Do you trust Bob Woodward?

I am curious about the DU pulse on this. :)

On edit:

Here is video of his 60 Minutes interview.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/07/bob-woodward-em60-minutes_n_124670.html

:shrug:

Or his intel background etc?

... this guy was a real hero of mine. But over the past decade, I've heard him change his tune too many times - tends to contradict himself depending on who he's talking to, and which way the wind is blowing on a certain afternoon.

I still find him an interesting person on many levels - but I take everything he says with an asteroid-sized grain of salt.

Just MHO ...

My opinion of Woodward evolves. I especially didn't like his little role in the Plame situation.

CBS removed the show that would have given me more insight in favor of a tennis match.

No more.

Back in the Nixon days he was very credible.

That said I am wary of almost anybody these days. People seem to have hidden agendas or

they have changed from the character and ethics I thought they once had.

If I read things I like, I hope they are true, but I don't put it in the bank.

Don't think so.

-Hoot

Hell, I'm not sure he was telling the truth about what he did reveal- Felt was too out of it to remember his role, let alone deny any inaccuracies.

That made me curious about if he's never left Navel Intelligence. :) And he can be very coy and unrevealing. I think Bob has some secrets. :) Not sure how much I trust him or not, I think on some things, just depends.

I doubt he's still in Intelligence, because Nixon would surely have shipped him off to Siberia if he could have, but I suspect he just really enjoys the social and political power that comes from keeping powerful men's secrets to himself.

reverse his doings and ain't working. After his 60 minute episode, I am wondering about his motives in his new book.

message. It's quite disgusting.

In particular, he makes it look like those who disagreed with the surge and wanted the Iraqis to step up to the plate and take more responsibility were wrong. (Of course, that includes Obama first and foremost.)

In fact, we cannot know.

Also, he is trying to frighten people with his threats about new technology that was or is being used against purported Al Qaeda. I don't know just what or who Al Qaeda is. I think that the term is our term used to speak of Muslim extremists. But there are a lot of different Muslim extremist groups with different leaders.

I read in the L.A. Times earlier this week that Petraeus thinks that the proposed withdrawal of troops should be slowed or delayed (don't remember which). If that it is true, it rather puts the lie to the talk about how the surge worked. As Obama has pointed out, the ultimate goal is to have the Iraqis take control of their own government. If that goal has not been attained, if the surge has not yet worked to the point that the Iraqis can take over and we can withdraw combat troops, then how can they argue that the surge has worked. Sure, as long as our troops are all over the place, then it "works," but that is not really working.

Also, how can anyone claim that Iraq is an independent "free" country or that we are serious about their being a "free" country with an elected leader if we are listening in on everything its leader says. That again proves that the stuff about the surge working to be a lie. If things were improving in Iraq, we would not have the leader of Iraq under such close surveillance. There's trouble in River City, folks. That's what that level of surveillance says to me.

Also, what is with this secret weapon business. Is this news actually intended to intimidate Americans here at home? This is extremely troubling, especially in light of the development that Palin, a right-wing extremist has been placed on the Republican ticket. Very troubling indeed. I'm wondering if that is a fairy tale. I have a strange sense that whatever it is, Woodward is exaggerating. I saw something about a laser that just takes people out like a beam of light. Certainly, the potential for error with such a weapon would be so great and so devastating to civilian populations that it, like chemical weapons, would be outlawed by international law before you can say "Beam me up Scotty." In the hands of terrorists, such a weapon would be a threat to civilization. And if our military is using it, anyone could get their hands on it. It would be irresponsible of any president to allow such an instrument to be placed into the hands of any agent of the U.S. even if we have developed it.

I don't trust Woodward at all. He is a right-wing, extremist flunky masquerading as friend of mankind.

if woodward is so trustworthy on the truth for the american people then why is bush talking to him? (did he actually sit down and interview the moran AGAIN?)

and here is what i think about his " threats about new technology" crap--i figure they are tracking cell phone signals for those people just like we can do here when someone goes missing. he didn't want to say because it's so obvious and once the "terrorists" get wind of it they will start buying disposable cell phones.

to shore up the Bush administration. And, Democrats are the targeted audience. The right-wingers believe that Democrats trust Woodward. Not true.

...But "HELL NO!"

You don't trust him then? :)

inside-the-beltway media whore ... par excellence.

He won't get another dime from me for his books. I trust Bernstein completely.