Quote:






Woodward Shares War Secrets

April 18, 2004

Journalist Bob Woodward calls his new book, Plan of Attack, the first detailed, behind-the-scenes account of how and why the president decided to wage war in Iraq.


Both CBS News and Simon & Schuster, the publisher of Woodward's book, are units of Viacom.



Well, here we go !

It's exactly the same situation as 60 Minutes' report on Richard Clark's book three weeks ago. A conflict of interest, where the corporation that owns CBS is promoting the book released by another of its subsidiaries. A fact that they conveniently omitted three weeks ago in their Richard Clark book promotion (disguised as a 60 Minutes news story), and recieved a huge backlash from the public, and a hard blow to CBS' journalistic integrity as a result.
So... this time they gave an obligatory disclosure of it their 60 Minutes report. It's still a conflict of interest, but at least they can say they disclosed it, and rationalize some thin illusion of integrity and non-partisanship.

And I just love how they take Woodward's opinion --great emphasis, opinion-- as absolute fact, with no corroborating interviews, or any counterpoint given to White House officials.

Woodward makes a lot of off-the-cuff sarcastic remarks throughout this interview, which only adds to his visible partisanship and lack of credibility.

It's just another partisan attack on the Bush Administration. The slander of the week.

A few of the weekly slander campaigns that I can recall from the last few months:

  • ( Early February:)"Bush went AWOL while in the National Guard, and is a deserter..."
    Unproven, no basis. Bush was honorably discharged.
    .
  • (Feb/March: ) Bush knew about 9-11 before it happened, and could have stopped it...
    Unproven, no basis, as proven by the 9-11 Senate hearings. I also love how Bush was in office barely 8 months, and somehow, if a blame game is necessary at all, a liberally biased press sees no need to put any question of blame on Clinton, who was in office for virtually all of the 8 years since the first 1993 attempt to blow up the World Trade Center in New York, and the increasingly sophisticated terrorist attacks on Khobar Towers(1995), U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania(1998), and the USS Cole in Yemen(2000), and other incidents. But yeah, Bush was in office 8 months, he bears full responsibility.
    .
  • (Late March: ) Richard Clarke poisons the non-partisan attempt to find the facts regarding Federal/CIA/White House action across two administrations, leading up to and after 9-11, which Clark poisons by turning it into a fingerpointing partisan witch-hunt to pin all the blame on the Bush administration.
    Again, unproven. But it does turn Clark's book into a # 1 bestseller. Motive for Clark's accusations, anyone? And it also provides a smokescreen by hiding Clark's shortcomings as anti-terrorism Czar during 8 years under Clinton, by shifting the blame to everyone but himself.
    .
  • ( Late March/early April: ) The White House is accused by Democrats and the fully complicit liberal media of reacting "defensively" to Clark's testimony, and "attempting to smear Richard Clarke".
    While the truth is, Clark viciously attacked the White House and obligated Bush officials to respond.
    Again, allegations unproven. Liberal press coverage gives infinitely more coverage to the allegations than to the fact there is no substance to back them up. Clark never once in 22 hours of testimony raises the allegations he made against the Bush administration in his book. But you really have to dig through the coverage to see this reported by the liberal media.
    .
  • (Early April: ) Despite that no sitting President or his high-level cabinet has previously been expected to testify under oath before a Senate hearing, Democrats and the liberal media make a big issue of Condoleeza Rice's not testifying under oath, and paint her as evasive and a liar with something to hide, until she finally testifies.
    Once again, charges unproven. Despite the best effort of liberals to smear Rice unfairly, she answered all questions.


And this latest 60 Minutes story on Bob Woodward's book is just the latest liberal smear campaign on Bush and the White House.


  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.