Wednesday, October 04, 2006

State of Denial

Michael Ledeen explains why he isn't going to bother reading Bob Woodward's latest. (link via Hugh Hewitt)

Okay, obviously, I'm posting the Ledeen link because I think it is in some way telling as to the nature of what Bob Woodward does. However, it's fair to point out I thought ABC's docudrama, "The Path to 9/11", was very good. So what's the difference between what ABC did and Woodward's effort? Simple, Woodward doesn't give us any caveats. He doesn't hedge; he doesn't give us any warning, any reason not to believe his book is an accurate, journalist's account of the events he writes about. ABC plastered their movie with disclaimers. Just be "upfont" about what you are doing and I'm okay with it.


Anonymous said...

None of which alters Woodward's claims or refutes them in a credible manner. I think Woodward can play fast and loose at time and the Casey books seems shady at best but then again so was Casey. I have been reading Shadows, woodwards book from 1999 about the impact of Watergate on the Presidency regarding the use of special prosecutors. Worth checking out as this role has not just been abused by the likes Kenneth Star on a withhuntbut every President has faced the virtually limitiless power of a special proscutor.

CultMan said...

Yeah, Woodward had what it takes a few years back for a certain kind of journalism, but his recent efforts (according to one man who certainly might know -- are efforts which stretch the term "unbiased" far beyond reason.