"State of Denial" by Bob Woodward

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

najeena

War Child
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
995
Location
an island paradise
Woodward's third book about the Bush administration has a very different tone than the previous two, and the White House must be grasping for ways to spin it other than to calling it 'old news'. How do you think this will affect the coming election?
 
Practically, I don't think it will have any effect. The sum total of information coming out over the past few years might affect who controls at least one of the Congressional bodies, but when it comes down to it, these are local and statewide elections, not national.

I don't think the book will change anyone's mind, although it might solidify a viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
Such a neutral source too! I am sure he has no agenda publishing this just over a month before the election!

Woodward is nothing more than a polished up Michael Moore.
 
AEON said:


Woodward is nothing more than a polished up Michael Moore.

You may want to read up on him a little.

"Woodward has spent the most time of any journalist with President George W. Bush, interviewing him four times for more than seven hours total. Woodward's three most recent books, Bush at War (2002) Plan of Attack (2004), and, State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III (2006) are detailed accounts of the Bush presidency, including the response to the September 11 terrorist attacks and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In a series of articles published in January 2002, he and Dan Balz described the events at Camp David in the aftermath of September 11. In these articles, they mention the Worldwide Attack Matrix.

Woodward has been accused by a few critics of being too close to the Bush administration, and some say his relationship with the current administration is in stark contrast to his investigative role in Watergate. Others disagree, however. In 2004 both the Bush campaign and the Kerry-Edwards campaign recommended his book Plan of Attack, and The New York Times said the book contained “convincing accounts of White House failures... presented alongside genial encounters with the president.” Woodward's latest book, State of Denial, describes alleged tensions and dysfunctions within the Bush administration in the lead-up to, and following, the invasion of Iraq.

On Monday, October 2, 2006, Woodward's new book "State of Denial" will be released. Excerpts of the book have already been provided to the CBS's "60 Minutes" and the Washington Post."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward

Doesn't sound like Moore at all.
 
All the President's Men is one of my favorite movies of all time, and as a young writer, the Redford and Hoffman versions of Woodward and Bernstein were iconic mentors to me.

When the early Bush books came out, I wondered if he'd been huffing glue or smoking crack or had just been bought off by the crime syndicate known as the Republican Party.

Good to learn he may have gotten sober from the drug known as Empire.
 
I saw 60 Minutes, the scary part is that nothing in this book that I've heard so far really surprises me. Even when he mentioned Bush Sr. being so aghast/against Iraq-my impression has always been that it's Barbara who thinks GW can do no wrong.

I don't understand how people can come out now and dispute what's in the book if they talked to Woodward. I would imagine he has it all on tape.
 
AEON said:
Such a neutral source too! I am sure he has no agenda publishing this just over a month before the election!

Woodward is nothing more than a polished up Michael Moore.



garbage.

do you have ANYTHING to support this statement?

if anything, Woodward has lost credibility because he is perceived as being too soft on Bush, that he traded objectivity for access.
 
Irvine511 said:




garbage.

do you have ANYTHING to support this statement?

if anything, Woodward has lost credibility because he is perceived as being too soft on Bush, that he traded objectivity for access.

Woodward would not have been invited back a second time if he were not objective.

It has nothing to do with the election, and shame on anyone who would chalk it up to politics. This man has been given the keys to the White House because the President had faith in him to be objective. Suddenly he is a partisan because he wrote something negative?

Horseshit.
 
Dreadsox said:




It has nothing to do with the election, and shame on anyone who would chalk it up to politics.

You are kidding right? Are you being sarcastic? A book like this coming out just before the election? I MAY believe that it wasn't politically motivated if it came out in December.

I'm sorry to break your heart, but Woodward is not considered objective by conservatives. He may not be as radical as Moore, which is why he gets more access than other liberal investigative reporters - but the right does not consider him objective.

This guy made a name for himself because he brought down a presidency. He' still trying to live off that steam.
 
He seemed pretty objective to me in the 60 Minutes interview. Much more so than the smug Mike Wallace.
 
AEON said:


You are kidding right? Are you being sarcastic? A book like this coming out just before the election? I MAY believe that it wasn't politically motivated if it came out in December.

I'm sorry to break your heart, but Woodward is not considered objective by conservatives. He may not be as radical as Moore, which is why he gets more access than other liberal investigative reporters - but the right does not consider him objective.

This guy made a name for himself because he brought down a presidency. He' still trying to live off that steam.



well, by your rubrick, conservatives consider Ann Coulter the very model of objectivity, so carry on.

god help us if the powers that be have so warped and brainwashed us all into thinking that any information that doesn't tow their party line is "biased."

it's 1984.
 
AEON said:


You are kidding right? Are you being sarcastic? A book like this coming out just before the election? I MAY believe that it wasn't politically motivated if it came out in December.

I'm sorry to break your heart, but Woodward is not considered objective by conservatives. He may not be as radical as Moore, which is why he gets more access than other liberal investigative reporters - but the right does not consider him objective.

This guy made a name for himself because he brought down a presidency. He' still trying to live off that steam.

This administration has recommended his writing, I'm sure if they didn't find him objective they would have ignored or attacked his writing.

As far as the release date, October November is a big release time for books...

Living off that steam? You know very little about Woodward.
 
AEON said:


You are kidding right? Are you being sarcastic? A book like this coming out just before the election? I MAY believe that it wasn't politically motivated if it came out in December.

I'm sorry to break your heart, but Woodward is not considered objective by conservatives. He may not be as radical as Moore, which is why he gets more access than other liberal investigative reporters - but the right does not consider him objective.

This guy made a name for himself because he brought down a presidency. He' still trying to live off that steam.

No I am very serious.

[Q]This guy made a name for himself because he brought down a presidency. He' still trying to live off that steam. [/Q]

And dang it all, the country was worse of because he did.

You are joking right?
 
For further clarity about how serious I am....

I have read "Bush at War" and used it to defend him in this forum.

Why would the White House have given him such access if he were not respected?

[Q]From Publishers Weekly
Based on exhaustive research and remarkable access to the White House, including two sessions with President Bush and more than 75 interviews with administration officials, veteran Washington Post assistant managing editor Woodward delivers an engrossing blow-by-blow of the run-up to war in Iraq. [/Q]

[Q]From Publishers Weekly
Quoting liberally from transcripts of National Security Council meetings and hundreds of interviews with those in the presidential inner circle, including four hours of interviews with Bush himself, the Washington Post assistant managing editor, best-selling author and Watergate muckraker manages to provide a nonpartisan account of the first 100 days of the post September 11 war on terror. [/Q]

God damn that Woodward....Sounds like he has been out to get Bush all along.
 
Last edited:
I heard Seymour Hersh speak the other night (he's one of the most respected independent journalists in the country, the guy who broke the Abu Ghraib story) and he commented that regardless of what one may think of Woodward, he always gets his facts right.
 
joyfulgirl said:
I heard Seymour Hersh speak the other night (he's one of the most respected independent journalists in the country, the guy who broke the Abu Ghraib story) and he commented that regardless of what one may think of Woodward, he always gets his facts right.

This guy?

Source wikipedia -

Seymour Myron (Sy) Hersh (born April 8, 1937) is a highly controversial American Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist and author based in New York City. He is a regular contributor to The New Yorker magazine on military and security matters.

His work first gained worldwide recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. His 2004 reports on the US Military's treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison gained much attention.

In 2006 he reported on the US military's plans for Iran, which allegedly called for the use of nuclear weapons against that country. No independent confirmation of these alleged plans were ever made.

Hirsh's supporters regard him as a dogged and fearless digger of uncomfortable facts. His detractors see him as leftist rumor-monger whose stories are often unsubstantiated and ideologically motivated.
 
Wikipedia should be used to raise intrest in a topic, not as source of good information.
 
Rono said:
Wikipedia should be used to raise intrest in a topic, not as source of good information.

Yes, considering that anyone can add to Wikipedia. A total klutz can add to an article if they damn please.
 
Rono said:
Wikipedia should be used to raise intrest in a topic, not as source of good information.

It seems many posters use wiki as a neutral source.

I just wanted to point out that our little journalist isn't considered as "independent" as the poster would have us assume.
 
Facts don't matter, it's about denial,diversion, attacking the messenger and comparisons to other events which have a vague similarity to the topic. And if your target attempts to defend himself or raises his objections beyond a calm demeanor, portray the target as a nutjob or as unruly.

Republicans rule!:rockon:
 
AEON said:
Such a neutral source too! I am sure he has no agenda publishing this just over a month before the election!

Woodward is nothing more than a polished up Michael Moore.

Michael Moore never brought down a presidency, my friend. Ever heard of a little scandal called Watergate?
 
AEON said:


I'm sorry to break your heart, but Woodward is not considered objective by conservatives. He may not be as radical as Moore, which is why he gets more access than other liberal investigative reporters - but the right does not consider him objective.




You are completely wrong. Woodward is considered objective by many conservatives, including the current White House. They advertised his last book, "Bush at War" on the White House website and called it "recommended reading."

:huh:
 
All writers who don't blindly and rabidly support conservative positions are not considered objective by conservatives. I think that's pretty straightforward. If you are against anything conservatives support, you are totally for the extreme opposite of the issue. Anti-death penalty means support freeing of murderers to society. Pro-choice means you want to kill babies. Anti-war means support terrorism. And so on.

Now Ann Coulter, Bill O ReillyFox News, Rush Limbaugh, they're objective. Except when/if they criticize Bush.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom