Bob Woodward's book

[Code]

I guess I don't understand how he got VERBATIM conversations, that only included TWO people, and none of the two were him.

This smells so very fishy.

 

[the nature boy]

I guess I don't understand how he got VERBATIM conversations, that only included TWO people, and none of the two were him.

This smells so very fishy.

I guess you have to look at Woodward's career. Is he some Liberal avenging crackpot or is he was well established, well respect journalist? You decide.

 

[p0ink]

i wonder if his book will become almost scripture status like richard clarke's book was for awhile...that is, until it was proved wrong time and time again.

 

[Code]

I'm not questioning his bias, that is obvious.

I'm wondering how much is "filled in" by him.
I trust politicians more than I trust journalists.

I guess you have to look at Woodward's career. Is he some Liberal avenging crackpot or is he was well established, well respect journalist? You decide.

 

[the nature boy]

i wonder if his book will become almost scripture status like richard clarke's book was for awhile...that is, until it was proved wrong time and time again.

So you think Clark lied under oath? Do you think he will be prosecuted for perjury?

 

[p0ink]

his book is full of fallacies.

not only did people from this administration contradict what he had to say (with evidence to back it up), but even members of the clinton administration, like janet reno, did the same thing.

people like under oath? *gasp* no...they wouldn't...

see: bill clinton
see also: hillary clinton

 

[the nature boy]

his book is full of fallacies.

not only did people from this administration contradict what he had to say (with evidence to back it up), but even members of the clinton administration, like janet reno, did the same thing.

people like under oath? *gasp* no...they wouldn't...

see: bill clinton
see also: hillary clinton

Prosecuting Richard Clarke and prosecuting the Clintons are 2 totally different things. It wouldn't be that hard to prosecute Clarke, in fact it could and would make the Bush administration look better. Nah, that makes too much sense.

 

[Code]

Yes. He had no choice, he had to back up the lies in his book.

EVERYONE contradticed his testimony even people who had no reason to.

So you think Clark lied under oath? Do you think he will be prosecuted for perjury?

 

[p0ink]

oh yeah, it would make the bush administration 'look good' to prosecute the media's love-child richard clarke.

"richard clarke apologized, do you think you should to...in response to richard clarke's apology, do you think you owe one as well...richard clarke apologized, why wont you...richard clarke warned you of the 9/11 attacks and you ignored him, are you sorry...blah blah blah"

oh yeah, people wouldn't be howling till they are blue in the face if the administration brought clarke up on charges.

 

[the nature boy]

oh yeah, it would make the bush administration 'look good' to prosecute the media's love-child richard clarke.

"richard clarke apologized, do you think you should to...in response to richard clarke's apology, do you think you owe one as well...richard clarke apologized, why wont you...richard clarke warned you of the 9/11 attacks and you ignored him, are you sorry...blah blah blah"

oh yeah, people wouldn't be howling till they are blue in the face if the administration brought clarke up on charges.

Perhaps you missed it, people are howling anyway. So what?

 

[Code]

So are other nations, see....
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9328751^7583,00.html

Perhaps you missed it, people are howling anyway. So what?

 

[the nature boy]

So are other nations, see....
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9328751^7583,00.html

What's your point? Are we turning this into a Kerry debate now? Not interested.

 

[Code]

Point being, even the alternative wouldn't have done anything differently.


Woodward's book is as much a fiction as Clarke's. The media has an axe to grind regarding the current administration and I wouldn't doubt it if someone digs up some checks sent to Woodward from the DNC.

What's your point? Are we turning this into a Kerry debate now? Not interested.

 

[the nature boy]

Point being, even the alternative wouldn't have done anything differently.


Woodward's book is as much a fiction as Clarke's. The media has an axe to grind regarding the current administration and I wouldn't doubt it if someone digs up some checks sent to Woodward from the DNC.

Did you read the book? Or watch the interview? The interview with Bob Woodward on 60 Minutes wasn't nearly as damning as the Clarke interview. It was more of how things operated in the Bush administration, not pointing out what kind of policy mistakes the Bush administration made.

 

[Code]

I watched Woodward on the Today Show. And yes, it's not damning. But he was quoting conversations that only involved two people (Bush and Powell) and in some cases quoting conversations that were classified.

I just think he's cashing in on the recent book trend to slam Bush and use "inside info" to do so.

Did you read the book? Or watch the interview? The interview with Bob Woodward on 60 Minutes wasn't nearly as damning as the Clarke interview. It was more of how things operated in the Bush administration, not pointing out what kind of policy mistakes the Bush administration made.

 

[the nature boy]

his book is full of fallacies.

not only did people from this administration contradict what he had to say (with evidence to back it up), but even members of the clinton administration, like janet reno, did the same thing.

people like under oath? *gasp* no...they wouldn't...

see: bill clinton
see also: hillary clinton

Actually, please post up some of the fallacies or lies of Clarke's book. I'd like to know what you think are lies and see if I can agree or disagree.