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.
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your Hosts
Links
- Agraphia
- Blogmeister USA
- Cracked
- Degrees of Grey in Iowa City
- Dr. Helen
- First Things
- Found Shit
- Futility Closet
- Instapundit
- J-Walk Blog
- James Lileks
- Kim du Toit
- Little Green Footballs
- National Review
- Neptunus Lex
- Not Ready for My Burqua
- Opinion Journal
- Pajamas Media
- Reflections by Kris
- Richard Hawley
- Slate Magazine
- Spiked Online
- The Art of Marc Fishman
- The Corner
- The Daily Gut
- The Onion
- The Sneeze
- Vodka Pundit
- Weekly Standard
- XKCD Comic
An Aggregation of Recrement
- June 2020 (3)
- February 2015 (1)
- September 2013 (1)
- August 2011 (1)
- July 2011 (1)
- September 2009 (1)
- July 2009 (1)
- June 2009 (3)
- May 2009 (6)
- April 2009 (3)
- March 2009 (7)
- February 2009 (8)
- January 2009 (24)
- December 2008 (46)
- November 2008 (35)
- October 2008 (33)
- September 2008 (48)
- August 2008 (15)
- July 2008 (17)
- June 2008 (26)
- May 2008 (18)
- April 2008 (22)
- March 2008 (21)
- February 2008 (33)
- January 2008 (43)
- December 2007 (28)
- November 2007 (25)
- October 2007 (36)
- September 2007 (35)
- August 2007 (15)
- July 2007 (28)
- June 2007 (23)
- May 2007 (29)
- April 2007 (33)
- March 2007 (52)
- February 2007 (36)
- January 2007 (43)
- December 2006 (41)
- November 2006 (41)
- October 2006 (48)
- September 2006 (30)
- August 2006 (24)
- July 2006 (40)
- June 2006 (24)
- May 2006 (41)
- April 2006 (29)
- March 2006 (39)
- February 2006 (43)
- January 2006 (48)
- December 2005 (44)
- November 2005 (31)
- October 2005 (27)
2 comments:
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.
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 -- http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200306/hitchens) are efforts which stretch the term "unbiased" far beyond reason.
Post a Comment