And he lacks class. Last night, the cable news programs were discussing the interview that Woodward got with Ford in 2004. Bob gladly whored himself out to talk about the interview. The WaPo is featuring the excerpts today. The content of the interview doesn’t bother me, it is the fact that Woodward couldn’t hold off until next week, after the funeral, to air this. Woodward must think that money means class, and he couldn’t be further from the truth.
LISTEN: Ford says he does not believe the United States should intervene militarily overseas unless it is directly in America’s national interests.
LISTEN: Ford says that, based on the facts as he understands them, he does not think that he would have ordered the Iraq war if he had been president.
LISTEN: Ford says he believes that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld erred in justifying the Iraq war as one aimed at eliminating Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.
LISTEN: Ford says that while he never publicly criticized the Bush administration’s war in Iraq, he does think they made a mistake in how they justified the war.
Read the text of all four audio excerpts.
See how the left ate it up here. Isn’t it rich that in 4 hours of tape, the day after the man dies, the only excerts from the interview are Bush bashing?!?!? Allahpundit has tons more.
I don’t believe this interview took place. I think this is just like his interview of a comatose Bill Casey.
Woodward was a favorite of the right after “Bush at War” and “Plan of Attack” came out. Now, since he wrote the scathing “State of Denial,” you all can’t stand him.
Truth hurts.
re 2:
I disliked Woodward before he wrote any of those boooks. A reporter is supposed to be unbiased. Once that line is crossed, he/she hasn’t the right to claim to be a journalist, as they are entering the arena of op/ed. It doesn’t matter what “side” he/she is writing for.
Woodward even seems to cross those boundries though, taking op/ed and very liberally twisting facts until they are a shadow of what they once were. It is unfortunate, as he seems to be another victim of extreme polarization, ala Jimmy Carter (if not a great President, once a great man I at one time respected, but no longer)
Woodward has never been a favorite here. And I don’t recall anyone on the right elevating him to favorite.
Examples?
I’m at a loss to cite specific examples, unfortunately. But it seemed to me that with “Plan of Attack” and “Bush at War,” most conservative writers and pundits embraced his work, since both were seen as rather sympathetic to the president, even if they fell short of outright endorsement.
All that changed when “Plan of Attack” came out. I was carrying a copy around over Thanksgiving in rural Kentucky, and one woman remarked to me, “Oh, I wouldn’t read that. Bob Woodward used to be good, but that book is full of lies.”
In my own experience, I’ve found Woodward to be both extensive in his research and more than fair in the conclusions he draws from both research and his lengthy interviews.
But then again, I’m probably what most of your audience would consider a worthless liberal. I just don’t think truth neccessarily corresponds to cheerleading this or any other administration, and Woodward clearly had his fill as well.
Read the books, if you haven’t. I think they’d be eye-opening.
brogonzo I think Woodward is associated with the right, but I don’t think as many people are enamored with him as you may think..He seems to be an opportunist. I will say that he has a knack for having a book ready for publishing as soon as a person is near death:wink:
Maybe Woodward has a whole Library of roguh drafts already written, filled with legacy controversy. As soon a marketable subject dies, Woodward updates and polishes the draft, publishes it, then starts his marketing campaign.
There’s big money in controversy! Nobody has learned to milk it better than Michael Moore and Jesse HiJackson! The particular topic, and the veracity of the content, is irrelevent. What will sell is.