Buy WILLisms

XML Feed

Featured Entries

The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM

Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM

Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM

Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM

Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM

Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM

The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM

From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM

Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM

Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM

Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM



Blogroll Me!



July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004

Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008

Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008

The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006

Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008

Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007

Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006

A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006


Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori

WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):

The WILLisms.com Gift Shop: Support This Site


This Week's Carnival of Revolutions: carnivalbutton.gif

Carnival Home Base: homebase.gif


« Liberal Hypocrisy: So What Else Is New? | WILLisms.com | Quote Of The Day »

You Should Read Bob Woodward With A Grain Of Salt

. . . because of stuff like this regarding Woodward's book Veil, from Hugh Hewitt's interview with Thomas Edsall:

HH: Have you read State of Denial yet?

TE: Not in its entirety. I've only read the excerpts.

HH: Okay. Do you believe everything Bob Woodward writes?

TE: No.

HH: Do you believe he saw Bill Casey at the hospital bed scene in [Veil]?

TE: I have real problems with that.

HH: What's the mean, real problems? You don't believe him?

TE: I know the doctor who was treating Bill Casey, and the doctor who is someone who I think is very credible told me that Bill Casey was dead by all standards, except burial. And for him to have said anything cognizant at that time just was incredible to him. And this doctor is a liberal Democrat.

HH: Have you ever published that?

TE: No.

Edsall is a self-professed Democrat who worked with Woodward for 25 years at the Washington Post, and knows of what he speaks. He pulls no punches when talking about his ol' poker buddy Woodward. He gave an amazing, candid interview to Hewitt, that I heartily recommend.

Michael Ledeen also questions Woodward's veracity in regard to the mysterious Bill Casey interview.

Brent Scowcroft, too, says that Woodward is not honest:

"I have spoken to Bob Woodward a number of times about a variety of subjects over the years, but I did not agree to be interviewed for his latest book. Further, there are statements in the book, directly or implicitly attributed to me, that did not and never could have come from me. I never discuss any personal conversations that I may have with President George H.W. Bush, and he never discusses with me any conversations that he has with President George W. Bush."

Woodward's book, State of Denial, along with the NIE leak, are not proving to be the bombshells the liberals hoped they would be. Once again, overhype just lets the wind out of the sails when the actual content is revealed. In Woodward's case, doubts about his technique and honesty simply undermine his entire thesis.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 4 October 2006 10:03 PM


I'm not sure why this has become so interesting to me as I haven't read Woodward's book. I did hear the interviews with Edsall on Hugh Hewitt.

It's sort of like - the republican pundits can't quite put their finger on what it is about Woodward that bothers them because they can't argue with what he says on an aggregate level. Yet, they can't seem to point out too much to argue with on the granular level either, but they can see that maybe it's in the semantics, or something that is there that doesn't sit well.

Posted by: snowballs at October 5, 2006 10:14 AM

I believe the opposite of whatever michael ledeen believes. long live the islamic republic of Iran!

that said, at this point there is a VERY high standard for bush bashing books I will consider reading and woodwards just seems like more of the same. other books have more unique subject matter, like the "emerald city" one about cronyism in the Coalition Provisional authority, or are just more specific and educational like fallows "blind into baghdad"

Posted by: lester at October 5, 2006 05:02 PM

long live the islamic republic of Iran!

You are insane, Lester.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at October 8, 2006 03:23 PM

ionolsen21 I am really impressed!

Posted by: thomson at October 18, 2006 06:17 AM

ionolsen23 I am really impressed!

Posted by: tester at October 20, 2006 02:28 PM

ionolsen24 I just don not have anything to say right now. www_4_2

Posted by: pipetka at October 21, 2006 01:28 PM