Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
Mon May 25, 2015, 11:19 AM May 2015

Bob Woodward providing cover for Bush crimes and blame for Obama

The righties are all over this one......

Bob Woodward Shoots Down Story That Bush Lied to Get U.S. in Iraq War, Implies Obama Troop Pullout Was Wrong Move
May. 24, 2015 7:45pm Dave Urbanski

Legendary journalist Bob Woodward shot down the notion that President George W. Bush lied to get America involved in the Iraq War in 2003 — and strongly implied President Obama didn’t make the right call by ordering the U.S. troop pullout.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, the Washington Post icon and bestselling author noted that Bush made mistakes leading up to the war — but came down hard on the “line” saying Bush lied.

“I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq … lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet the CIA director, ‘Don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD.’ And he was the one who was skeptical,” Woodward told host Chris Wallace.

More from Woodward:

“And if you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. That war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end people were saying, ‘Hey, look, it’ll only take a week or two.’ And early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months, and so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there’s an abundance of evidence. But there was no lie in this that I could find.”

more
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/24/bob-woodward-shoots-down-story-that-bush-lied-to-get-u-s-in-iraq-war-implies-obama-troop-pullout-was-wrong-move/

(Look, I tried to find a 'legit' left wing source but couldn't. I think the propaganda speaks for itself, though. Maybe we should call him Baghdad Bob Woodward from now on....)

14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
1. Woodward is a spook for the MIC
Mon May 25, 2015, 11:31 AM
May 2015

Bob Woodward's Dark Side
Famed Reporter Carries Water for the Pentagon

By Russ Baker

October 02, 2010 " whowhatwhy" -- -- Just one year before the publication of "Obama's Wars," Bob Woodward became a player in his own book-in-progress. He morphed into his true identity: Warrior Bob. Actually, there's an even deeper persona, Agent Woodward--but we're getting ahead of ourselves.

In June of 2009, Woodward traveled to Afghanistan with General Jim Jones, President Obama's National Security adviser, to meet with General Stanley McChrystal, then the commander of forces there. Why did Jones allow this journalist to accompany him? Because Jones knew that Woodward could be counted on to deliver the company line--the military line. In fact, Jones was essentially Woodward's patron.

The New Republic's Gabriel Sherman wrote at the time that

Jones was a guest of Woodward at his wife Elsa Walsh's fiftieth birthday party held at Sally Quinn and Ben Bradlee's house. He and Elsa were glued to Jones at the cocktail party before the dinner started

In September of last year, McChrystal (or someone close to him) leaked to Woodward a document that essentially forced President Obama's hand. Obama wanted time to consider all options on what to do about Afghanistan. But the leak, publicizing the military's "confidential" assertion that a troop increase was essential, cast the die, and Obama had to go along. Nobody was happier than the Pentagon--and, it should be said, its allies in the vast military contracting establishment.

The website Firedoglake chronicled the developments in a pungent essay:

Apparently General McChrystal and the Petraeus cabal aren't willing to wait for their Commander in Chief to set the strategy. Prior to the President's interviews, McChrystal's people were already telling journalists that they were "impatient with Obama" as Nancy Youssef reported. This "Power Play," as I mentioned last night, included a veiled threat that McChrystal would resign if he didn't get his way.

And sure enough, just hours after the Commander in Chief was on the airwaves, somehow McChrystal's classified report hit the Washington Post compliments of Bob Woodward no less.

Wow, what a coincidence!

This episode highlights a crucial aspect of Bob Woodward's career that has been ignored by most of the media. Simply put, Woodward is the military's man, and always has been.

For almost four decades, under cover of his supposedly "objective" reporting, Woodward has represented the viewpoints of the military and intelligence establishments. Often he has done so in the context of complex inside maneuvering of which he gives his readers little clue. He did it with the book Veil, about CIA director William Casey, in which he relied on Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, a rival of Casey's, as his key source. (Inman, from Texas, was closely identified with the Bush faction of the CIA.) The book was based in part on a "deathbed interview" with Casey that Casey's widow and former CIA guards said never took place.

Typically, Woodward uses information he gets from his main sources to gain access to others. He then gets more secrets from them, and so on down the line. His stature--if that's the word--as a repository of this inside dope has been key to the relentless success machine that his media colleagues have perpetuated. The New York Times review of his Obama book laid out the formula:

In Obama's Wars, Mr. Woodward, as usual, eschews analysis and commentary. Instead, he hews to his I Am a Tape Recorder technique, using his insider access to give readers interested in inside-the-Beltway politics lots of granular detail harvested from interviews conducted on background, as well as leaked memos, meeting notes and other documents. Some of this information is revealing about the interplay of personality and policy and politics in Washington; some of it is just self-serving spin. As he's done in his earlier books, Mr. Woodward acknowledges that attributions of thoughts, conclusions or feelings to a person were in some cases not obtained directly from that person, but from notes or from a colleague whom the person told--a questionable but increasingly popular method, which means the reader should take the reconstructed scenes with a grain of salt.

And then, thanks to all this attention, and even with that grain of salt, the book went to #1.

But might there be more to Woodward and his oeuvre than just questionable work practices? Well, let's see. Woodward granted former CIA director George H.W. Bush a pass by excluding him from accounts of Iran-Contra, which occurred while the notorious intriguer was vice president under the notoriously hands-off Ronald Reagan. (When I asked Woodward about this for my book Family of Secrets, he replied, "Bush wasWhat was it he said at the time? I was out of the loop?&quot Later Woodward got exclusive access to H.W.'s son. He spent more time with George W. Bush than did any other journalist, writing several largely sympathetic books about his handling of Iraq and Afghanistan before playing catch-up with prevailing sentiment and essentially reversing course.

Now, for a bit of cognitive dissonance. Woodward's signature achievement--bringing down Richard Nixon--turns out not to be what we all thought. If that comes as a surprise, you have missed a few books, including bestsellers, that put pieces of this puzzle together. (Family of Secrets has several chapters on the real Watergate story, but there are others that present detailed information, including those by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin, James Rosen, Jim Hougan and others.)

Here's the deal: Bob, top secret Naval officer, gets sent to work in the Nixon White House while still on military duty. Then, with no journalistic credentials to speak of, and with a boost from White House staffers, he lands a job at the Washington Post. Not long thereafter he starts to take down Richard Nixon. Meanwhile, Woodward's military bosses are running a spy ring inside the White House that is monitoring Nixon and Kissinger's secret negotiations with America's enemies (China, Soviet Union, etc), stealing documents and funneling them back to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They then give what they stole to columnist Jack Anderson and others in the press.

That's not the iconic Woodward of legend, of course--so it takes a while for this notion to settle in the mind. But there's more--and it's even more troubling. Did you know there was really no Deep Throat, that the Mark Felt story was conjured up as yet another layer of cover in what became a daisy chain of disinformation? Did you know that Richard Nixon was loathed and feared by the military brass, that they and their allies were desperate to get Nixon out and halt his rapprochement with the Communists? That a bunch of operatives with direct or indirect CIA/military connections, from E. Howard Hunt to Alexander Butterfield to John Dean--wormed their way into key White House posts, and started up the Keystone Kops operations that would be laid at Nixon's office door?

Believe me, I understand. It sounds like the "conspiracy theory" stuff that we have been trained to dismiss. But I've just spent five years on a heavily documented forensic dig into this missing strata of American history, and I myself have had to come to terms with the enormous gap between reality and the "reality" presented by the media and various establishment gatekeepers who tell us what's what. ......................



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26508.htm

still_one

(92,217 posts)
2. woodward is a shrill. Wonder if he is dating Judy Miller. This is the same bullshit she is spewing
Mon May 25, 2015, 11:36 AM
May 2015

It is amazing that the sources he claims are those who were advocates of the war. The fact is that there were enough people telling them that there were no WMDs. It is also a known fact that the administration was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq to control their oil.

I put the credibility of woodward in the same category as miller.

I would love to see Jon Stewart interview this jerk

There is no doubt in my mind that since judy miller's book of excuses came out, the republican machine has been trying to rewrite history, and it looks like woodward has joined the team

shraby

(21,946 posts)
3. Woodward lost all credibility with me when he wrote that puff piece book
Mon May 25, 2015, 11:36 AM
May 2015

during bush's term in office.
I'll never trust him to write the truth again.

 

reddread

(6,896 posts)
5. you never saw Veil I take it?
Mon May 25, 2015, 11:44 AM
May 2015

in complete ignorance, I could still smell the stink from those pages.
what a whore. The corruption of our media goes all the way back to 1947,
but he crystallized the swing way back when.

moondust

(19,991 posts)
4. Baghdad Bob Woodward
Mon May 25, 2015, 11:42 AM
May 2015

Works for me.

For maybe eight years prior to the invasion there was no intelligence to support the WMD claims because the WMD programs had apparently been shut down by the mid 90s. Anybody in the White House or Congress or the Press who was ready to start a war based solely on the briefings originating with one high-level political appointee was a fool, a tool, a sucker who did not belong in a decision-making position.

 

Basic LA

(2,047 posts)
7. Woodward, lifelong Republican.
Mon May 25, 2015, 11:48 AM
May 2015

I remember how shocked Bernstein was to find this out in All the President's Men.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
8. I pride myself on my objectivity even when it is painful.
Mon May 25, 2015, 11:49 AM
May 2015

But Woodward is an idiot for not seeing that Bush & Company lied.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

samsingh

(17,599 posts)
11. i thought this was from the onion
Mon May 25, 2015, 12:46 PM
May 2015

he keeps on saying things that i find hard to believe.

if we say lie, can we be liable for anything?

Johonny

(20,851 posts)
13. So basically he is saying Bush was a moron not a liar, but I say these aren't mutually exclusive
Mon May 25, 2015, 01:00 PM
May 2015

It appears Bush was dumb enough to believe the yellow cake, the aluminum tubes, the war would pay for itself, flowers and chocolates etc... so he wasn't a liar he is just incredibly stupid. Some defense. I say Bush is a moronic liar AND a war criminal. Woodward is no better than Mike Huckabee defending child rape. Fuck all these amoral monsters on the right.

Archae

(46,335 posts)
14. So why is it so impossible for Sy Hersh to be such a hack nowadays?
Mon May 25, 2015, 01:09 PM
May 2015

Woodward has gone completely gone over to the Dark Side, while Hersh has gone completely gone over into hackery using one or two dubious sources for his "expose" on Bin Laden's death.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Bob Woodward providing co...