“Mortuary Bob is back, and that looks like fresh mud on his boots. Has he been hanging out at Memory Garden Acres again? …Curiously, the New York Times got excerpts of the book first; curious because editors of newspapers usually don’t wink and smile when assistant managing editors contribute scoops to the opposition. But the most famous reporter in town has to worry about his own legacy, too…”
– Wesley Pruden, editor-in-chief of The Washington Times
Despite the deluge of anti-Bush books between 2002 and 2004 that pedaled mass disinformation about the Bush administration, our U.S. military and the wars in Iraq andAfghanistan, these leftist writers failed miserably to bring down President Bush in 2004. But one of the first out of the gate to give it one more college try is the Washington Post’smost famous and wealthiest leftist, Bob Woodward. It will be his third attempt to destroy our military’s commander-in-chief – one month before another historic election.
Woodward, the same anti-American hack who helped bring down Richard Nixon with multiple, unnamed sources – manufacturing the biggest source hoax (Deep Throat) ever perpetrated on a U.S. president since Dan Rather’s felonious attempt to defeat Bush with Kerry campaign-manufactured memos within weeks of the 2004 election – now wants to take out Bush for the third time with his latest October Surprise, State of Denial.
While Woodward portrays himself as a serious reporter with only the best of intentions, don’t be deceived by this consummate journalistic fraud who hides behind the curtain of politicized reporting: Like Dan Rather, CNN, the New York Times, “60 Minutes” and the rest of the antique media, Woodward knows exactly what he’s doing, how and why he’s doing it, and what his desired goal will be, all supposedly done in the name of journalism.
On the one hand, when even some of my fellow conservative contemporaries are ceremonially legitimizing Woodward as an actual reporter, you know he’s capable of fooling anyone derelict enough to fall for his political deception and media manipulation. On the other hand, every time Woodward puts out a new book for the sole purpose of inflicting the most political damage on a Republican administration, he automatically causes the Left’s entire world to stop rotating on its axis.
For example, on CNN’s Oct. 4 edition of “The Situation Room,” while host Wolf Blitzer was “interviewing” Woodward, the segment tag line proclaimed: “Iraq “State of Denial,” as CNN takes Woodward’s presumptuous claims without question or challenge. This was followed by a usual, anti-U.S. rant by CNN leftist Jack Cafferty, who quoted a viewer e-mail that claimed “Woodward was 100 percent correct” about Bush and Iraq.
Perhaps it’s Woodward’s Clinton-like narcissism that causes him to fall in love with the sound of the Left’s media pals quoting his books as fact, but Woodward suddenly turns into E.F. Hutton as his fellow Democrats and their media flacks cup their itching ears to listen to every syllable that’s anti-Republican. It’s as if Woodward held the keys to the mysteries of the universe. But what the leftist media hope is a smoking gun to defeat the GOP is all a smokescreen that exposes Woodward’s true motives for writing his books.
As the Left has boasted of fellow anti-U.S. Communists like Woodward supposedly telling the truth about Republican administrations, they have believed in their own lies for so long, they have convinced themselves since the days of Edward R. Murrow that what they are foisting onto the American public is truth, even though it’s cloaked in left-wing folklore. It amounts to nothing more than political voyeurism as Woodward has made a career out of prostituting facts for fantasy, which focuses solely on his demented obsession with creating journalistic pornography against Republican administrations.
As the leftist media still coronate Woodward as their perennial star, they, too, like Woodward, forget that the Sept. 11 atrocities still happened, our troops are still are on the ground to protect America (and press freedoms that media leftists still take for granted), and the war on terrorism is still being won, regardless of the Left’s childish denials.
Looked upon as the final authority on everything anti-Republican, anti-war and anti-U.S., Woodward, who has literally become a cash cow for CBS sister company Simon & Schuster’s financial and partisan udders, has specifically timed his latest political mythology to once again misinform and mislead the public about our success in the war in Iraq, our military’s capability to win and the stability of the Bush administration. As the connoisseur of anti-American propaganda that usually culminates in book form in election years – especially when Republicans are in the White House – Woodward is the epitome of neo-Marxist – and even blatantly Stalinist – demagoguery that the Left’s media allies have flagrantly trumpeted as “investigative reporting.”
Moreover, every time Woodward comes out with more myths about Republicans, he and his comments always lead off on CNN Headline “News” and “60 Minutes,” as if it really is hard news when in fact it’s nothing but anti-U.S. and anti-Republican propaganda. While the leftist media worship the very ground he walks on and canonizes him as the eyes and ears of Washington and the Holy Grail of “investigative reporting,” Woodward has turned a deaf ear to every major and minor form of Democrat corruption in his never-ending, Clintonian quest to maintain the Left’s admiration – and the media spotlight.
For instance, Woodward and his latest 500-page fairytale has already been on “60 Minutes,” appeared twice on “Today Show,” with two segments on “NBC Nightly News,” landed his usual gig on CNN’s “Larry King Live,” grabbed more face-time with “ABC World News Tonight,” spoke with Democrat-friendly PBS host Charlie Rose; and received cover stories onNewsweek, the New York Times and the Washington Post. (The only time that we conservatives get on these left-wing outlets is when it involves hyped overreactions to scandals that are either pushed or manufactured by these very outlets.
In short, Woodward represents the sloppiest, most unethical reporting that has ever passed for hard news in the industry. Despite his 40-plus years, Woodward is a disgrace to the profession because he’s been loved and adored only for his contempt for Republicans and the U.S., not for what journalism should represent: Getting the facts and loving the truth more than pushing a partisan agenda. But for Woodward, the facts don’t matter, as long as his media entourage keeps unquestionably validating his every word, which is why it never crosses the leftist media’s minds to verify Woodward’s “sources.”
But as a renegade, rogue “reporter” who has always lived by his own rules, Woodward has the elite media not only in the palm of his hand, but eating out of it as well. As is his usual modus operandi, Woodward mainly stakes all of his books’ claims on hearsay, innuendos and his own leftist fantasies about dismantling Republican presidencies, dating back to the Nixon years that made him very rich – and an idol to naïve journalists. As they did during the Vietnam War, Woodward’s “works” are politically-timed ambushes on Republican administrations fabricated to change public opinion in wartime.
Although Woodward has claimed to have taped “interviews,” he has repeatedly admitted his books are based on “recollections of past conversations,” which is the quintessence of the worst “journalism” going on today. Because of Woodward’s coveted position in the hallowed halls of the Left’s media elite, however, he’s never challenged about any of his purported his claims. In fact, when top Republican officials won’t talk to him, Woodward essentially makes it up in the hopes that no one will fact-check or research his claims, which about 99.9 percent of his leftist media sycophants won’t even bother doing.
But after writing what the leftist media and his fellow Democrats perceived as too Bush-friendly, Bush at War, Woodward had gotten back into the Left’s “good graces” by now writing two scathingly questionable accounts of the Bush White House for his trilogy. Woodward apparently missed the limelight he had received from his Watergate glory days so much that he sought to restore the image he crafted on the Left by writing anti-Republican hit pieces that are specifically timed to seriously alter major GOP events. Apparently, it’s more important for Woodward to create fabricated accounts of Republicans than expose America’s enemies, which now include the Democrat Party.
While the Bush administration willingly cooperated with Woodward in Bush at War, they had awakened to the fact that a sleazy leopard like Woodward can’t change his spots. For example, when the Bush White House declined to be interviewed for his Plan of Attack and his latest hit piece, State of Denial, Woodward reverted into his classic Nixonian mode by publishing unconfirmed, unsubstantiated and unnamed-source “recollections of past conversations” to get back at Bush officials who shut him out.
In effect, Woodward’s tabloid journalism which relies almost completely on memory – rather than notes and taped interviews with the source’s consent – represents the worst reporting that would be taboo in introductory news reporting classes, unless they involve taking out Republicans at any cost. It’s McCarthyism in reverse as Woodward, post-Bush at War, paints Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as the enemy.
In his 2004 hatchet job, Plan of Attack, Woodward purposely exposed Bush’s secret war plans to try to sway public opinion against Bush. In his latest anti-Bush tome, State of Denial, Woodward seeks to shake the public’s confidence in Bush before Nov. 7 by pushing even more unverified allegations about so-called tensions within the Bush White House. As Woodward basks in the media spotlight he has always craved, his latest Stalinist move will once again bring aid and comfort to our enemies during a time of war.
As he did in 2004, Woodward now leads a chorus of fellow anti-American media idiots in promoting State of Denial to appeal to the kook fringe on the Left. But if his latest hit piece seems to parallel Plan of Attack, it’s only because it’s also laced with endless innuendos that are peppered with his signature fabrications. In the same way leftist judges are legislating from the bench, Woodward still propagates from his keyboard.
After all, on April 18, 2004, Woodward told “60 Minutes” that Plan of Attack was based only on “his past recollections from participants in key meetings” allegedly with Bush White House officials. Not surprisingly, “60 Minutes” zealously aired Woodward’s unverified statements in Plan of Attack without ever bothering to verify the facts against the fiction because of Woodward’s almost angelic status in the Left’s media hemisphere.
In a 2004 sanctimonious interview with “60 Minutes” resident Communist Mike Wallace, who heavily promoted Woodward’s Plan of Attack on Bush and openly mocked the president’s foreign policy experience as well as his intellect, Woodward pompously said:
“The President still believes, with some conviction, that this was absolutely the right thing, that he has the duty to free people, to liberate people, and this was his moment.”
In his typically, anti-GOP condescending manner, Wallace hysterically replied:
“Who gave George Bush the duty to free people around the world? The President of the United States, without a great deal of background in foreign policy, makes up his mind and believes he was sent by somebody to free the people – not just in Iraq, but around the world?”
Then, soaking up his Watergate-induced fame, Woodward told Wallace:
“It is far-reaching, and ambitious, and I think will cause many people to tremble,” Woodward arrogantly proclaimed to the equally pompous Wallace, who then asked Woodward: “how deep a man is President George W. Bush?” Whereupon Woodward snobbishly replied: “He is not an intellectual. He is not what I guess would be called a deep thinker.”
Now, in an Oct. 1, 2006 interview for State of Denial, once again with Wallace, Woodward ironically claimed that “it is the oldest story in the coverage of government: the failure to tell the truth,” where he blamed Bush for increased violence levels in Iraq.
Notice Wallace also said that Woodward “says.” He didn’t say Woodward “claimed” or “insisted” like Wallace routinely does when talking about Republicans:
“Getting to the point now where there are eight, 900 attacks a week,” he says. “That’s more than 100 a day—that is four an hour. Attacking our forces.”
Again, without challenge, Wallace said as-a-matter-of-factly of Woodward’s charges:
“Not just the growing sectarian violence — Sunnis against Shias that gets reported every day — but attacks on U.S., Iraqi and allied forces. Woodward says that’s the most important measure of violence in Iraq, and he unearthed a graph, classified secret, that shows those attacks have increased dramatically over the last three years.”
Later in the “interview,” Wallace, in his typically one-sided interview, asked Woodward:
“You paint a picture, Bob, of the president as the cheerleader-in-chief. Current reality be damned. He’s convinced that he’s gonna succeed in Iraq, yes?”
To wit, Woodward replied: “Yes, that’s correct,” again with no challenge from Wallace.
But Wallace isn’t the only one who freely accepts Woodward’s unsubstantiated charges against Bush: Like piranhas in a leftist think tank seizing on an opportunity to affect this fall’s mid-term elections, the rest of the leftist media are devouring Woodward’s charges.
For example, in an Oct. 4 article headlined “Woodward’s “State of Denial” Selling Big: Sales Soar for Bob Woodward’s Harshest Chronicle of the Bush Administration,” the Associated Press gushed:
“Just days after its release, Bob Woodward’s “State of Denial” has already gone into its third printing, with 900,000 copies in print for the latest, and harshest, chronicle of the Bush administration by the celebrated Washington Post reporter.”
In its Oct. 2 “Analysis,” headlined “Is Bush White House in “State of Denial”? the taxpayer-funded, neo-Marxist radio network, NPR, also proclaimed:
“In this third book on the Bush White House, Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward writes that the Bush administration has attempted to hide the true state of affairs inIraq.
In State of Denial, Woodward also writes that Condoleezza Rice brushed off a CIA warning of a possible terrorist attack in the days before Sept. 11.
“Former 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer tells Madeleine Brand he’s angry he was never told about the warning.”
Salon.com, the Far Left online magazine that supports Communist regimes and seeks to bring down the Bush administration, drooled:
“In his best book in years, Bob Woodward has White House insiders confirming what we’ve known all along: Bush hid the truth about Iraq,” drooled Salon.com writer Walter Shapiro.
“Not surprisingly, the New York Times hurriedly rushed a Sept. 30 front-page article about Woodward’s book, and like “60 Minutes,” the Gray Lady’s goal is to “get” Republicans.”
The Times, which has now disclosed highly-classified national security secrets for the third time in less than nine months – aimed at hurting President Bush and aiding the enemy – also breathlessly cheered for Woodward’s newest hit piece without question:
“The book, bought by a reporter for The New York Times at retail price in advance of its official release, is the third that Mr. Woodward has written chronicling the inner debates in the White House after the Sept. 11 attacks, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the subsequent decision to invade Iraq,” claimed David Sanger, who writes heavily-slanted stories against the Bush administration
“Like Mr. Woodward’s previous works, the book includes lengthy verbatim quotations from conversations and describes what senior officials are thinking at various times,without identifying the sources for the information.”
(In this edition, the Times also referred to Donald Rumsfeld as the Secretary of State, not the Secretary of Defense, in which the “newspaper of record” appended a correction. Sadly, the Gray Lady refused to correct, much less verify, Woodward’s claims.)
Last fall, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had subpoenaed Woodward in Fitzgerald’s bogus CIA leak case, which was proven this summer to have been politically motivated. The Times claimed that Woodward had apologized to the Washington Post’s executive editor “for concealing for more than two years that he had been drawn into the scandal.” This is a prime example of how the elite media run with any unsubstantiated charges Woodward cooks up against Republicans for fame, fortune and fantasy.
Without conducting any fact-checking or background checks on his so-called “unnamed” sources, leftist media followers of Woodward take his divisive tomes as gospel, which started with Woodward and his Communist pals, Carl Bernstein and Ed Bradlee’s anti-Republican crusades of “getting” Republicans, while camouflaging Democrat corruption.
That’s why Woodward, who looks for a Watergate under every rock, was suddenly AWOL during the scandal-plagued Carter and Clinton administrations, where he ignored every Panama Canal- and Whitewater-type smoking gun to vilify Republicans, which immediately garnered him multi-million dollar book advances and undeserved Pulitzers.
In fact, State of Denial would better describe the vast corruption of the Clinton-Gore years, which were rife with multiple scandals, criminalities and other felonious acts of immoral, unethical and treasonous collusion that Woodward willingly and purposely ignored – and that certainly wouldn’t have garnered him another leftist-owned Pulitzer.
While Watergate made Woodward a household name, as well as an overnight media star, the partisan press will freely embrace his claims – especially if he undermines Republican administrations as he re-writes history.
In Woodward’s latest and typical, heavily anonymously-sourced hit piece on the Bush administration, Woodward has already been making preemptive strikes against President Bush, without the Bush administration being able to have adequate time to debunk the false charges laced throughout the book.
Allegedly claiming to have interviewed several Bush officials who are said to have argued with President Bush about the war on terrorism – one in particular, former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and first lady Laura Bush, who Woodward claimed told Bush to oust Rumsfeld – Woodward’s latest opportunistic attempt to confuse voters for the November election is obvious – and suspect.
In fact, Card told Newsmax.com on Oct. 1 that Woodward’s allegations were “not true at all.”
“I never felt that someone should have left ‘instead’ of me,” Card later told the Associated Press. “Mrs. Bush and I never discussed it.”
Card also said Woodward’s charge that it was “a campaign or an orchestrated effort would be wrong.”
“But were there times that we talked about potential changes in the Cabinet? Yes,” Card said. “Did they center around Rumsfeld? Not necessarily. They were in a broader context.”
Back in July 31, Card told Newsmax.com he resigned in April because “the president needed something that would allow external observers to see that he had new momentum.”
“So it was time for new personalities to help give definition to the word change,” he said. “I first went to the president more than a month and a half before I left. I said, ‘You know, I think it’s probably time to think about it.’”
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said Woodward’s book was similar to others critical of the war on terrorism and “in a lot of ways, the books are like cotton candy. They kind of melt on contact.”
Newsmax.com added that the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post were the only two major news outlets that ran Laura Bush’s denial.
As a result, Woodward’s false charges against Card and Mrs. Bush have become the central focus of the leftist media, who have seized on the opportunity to further undermine the war in Iraq, while trying to stir up contrived tensions that don’t even exist between a respected former staff member like Card, the first lady and President Bush.
If that wasn’t enough, Woodward had also made outlandish, unfounded claims that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice allegedly ignored tips about Sept. 11. But it’s just Woodward’s way of helping Bill Clinton and Al Gore re-write their ultimate legacies of not doing enough to thwart the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that were being planned on their watch, as well as the 10 terrorist attacks against the U.S. occurring between 1993-2000.
Based on Woodward’s loose accounts and “recollections of past conversations” he has claimed to have had with Bush officials, I’d rather believe honorable and respectable professionals like Card and Rice than a washed-up, discredited, partisan has-been like Woodward who has a political agenda – and a multi-million dollar book advance – attached to everything he writes.
Now traveling the media circuit in the safe havens of CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and “60 Minutes,” Woodward has been given precious airtime to flaunt his allegations without giving the Bush White House the courtesy to respond.
After all, the Left had Edward R. Murrrow in the late 1940s through the mid-50s to vilify Sen. Joe McCarthy when he was exposing Communism in America. For nearly 40 years, the Left has had Bob Woodward to demonize even more Republicans as our nation continues to face enemy threats from abroad, as well as from the Democrat Party and media allies like Woodward, who have relished in the fame and fortune of treason.
Today’s so-called “reporters” are not journalists; they are propagandists whose only agenda is bringing down every Republican they can. They don’t care about facts, even if the facts debunk smears against Republicans or implicate their fellow Democrats.
Unlike his father, Mike, Fox News anchor Chris Wallace is a real journalist who’s been viciously attacked for posing legitimate questions to Bill Clinton. Far from being a partisan reporter, the younger Wallace and Fox News have been unfairly accused by Bill Clinton of all people of lying and running a right-wing conspiracy against him, while leftist propagandists like Woodward get praised for their unfounded and conspiratorial conjecture aimed at distracting Republican presidents who are in the midst of wartime.
So it appears that CNN, the New York Times, TIME, Newsweek and Dan Rather are now competing with Woodward for the “Cheerleader-in-chief for America’s enemies” award.
Ultimately, Woodward’s latest ‘Plan of Attack’ on President Bush amounts to nothing more than a left-wing clarion call for Bush’s impeachment that Woodward has masked as “investigative journalism.” Even though former President Richard Nixon resigned over Watergate, there’s no justification for Bush to do the same with Iraq.
As commander-in-chief, Bush has led our military in more missions that have resulted in the capture and killing of the very al-Qaeda cells that Bill Clinton had repeatedly ignored. But as the naked emperor of the leftist media bubble, Woodward and his followers would rather take out Republican presidents than al-Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuelaor any terrorist threat that remotely breaches our national security.
And the leftist media wonder why the war in Iraq has suffered minor setbacks, with anti-U.S. propagandists like themselves and their al-Qaeda chief cheerleader-in-chief, Woodward, constantly lying about our president, our military and the war on terrorism.
So, for the moment anyway, it looks like CNN’s permanent guest, Bob Woodward, will remain the anti-U.S. cable network’s cheerleader-in-chief for al-Qaeda.
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”