10. Woodward morphed from a journalist to a propagandist. I've listened

to him on all his guest appearances on TV - he is a shill for the right wing these days and for several years past.

[libbygurl]

4. What is

the book going to be about? It's "Plan of Attack", right?

[Hamlette]

8. yes, Plan of Attack

I know nothing else about it.

Could this be the WH hyping the book (ohhh...we're so scard) and it turning out to be a puff piece?

Bush at War was very kind to Powell and while Bush came off as human (as opposed to the pod person I think he really is) it was very kind to the admin.

Remember, a big deal was made at the time that Bernstien was the leftie and Woodward was conservative. No one (especially those of us old enough to remember the Nixon era) should be surprised by Woodward being an apologist for republicans.

The question remains, maybe he's not an apologist for the neocons.

[BabsSong]

5. I haven't seen Woodward for perhaps a year on talk shows but

I absolutely couldn't stomach this bastard---and to think that during my time he actually took down a republican administration!! He constantly fawns over Bush and Bush's henchmen and constantly pissed on Democrats. I would say that Bob's book will be a Bush whitewash, a few "bad boy" moments and somewhat cooling down the slams of Clarke. I wouldn't doubt if he's quickly rewriting sections before publication to help his 'friends' out of the Clarke jam. Don't expect anything from Woodward.

[Minstrel Boy]

6. If Tucker Carlson says the WH is nervous,

be assured it isn't. It's all spin.

Woodward is a Republican, Bush apologist and "former" spook.

Watch: the book the WH "feared" from "investiative journalist" Woodward will, "surprisingly", portray Bush as an able commander and man of integrity.

Watergate was 32 years ago. What's he done lately?

[Frances]

7. Nostalgia

My father used to say that a politician came to ask a man for his vote. The politician listed all the things he had done for the voter. The voter's answer? Yep, you did those things, but what have you done for me lately?

[peacetalksforall]

11. Yep, this doesn't pass the credibility test....

How can Woodward all of a sudden write a damaging book? He is a right wing pussy and public relations expert for everything on the right.

[w4rma]

12. “Bush at War” by Bob Woodward, a book review

You’re Invited to the War Party (“Bush at War” book review)
By Georgie Anne Geyer

Ever since his Watergate revelations, which helped evict a president and change the United States for all time, for better or worse Bob Woodward has stood as the major force in a new genre of journalism. He talks, wheedles, and, using government officials’ personal ambitions and dreams of political eternity, implicitly threatens his way into the often closed corridors of power—there, he is a master at getting a certain number of figures who try their best to remain aloof and unknown to tell their stories. The proposition, understood if not explicitly spoken, is that this book, as his former ones, will tell the story—you miss out on leave on this journalistic port, fellow, you miss the whole historic ship!
…
First of all, Bush at War is really about the decision-making process in the upper levels of the Bush administration—the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon—from the exact morning of Sept. 11th. It begins with a profoundly worried George Tenet, head of the CIA and, from all of the space he gets in the book, obviously one of Woodward’s best and favored sources. That very morning, Tenet is wondering about when Osama bin Laden, whom he has been desperately tracking, will strike the U.S. Then “it” happens—and from then onward, the book delineates day-by-day, and sometimes hour-by-hour and minute-by-minute—what supposedly went on in meeting after meeting. From all accounts that I know of, Woodward’s interpretations are exactly right; it is the quotes that are so bothersome.
…
Another time, he says to Woodward, “I’m the commander—see, I don’t need to explain—I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”

At still another point after the Afghan war has started, the president says to his staff, “Look, our strategy is to create chaos, to create a vacuum.” And Woodward ends the book with another quote from the president, in which he again reflects the obsessive chaos theory of the neoconservatives surrounding him like sentinels and for whom Iraq has become the sina quo non of political existence: “We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.” Whew.
http://www.amconmag.com/01_13_03/geyer7.html