* froomkin:
"David Carr writes in his media column for the New York Times: "The actual journalistic accomplishment in 'State of Denial' is less than grand. It took him three books to arrive at a conclusion thousands of basement-bound bloggers suggested years ago: that the Bush administration is composed of people who like war, don't seem to be very good at it and have been known to turn the guns on each other. Such an epiphany doesn't seem to reflect a reporter who had rarefied access. . . .
"One of Mr. Woodward's chief discoveries was that Donald H. Rumsfeld was not the asset that he first described him as. In 'Bush at War' in 2002, Mr. Rumsfeld was described as 'handsome, intense, well educated with an intellectual bend, witty with an infectious smile.' In 'Plan of Attack' in 2004, he was a leader whose 'way was clear, and he was precise about it.' In 'State of Denial,' he is a turf-obsessed control freak whose 'micromanaging was almost comic.'...
"Mr. Woodward's time spent living in the treetops seems to have blinded him to the fact that the forest below was on fire.""
* tpmm:
"Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, the government watchdog group that gave the FBI the emails, is calling for an investigation by the Department of Justice's Inspector General to determine whether the FBI's actions -- or inaction -- was politically influenced.
5 comments:
hilarious vid...i'm so glad i see these 2nd hand and not as they're on tv. who is this cleeta mitchel or whatever? what a lying ditz.
i dont know her either
putz.
I think Woodward's book is old news and self serving. It could not have taken him that long to figure it out.
kathleen - i can imagine S&S banging him over the head until he finally agreed to do an 'anti' (aka reality based) book.
Kathleen, I agree 100%. The real value of Woodward's book is that he is reaching the audience that has NOT been paying attention all this time. He may have salvaging his own reputation as a prime motivator, but there still is that audience that swallowed his first two books on this regime that really have been in denial about the bu$hies . . . so, that's good. One friend yesterday suggested he was using the first two books as a means of conning the bu$hies. I don't know if I buy that explanation as much as I do Luke's imaginings of the publisher banging him over the head for a reality-based book, but whatever reaches more voters with truth is fine in MY book.
Don, I am still howling with laughter over your post. EEEEwwww!! Hysterical imagery!
Post a Comment