Another Lie, by Bob Woodward
Brent Scowcroft says, Enough.
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2006 — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
He says it is so and is designed to throw the midterms to the Democrats.
Folks, it might as well have been faxed from a Kinkos in Abilene.
Bob Woodward is a liar.
Here's WashPost columnist Richard Cohen:
This is what Woodward writes about [Bush I National Security Advisor Brent] Scowcroft: “In his younger years, Scowcroft thought, George W. couldn’t decide whether he was going to rebel against his father or try to beat him at his own game. Now, he had tried at the game, and it was a disaster.”
Here's Scowcroft (from the AP via Real Clear Politics):
"I have spoken to Bob Woodward a number of times about a variety of subjects over the years, but I did not agree to be interviewed for his latest book. Further, there are statements in the book, directly or implicitly attributed to me, that did not and never could have come from me. I never discuss any personal conversations that I may have with President George H.W. Bush, and he never discusses with me any conversations that he has with President George W. Bush."
It is fiction, folks Bob Woodward is indeed the real Queen of Denial. And he's the Asp, as well. (That, of course, means that he is a composite.)
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | PA gubernatorial: the first Swann-Rendell debate — Comments (10) »
Another Lie, by Bob Woodward 4 Comments (0 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Even those of us on the left see his Johnny-come-lately boorishness as self-serving. His dishonesty is plain to see from both sides of the partisan divide.
That said, Scowcroft's attitude towards Bush Jr. is evident from all that he has written and said in other interviews. Who would've thought that a "realist" could be so prophetic:
"It would have been no problem for America’s military to reach Baghdad, he said. The problems would have arisen when the Army entered the Iraqi capital. 'At the minimum, we’d be an occupier in a hostile land,' he said. 'Our forces would be sniped at by guerrillas, and, once we were there, how would we get out? What would be the rationale for leaving? I don’t like the term ‘exit strategy’—but what do you do with Iraq once you own it?'"
As for Cohen's article that was linked above, I cringed when I read it. I've written and said worse (long, long ago) about our President; but what business does a Washington Post columnist have saying this (?):
"Especially in foreign policy, he was an ignoramus who smugly thought that his instincts trumped experience and knowledge."
Remember how the left dogged Deb Howell till she backed down? Shouldn't somebody be knocking a known goofus like Cohen down a notch for the cheap shots he takes?
George W. was cast very favorably in his other books.
Is everything he writes false?
You may have linked to this elsewhere, but it's so interesting. For one thing, it suggests the depth of dislike at the Washington Post for Woodward is deep and passionate.
Hugh Hewitt interviews Edsall, the former WaPo political reporter, on Woodward. Transcript here.
Excerpt:
Edsall's defense of Woodward: He deludes himself into thinking what he writes is true.
I've mentioned this before, but I still delight in it. My book club reads only non-fiction. No sports books, no business books, and no Bob Woodward books. Because they'd be fiction.