This Week's Backside Of The Bell CurveWinner!

Bob
(Too stupid to talk and walk at the same time)
Woodward

Let's get one thing straight: Bob Woodward IS NOT Robert Redford. Bob Woodward's Watergate credentials have been ripped to shreds... by none other than Bob Woodward, himself.

And now, in a piss poor attempt to defend his "reporting/ book writing" (on the run up to the Iraqi invasion) against David Corn's allegations that he left out the important facts, Woodward has stupidly insinuated that President George W. Bush is a serial liar... and he, the great Woodwardo, has known this all along!

Woodward writes to Corn:

Because Plan of Attack, which was published two years ago, covers the meeting in just over a single page (pp. 297-298), you say this is rare opportunity to "fact check" me. You then cite all these revelations in the memo and suggest they were not in the book at all. However, as I mentioned to you on the phone, a reader of Plan of Attack would already know most of this in vastly greater detail by the time he or she got to page 297. The whole thrust of your column is that I missed important elements of the story and presented a "tilted" account. The book itself proves you wrong.

The British memo says, "The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March." You suggest I did not report that Bush had decided privately to go to war while publicly asserting otherwise: "Read Woodward's account and you get the impression that Bush...was willing to stick with the United Nations a little longer. Read the Times's account of the memo and you see that Bush had already set a date for war."

This is flat out wrong. Plan of Attack describes in detail that Bush decided well in advance of the January 31st meeting that he was going to war.

What an asshat!

There's a lot more at the link. By the way, if Woodward knew that Bush was determined to go to war and saying publicly that war was a last resort, why didn't he (Woodward) defend Helen Thomas last week?

Helen Thomas: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet - your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth - what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil - quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

The President: I think your premise - in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist - is that - I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect -

Helen Thomas: Everything -

And then, there's this Bush lie (from March 6, 2003):

If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.

Is Bob Woodward too stupid to know he's stupid?


So you think you know Delilah?
Judges 16:19-- And she made him sleep upon her knees; and she called for a man, and she caused him to shave off the seven locks of his head.