I think I've figured out Woodward

[sasquatch]

If you've ever seen the movie Miller's Crossing The main character was a man named "Tom" that was the right hand man of the Irish political boss during prohibition. A greivence was aired by the Italian Political boss about a crooked booky that was ripping him off. The Irish boss decided to bust up one of his night clubs and when the bust occured, it ended up saving Tom's life because he was getting slapped around by the goons to give up the info where the bookie was. Tom then intentinally pissed off the Irish boss and was kicked out of his orginazation. Tom then joined the Italian mob and gave up the wherabouts of the bookie and faked his hit. The Italians gave up information to him because of this then he used it against the Italians by giving it to the Irish. He ends up killing the Italian boss, second hand man and the bookie to the benefit of the Irish boss. Afterwards though he refused to go back to work for the Irish boss no matter how much he begged him. This is what Woodward is doing and why he's been acting the way he is. Any comments:shrug:

[toddzilla]

1. my head hurts..

i think i need to watch that movie..

[NMDemDist2]

2. good heavens i'm confused-- Let me get back to you after i rent

the video :hi:

[sasquatch]

3. Ok

:hi:

[LeftofU]

4. great movie....n/t

[KoKo]

5. I'm sorry I didn't see the movie, but could you explain it in simpler

terms? It's confusing as to who is Woodward loyal to in the beginning compared to which character you are describing. :eyes: I don't get it.

[sasquatch]

9. Woodward is loyal to no one in the end like "Tom" in the movie

Woodward betrayed us(the Irish in the movie) and worked for them(the Fascist) by writing Bush at War.

He then innialates them by writing his latest book, that benefits us.

He then goes it alone and shows no loyalty to anyone.

[Shakespeare]

21. Gee, that would just about fit the job description of....

....a journalist. :eyes:

Geez, folks...Woodward is NOT on Bush's payroll. The fact that he keeps both sides pissed off is a pretty good sign that he's doing his job correctly.

[KoKo]

25. Well, that I can agree with. Loyalty to no one. Sad. n/t

[leftofthedial]

6. I din't know woodward was Irish

was the same bookie that Bennett used?

?? :shrug:

[buddy22600]

7. I used to

Think I was smart with a double major in engineering and a minor in busniess but I am completely fucking lost with your analysis. My apologies good sir/ma'am

[sasquatch]

12. Watch the Movie "Millers Crossing" and you'll get it.

It took me a while too.

[aquart]

8. NO idea what you just said.

[sasquatch]

11. If you watch the movie and compare it you'll get the idea

[Fovea]

10. Who is the Irish boss?

And who is the Italian boss, and the guy he shoots outside his room?

[sasquatch]

13. I can't remember their names right now

In my ananysis the "Irish boss" is us, and the "Italian boss" is the Fascist Repugs. The guy he kills outside his room in the movie is Colin Powell in my analysis.

[gonefishing]

17. Leo played by Albert Finney

Johnny Casper is the bad guy (John Polito) a.k.a Creighton Tolliver, Da Fino, and who can forget him as Lou Breeze in Barton Fink.

BTW: I think you are right on your analogy.

[OHdem10]

14. Did not see the movie--

sbut here is the best explanation from 3 different pundits.

With Woodward, you play or pay. Once Woodwards has decided on a project(book) he asks for your cooperation. If you are not cooperative he will write the book and "burn " you big time. If
you cooperate and are open he will put you in the best light.
The book as a whole is written with Bush busily making all these decisions, displays great self confidence. Yes there are 4 or 5 items swhich are being discussed all over TV. Bush still comes out ahead which was Woodwards intent all along. Bush played.

[Pallas180]

15. now that makes sense. thanks. n/t

.

[Must_B_Free]

18. I don't think Bush came out ahead

we ruminate on these things longer than a cow. it takes time. The Bandhar stuff will come back to bite.

[Hamlette]

16. I'm always shocked when people say Woodward's first book was favorable

to Bush.

I didn't think it was. My impression from Bush at War was that Woodward thought Bush was okay, that Powell was the best of the lot and that Rummy was a scary war monger. Cheney is just a dark figure lurking in the background.

Why he got whore of the year for that book I'll never know.

[KoKo]

20. Hamlette, tonight on Matthews he says Rumsfeld wasn't pushing for the war,

and when Tweety seemed surprised he said that it's true. Rumsfeld wasn't pushing for it. He said Cheney is dark and sees the world that way, and Powell wasn't for the war but was worried about the troops. He did say that Powell wasn't asked his opinion on going to war, by Chimp and also didn't "push" to give the Chimp his opinion.

Listening to Woodward is like being in a maze, you are always looking for a sign to the path to lead you out but you are going down one dead end and another and after awhile it all looks the same.

I think if one has to puzzle through this book, then Woodward wrote it that way to cover his butt. Giving just enough to tittilate us but not enough to impeach the Chimp on. There's always a way out for Chimp and a way out for Woodward.

I find it hard to believe he got all that time with the "secretive" Bush and got anything but babble out of his mouth. Even the quotes I've seen of Chimp don't sound like his words or the way he makes a sentence.

I hope his book goes away. I'm sick of it. :eyes:

[carolinayellowdog]

23. Agree completely

There is a hidden agenda here and I sure as hell don't know what it is, but telling the truth is only a tactic used in service of it. Not telling more important parts of the truth is also a tactic. The strategy may well be to keep * in office.

[jobycom]

19. Much simpler explanation

Woodward is a professional writer, and knows he can make a ton of money by being unpredictable and controversial. Milk the Republicans by making them happy. Then milk the Dems by making us happy. Rinse and repeat. Soon, both sides are hanging on your every word and buying your every book to see which side you support next.

And then he sits back and grins as people try to figure out his politics. His politics is himself. Can't really hold it against him. He's just outside of our priorities, and that confuses us.

[Guaranteed]

22. Took me ten minutes to wade through it, but I got it.

He's playing both sides. I hear ya.

[BabsSong]

24. KoKo----we seem to be thinking along the same lines tonight

When watching Woodward with Matthews I kept thinking "Shakespeare", too as in "the play within the play". I cannot get my hands around exactly what the hell this book is about because it seems to please both sides at once. This a.m. I was sitting in a coffee shop on Cape Cod and a woman walked in carrying this book and another political book and read as she had breakfast. I just had to go up and talk to her at the end. She said the book was "very good" in a voice that meant "he's nailing the bastard". She then showed me the other book which is about how the tax system is now totally set up to shift the nation's wealth to the wealthy, etc. We agreed that Bush has to go. But then I watch this guy in interviews and he's trying to get across that Bush is the ONE, the decisive one, blah, blah. Yet, when one throws things in like no WMDs, it's like "who the hell cares how decisive" if he's wrong. I think this book is in the eyes of the beholder and thus, will change no ones mind.

[KoKo]

26. Yes, agree. In the end it's "Much ado about nothing." Sad.

Woodward's reputation has given him a good income. But, he was only able to bring down a President once. There's maybe no energy to do it again, or maybe he was just lucky the first time and had alot of help.

We need a new Woodward/Bernstein, and a powerful helper to get this guy out of the WH..:-(