Bob Woodward Replies

On March 31, I posted a piece that compared two accounts of a January 31, 2003 meeting between George W. Bush and Tony Blair. During this Oval Office session, the American president and the British prime minister discussed various war-related subjects six weeks before the invasion of Iraq. One account was the description of the meeting in Bob Woodward's best-selling book, Plan of Attack. The other was a recently disclosed secret memorandum written by a Blair aide who attended the meeting. The memo, I noted, showed that Woodward's insider source(s) who had told him about this conversation had "left out the best and most important stuff." I wrote, "This goes to show that Woodward is only as good as his sources and that those insiders are not always so good when it comes to disclosing the real story." After the article was posted, Woodward called to complain (passionately) that the piece was "immensely dishonest" and "unfair." He urged me to reconsider what I had written. He demanded an apology. I offered him as much space as he would like for a response, and he accepted that invitation. Below is his reply--and mine to his.

To David Corn:

I was genuinely shocked to read your recent column "Woodward and Reality." The column is thoroughly dishonest and represents another low for journalism. Apparently facts don't matter to you if you think you can score a point.

You allege that I "left out the best and most important stuff" in my book Plan of Attack about a January 31, 2003 meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair. You draw your conclusions from a memo written by David Manning, Blair's foreign policy adviser, who attended the meeting.  The memo was recently described in The New York Times.

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. Just to bore you with some examples:

* I report that in early January 2003 (p. 254), either the Thursday or Friday after New Year's, Bush told Condoleezza Rice, "Probably going to have to, we're going to have to go to war." The book adds, "In Rice's mind, this was the president's decision on war. He had reached the point of no return." The book summarizes, "Bush was now enveloped in a contradiction: he had privately decided on war, but publicly he was continuing the diplomacy."

* A few pages later (p.262), still in early January, I report that "Cheney had come to realize that the president had made his decision."

* Most elaborately, I describe how from January 11 to January 13, two weeks before the Blair meeting, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld told Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar and Secretary of State Powell that Bush had decided on war. (pp. 263-74)

* I report that on January 11, 2003, Cheney summoned Bandar to the White House to assure him the U.S. was going to war in Iraq.  Rumsfeld, who was there, told Bandar, "You can count on this. You can take that to the bank. This is going to happen." I report that Cheney added, "once we start, Saddam is toast."

* Two days later, January 13, I report that Bandar met with President Bush because Bandar said he needed to hear the decision directly from Bush. Bush asked Bandar if he had understood the previous day's briefing. "This is the message I want you to carry for me to the crown prince," Bush said. "The message you're taking is mine, Bandar."

* Later on January 13, I report that Powell met with Bush, and Bush told him of the decision. I write, "The President said he had made up his mind on war. The U.S. should go to war." A few paragraphs later, I reemphasized it: "The fork in the road had been reached and Bush had chosen war."

When my book was released, the fact that Bush had made up his mind earlier than he was publicly asserting was one of the most well covered parts.  In a front-page story April 17, 2004, The New York Times reported on Plan of Attack as the book was being released, and noted in the second paragraph of its story that Bush told Powell on Jan. 13 that he had decided on war and quoted from my account of the meeting.

* Plan of Attack reports that Feb. 15, 2003 was the first potential start date of the war (p. 319), nearly a month earlier than the "penciled in" Mar. 10 cited in the British memo. (The war started Mar. 19).

* The British memo says that both Bush and Blair acknowledged no WMD had been found. This was, in part, because four days earlier on Jan. 27 U.N. weapons' inspector Hans Blix had reported this to the United Nations. My book also noted that I had written a story for The Washington Post on January 28 that said: "Sources said U.S. intelligence agencies have not traced or located a large cache of prohibited weapons or ingredients used in the making of chemical or biological weapons. They said the U.S. government still lacks a smoking gun." (p. 294) The book also quotes General Tommy Franks telling Bush how they had been looking for WMD for 10 years "and haven't found any yet so I can't tell you that I know that there are any specific weapons anywhere." (p. 173) That is from a September 6, 2002 meeting, nearly five months before the Bush-Blair meeting.

* The British memo says Bush and Blair discussed the possibility of assassinating Saddam but provides no detail. Plan of Attack reports this later when it was discussed at an NSC meeting and describes how a Middle Eastern intelligence service planned "to send an emissary to see Saddam, ostensibly for the purpose of negotiation but with the real mission of assassinating the Iraqi leader." (p. 316)

* The British memo says "arms would be twisted" to get a second U.N. resolution and you suggest I present a different picture. I report in Plan of Attack (p.297) that Bush told Blair "we will go flat out" to get a second resolution--the same point.

* The British memo says that there was some tension between Bush and Blair over the legal arguments for war and you suggest I make no reference to this in the book. Plan of Attack presents this theme in many Blair-Bush meetings. For example, in August 2002 British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, following conversations between Bush and Blair, told Powell, "If you are really thinking about war and you want us Brits to be a player, we cannot be unless you go to the United Nations." (pp. 161-162) Also, I report that "for Blair the immediate question was, Would the United Nations be used....It was critical domestically for the prime minister to show his own Labour Party, a pacifist party at heart, opposed to war in principle, that he had gone the U.N. route." (p. 177) On the next page Blair gives Bush his word that he will support military action and Bush tells Blair's aides, "Your man has got cojones." (p.178)

* The British memo says the two leaders discussed the post-war period, including detailed planning on food and medicine. Plan of Attack covers this post-war planning in exhaustive detail in a Jan. 15 NSC meeting. (p. 276-278) 

There were several items mentioned in the British memo which I was not aware of such as Bush's alleged proposal to use a U-2 spy plane as a provocation. As I have always said no account is complete and more information hopefully comes out. The sad fact is that if you had reminded your readers that most of the essential elements contained in the British memo were covered in Plan of Attack, you would have had no column.  There is no way someone writing a book could or would attempt to recap all the decisions previously made in a single meeting.

I was very surprised in our phone conversation yesterday when you said you had read Plan of Attack.  I also see that you wrote about the various revelations when the book came out ("George Bush, Self-Deluded Messiah") in which you said the book was "in several ways more disquieting" than others on the Bush White House. In addressing the new information in the book, you wrote:

The disclosure that appears to unsettle the White House the most is Woodward's assertion that in mid-January 2003 Bush decided to proceed with the invasion of Iraq....

[A]ccording to Woodward, Bush was already leading the nation to war, having made the decision on January 11. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice--who has become the administration's explainer-in-chief--suggests that Bush was merely thinking aloud at the time. But Woodward's account is pretty strong, noting that the Saudis were informed before Bush bothered to tell his secretary of state.

Did you forget? If you'd checked you would have found that the most specific and authoritative account of Bush's early decision, and the discussion around it, comes from Plan of Attack. The New York Times story of April 17, 2004 is but one example.

I want to make two more points. What was the Bush-Blair meeting of Jan. 31, 2003 really about? It was about political survival--Tony Blair's political survival. He was going to face a vote of confidence in the House Commons at some point (he did six weeks later) and he needed a second UN resolution to prove he had not given up on diplomacy. Bush agreed to try for the second resolution which was soon abandoned, but he was so worried that Blair's government would fall that on Mar. 9, 2003--ten days before the start of the war--he phoned Blair and offered to let Britain drop out of the coalition and not send combat troops (p. 338). As I said to you on the phone, I think you are naive about the political stakes--those were the issues for the leaders and this is my focus in reporting the meeting because it was their focus. Bush had already decided on war, Blair knew it, and even a casual reader of Plan of Attack would have known it.

What I find most disturbing is that you knew it also but that fact just did not fit your disfiguring story line. So what did you do? You just left it out. You really ought to be embarrassed. It is just not sound to take one scene from, say, a movie and criticize it for not having all the information in some of the earlier or later important scenes. It is the same for a book. Plan of Attack has stood the test of two years because it was carefully reported from a variety of sources and documents. Almost daily I read an article or a new book that draws heavily from it. At the same time, more information comes out, and I certainly did not have it all.

You wrote a book, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception. So, is your approach to adopt the methods and techniques of those you criticize? Has it reached that point? Should deception be matched with deception? Is that the way to straighten out American political dialogue? You owe me but more importantly your readers an apology.

Bob Woodward
April 4, 2006

And now my reply:

Bob Woodward has a point. I should have mentioned that in Plan of Attack he had reported that Bush had already decided to go to war before meeting with Blair on January 31, 2003. That's an important element of the book. As I noted in the original column, "Woodward does capture some (maybe even most) of what occurred" in the run-up to the war. But the fact that Woodward revealed Bush's mindset in passages prior to the pages covering the Bush-Blair meeting does not settle the case here. In Woodward's account, Bush comes off as magnanimous. Blair told him that for political coverage back home he desperately needed a second UN resolution that would authorize military action against Iraq. Bush was opposed to going back to the UN, Woodward wrote, but he conceded and agreed to try. And Woodward inserted a quote from an interview he conducted with Bush, who discussed this very meeting: "And so [Blair's] got a very difficult assignment. Much more difficult, by the way, than the American president in some ways." The bottom line: Blair requested help; Bush put aside his reservations and said yes.

The Manning memo shows that much else was going on. But let's stick with the issue of the second resolution for a moment. Imagine that Woodward's source(s) had informed him--and he had subsequently reported--that Bush had told Blair, If you need a second resolution, I will help, but I'm dead-set on war and have already picked March 10 as the likely date for its start. Would that be a significant change in the account? My view is that the addition of that information would have changed the tenor of Woodward's version.

I don't want to nit-pick, but none of the bullet-points Woodward provides above have Bush establishing a specific date--though one notes that February 15 was the "first potential start date of the war." The February 15 date appears in the section of Plan of Attack covering events in mid-February 2003 (after the January 31 meeting, obviously). And Woodward wrote, "February 15 had been a potential start day for war if the inspections had gone according to plan and exposed Saddam. Now the endgame was not clear." [My emphasis.]

Not to diminish Woodward's considerable reporting talents and the many scoops he does present in the book, but reporting that February 15 had at some point been a potential start date if inspections had "exposed Saddam" (without saying whose start day it was) is not a substitute for reporting that Bush gave Blair a "penciled in" date of March 10.

The March 10 disclosure was not the only Manning memo element missing from Woodward's account of the Bush-Blair meeting--and perhaps not the most significant element absent from Woodward's rendition. The once-secret memo also noted that Bush and Blair had acknowledged that no WMDs had been found in Iraq; that Bush had raised the possibility of provoking a confrontation with Saddam Hussein; that Bush had discussed the possibility of assassinating Saddam; that Bush had said that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups"; and that Blair had agreed that sectarian warfare was improbable.

Woodward maintains that Plan of Attack in prior sections had covered most of this. But some of his examples are not fully on point. The fact that Blix had told the UN that no WMDs had yet been found and that US intelligence sources had told Woodward the same makes for a different story than Bush saying to Blair that no unconventional weapons had been unearthed and suggesting they might stage an event to convince the public that war was warranted. According to the Manning memo, one idea Bush had was to paint UN colors on an American U-2 spy plane that would fly over Iraq and (Bush hoped) draw fire from Iraqi forces.

Woodward notes in his reply that he had not been aware of the U-2 proposal. He sensibly reminds us that "no account is complete and more information hopefully comes out." But he adds, "The sad fact is that if you had reminded your readers that most of the essential elements contained in the British memo were covered in Plan of Attack, you would have no column." Here's the essence of our disagreement. He claims that the significance of the meeting--what it was "really about"--was Blair's political survival. And he explains, "this is my focus in reporting the meeting because it was their focus." The "their" refers to Bush and Blair.

But is "their" focus the only, or the most appropriate, focus for a historian or journalist writing about this meeting? The meeting was important because of the politics--though ultimately the second resolution fizzled and Blair had to make do with an invasion not explicitly authorized by the United Nations. But the meeting was also important because it revealed that Bush was so eager to go to war he was considering--in the absence of WMDs--contriving an incident to start it. The Manning memo--the full contents of which have not yet been disclosed--also is significant in that it shows Bush and Blair dismissing the prospect of sectarian violence in post-invasion Iraq. (Woodward's reply does not direct us to a portion of his book in which Bush makes a similar comment.)

I presume that had Woodward's source(s) informed him about the provocation proposal, he would have decided that the "focus" of the meeting was not solely Blair's political needs and he would have included this proposed provocation scheme in his account and claimed it as the scoop it would have been. But my original point was that his source(s)--and that includes Bush--had not shared this information with him, that they (not Woodward) had "left out the best and most important stuff." Perhaps our dispute is over whether the politics of the meeting was more important than Bush's demonstrated willingness to consider concocting an incident to rally support for the war. That's an editorial call, and I'm happy to let others weigh in. In my mind, a president discussing such a stunt with another foreign leader is stop-the-presses stuff.

Had I noted that Woodward's book made clear that Bush had decided on war before January 31, 2003, there still would have been a story here. The Manning memo indicates that the United States has a president who considered resorting to subterfuge to justify a war. Woodward's account does not contain this information. And I assume its absence is due to the reluctance of Woodward's insider sources to share with him the full truth. Next time Woodward interviews Bush, he might want to ask the president why Bush did not tell him about the provocation proposal when the two discussed the January 31, 2003 meeting.

Pointing all this out is no act of deception. As Woodward notes, I have no problem commending him for his work and citing it. By working those insiders, he does bring us important stories. But in this instance, the limitations of his methodology--and that of all source-based reporting (which I and every other journalist practice)--were revealed. The Manning memo is a reminder of how even the nation's most renowned reporter can have the ultimate access and still miss an important part of the tale.

Comments (47)

1. Okay, here's my proposal....

   A tag-team Texas Cage Match.....with Mr Corn and Ms vanden Heuval....taking on Mr Woodward and Michelle Malkin.

   I see that as the only possible way to resolve their little "kids in the playground" punditry wars.

   Posted by Mask at 04/06/2006 @ 10:15am

2. David,

   A damn fine article! Thank you.

   You are totally correct in pointing out that the key point not revealed to Mr. Woodward was that the President of the United States was willing to stage a bogus attack on the U.N. in order to 'justify' an attack on Iraq.

   This key point goes to the major flaw in President Bush's character; a willingness to lie for political and possibly person gain.

   Reminder: As is attributed to Karl Rove - war will be good for the Republican Party.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/06/2006 @ 10:29am

3. "person" should read "personal".

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/06/2006 @ 10:30am

4. David,

   Additionally: Your articles did not seem to be an indictment of Mr. Woodward, but it was a condemnation of the source method system used by reporters.

   You seem to be cautioning reporters that they should not take a source's word alone, but need to dig further into the story; and to understand why a source, especially a source in as secret a organization as the Bush Administration, would confide in them in the first place.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/06/2006 @ 10:37am

5. The thinnest skin tells the tale.

   Posted by Blinky at 04/06/2006 @ 10:38am

6. The flaw in President Bush's character makes the point again about the dangers associated with the adage, "the ends justify the means".

   If the nation's reporters had been looking/performing their public-trust duties, they could have pointed out Mr. Bush's tragic character flaw which was clearly revealed in his political activities against John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary. As Bush put it then; it's just politics, John.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/06/2006 @ 10:47am

7. Woodward's response is cogent and justifiable. But recent history works against his case that he told the full story. His book does include many troubling details, but it still comes across as a testament to a group of men who did what was needed in a time of crisis. We now know that what looked like decisiveness then was merely guesswork and gambling. I saw nothing in Woodward's defense above that acknowledges this. One would think a journalist who really cares about historical accuracy would at least consider that the book's emphasis and general tone are already out of date.

   Bob Woodward had a busy day on Tuesday. He was giving a talk about a mile from where I live, in fact. He didn't write this - his staff did. This is not a battle of equals.

   Stick to your guns, David Corn.

   Posted by MyParadigm at 04/06/2006 @ 12:59pm

8. Although I believe that Mr.Woodward from now on must be read more the way one reads Bob Novak, it is rather clear from his page citations and as ZERO and MYPARADIGN point out, that he has caught David Corn in basic slanting if not outright errors. This is too bad because Mr.Woodward should not be allowed to wriggle off of any of the self planted skewers he prefers to live on. If I knew both men personally I would propose that Mr.Corn apologize and Mr.Woodward publicly resign his post at the Washington Post.

   Posted by Moysh at 04/06/2006 @ 2:07pm

9. I think that, in almost every aspect, your original posting was fair. Woodward has a point in showing that he had mentioned Bush wanting war in earlier chapters, and adding that to your story might have been a good thing. But your major point, in allowing naive readers to beware of putting too much faith in reports written of the recollections of interested/biased parties was a service to intellectual discourse. I say, "No harm, No foul." But, if it sooths ruffled feathers, maybe a "I'm sorry, Bob, that I failed to mention the earlier mention of Bush having decided to deceive the American public and go to war despite all he was publicly saying about avoiding it."

   Posted by guijackb at 04/06/2006 @ 2:46pm

10. Cleary, what Woodward doesn't see (or won't admit) is the utter contempt the Bush Administration has for the press and Woodward's own role in letting them manipulate how the run-up to war would be portrayed. His unique access was really the equivalent of a high-level embed. No doubt his gratitude for this privilege has colored his views. To this day Bush has not been straight about his real motivations for going to war. The American public now knows this, but not thanks to Mr. Woodward or his book.

    Posted by VinHill at 04/06/2006 @ 3:07pm

11. David--You just slew Goliath. You are the 21st century Bob Woodward (the one of watergate fame of course). Keep up the good work.

    Posted by mrsanfran at 04/06/2006 @ 3:16pm

12. To me, the key point isn't so much that Mr. Bush was willing to stage a bogus attack with a UN plane (an idea so stupid that only Mr. Bush could have thought of it), but that Mr. Bush recognized the case was weak. Woodward points out this important matter elsewhere, in his discussion of the CIA presentation of intelligence concerning Saddam's weapons to Bush: Bush asked DCI George Tenet, Is this all you've got? to which the sycophantic DCI replied with his now-infamous "slam dunk" remark.

    The point is that Bush knew the case for war was weak, while at the same time he and his lieutenants were reassuring the American people, Congress, the people of the world and the UN Security Council that their case was a slam dunk. They were lying. Those uttered falsehoods are not merely lies, but since they were made in an effort to garner public support for an unjustified war of aggression, they were war crimes.

    Anybody still want to say Bush didn't lie? Of course, many will continue to support the prevaricator-in-chief. Isn't that right, Rio? Mask? Hey, wazzup, LL?

    And then there's the issue of whether Bush should be censured for wire tapping American citizens on American soil without a warrant. The problem with censure is that it such a mild remedy for Bush's crimes that it is hardly a remedy at all. In no way would it be sufficient.

    Yes, I'll come right out and say it: Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and three of the four highest ranking cabinet officers warrant impeachment and removal from office for war crimes and crimes against humanity, not to mention violating civil liberties. Not only am I in favor of impeachment and removal, but for processing these people and others through the criminal justice system and sending them to prison for the rest of their natural lives; moreover, if the United States government is unable or unwilling to make a good faith effort at prosecuting Mr. Bush and members of his regime for their misdeeds, then I am in favor of establishing an international tribunal for this purpose.

    Oh, yes, and just because by itself it would be insufficient, there's no reason to rule out censure.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/06/2006 @ 3:33pm

13. I have to agree with Mr. Woodward that Mr. Corn's article was little more than a cheap shot and a misleading attempt to "score a point", as he puts it. I think we all know that there is no way of knowing what exactly was said during that meeting (short of Nixon's tape recorders still rolling -- even Bush isn't that foolish). The fact that all of the major points of the meeting were revealed in Woodwards account, and long before the memo was made public, should be more than enough to spare him such tabloid-style attempts to discredit him.

    May I further point out that it is exactly these kinds of silly attacks between two people who are on the same side of an issue that ensures that the republicans always win.

    Posted by feijiefu at 04/07/2006 @ 03:13am

14. I read the Woodward book when it first came out and it was clear to me that Bush was determined to go to war. I remember telling anyone who would listen that he had decided on war long before the second resolution, mainly because Woodward was so clear about that in his book. I was also surprised at the time that the Bush campaign recommended the Woodward book on its website. To me the book was damning.

    I can't imagine anyone expecting any writer to have all possible information available to them at any given time. A book, like an article, is a snapshot in time, it is by no means the entire story. That is why we have many books written on any one given topic and those books are written over time with new information.

    On this one, I have to side with Woodward. The book holds up to this date, and I might add, it was no love letter to Bush. The memo, in my opinion, only adds texture and depth to the information Woodward reported in his book.

    I love your writing too David. I just disagree with this particular article.

    Posted by gosilent at 04/07/2006 @ 03:34am

15. Piddling details. If Saddam had no WMDs (and now everyone seems to think he didn't), all he had to do was throw open the doors and get a clean bill of health signed by Dr. Hans Blix. He didn't, and the only alternative was what we got -- delivered with a mindblowing incompetence that's now clearly impeachable to all.

    Posted by feingoldobama at 04/07/2006 @ 10:19am

16. David, you've done great work in the past but Woodward wins this round in a knockout. It's a good lesson to all progressives: to check our facts, to write carefully, to READ carefully, and NOT to become so convinced that we are right that we end up caring more about winning than about retaining our principles.

    Posted by adorno68 at 04/07/2006 @ 10:33am

17. The main point that Corn made is missed by Woodward, and so has to be remade by Corn in his rebuttal. The core point is a methodological one: a journalist who acts as a stenographer for insiders is only reporting those facts the insiders want released. A stenographer may come across some good stuff from time to time, but he still only a stenographer. Woodward cannot be expected to know about a memo that surfaced two years after his book appeared, but that memo does highlight the limitations of his stenographic, non-editorializing methods -- and that was Corn's chief point.

    Posted by gafagan at 04/07/2006 @ 1:50pm

18. Sorry David but Woodward wins this exchange hands down. You are nit picking and the reason for that I suspect is a justified suspicion of Woodward who for a long time has been an insider and he pays the price of being that as Izzy Stone always told us. However, in this case you were on weak ground.

    Posted by nwreszin at 04/07/2006 @ 2:05pm

19. The disgusting thing about Woodward is that if he knew in advance that this stuff was lies, then he withheld the information from the public so he could make money selling a book. A silence and a book that has cost the lives of 2400+ American troops, probably 100,000+ Iraqi lives, and countless wounded (I have seen estimates of 20,000 US wounded and god knows how many Iraqis). Woodward has the blood of our troops on his hands and is a disgusting person. What people will do for a few dollars is truly amazing.

    Posted by sonofthewest at 04/07/2006 @ 2:06pm

20. Excellent point made by ORAIBI1952: A journalist must understand and report the bias of his sources. An example concerning Woodward: It has been revealed the Watergate's "Deep Throat" was FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt. The Watergate scandal involved illegal wiretaps and break-ins and Mark Felt knew the FBI was involved in similar activities at the time (COINTELPRO). By feeding exclusive, but selective, information to Woodward, the Post's Watergate investigation could be steered by Felt away from FBI misconduct. Felt's success in this regard is reflected in former Washington Post editor, Ben Bradlee's statement on National Public Radio: "Where he [Felt] was most helpful was in … steering us off tracks we had started down and keeping us on the track that led us to the discoveries that were so important." ("All Things Considered." June 1, 2005). In 1980 Felt was tried and convicted for authorizing illegal FBI break-ins, a fact which seems to undermine the current assertion that Felt's Watergate activities were motivated by his concern about the law and the constitution. (Felt was pardoned by President Reagan). Instead, I believe, Felt was making sure Woodward was steered away from the FBI's COINTELPRO. Another Woodward source, Robert Bennett, deserves more public discussion. Robert Bennett, then president of the Mullen Company, a public relations firm (Howard Hunt's "employer"), was a CIA asset who, according to a 1972 CIA memo, "has been feeding stories to Bob Woodward." Woodward was "suitably grateful," and agreed to downplay CIA involvement in exchange for exclusive information. (The Watergate burglars were "former" CIA employees/assets. Robert Bennett is now a US Senator from Utah).

    Posted by hodgesjl at 04/07/2006 @ 2:06pm

21. I thought the book was an interesting read. I also like David Corn. I think, in the end, this is a squabble about nothing. I do think that Woodward has lost some credibility SINCE the book has come out, however. On the NSA issue. How about the truth on that one, Bob?

    Posted by nomodpnow at 04/07/2006 @ 2:09pm

22. David, I beat you to it. Months ago, I sent an email to the Washington Post editor telling him what I thought of Woodward. I had once admired him because of Watergate. But when he started to become a shill for Bushlite, that ended my admiration for him. I've read his columns, observed him on Larry King, and he's become quite detestable as a journalist of any notable repute. Bushlite brought out his true nature, a neocon in sheep's clothing. Woodward has attempted to give more due to Bushlite than what he's actually worth. I told the Washington Post that he's put an idelible black stain on their newspaper. Woodward is just another hack!

    Posted by Dushan29 at 04/07/2006 @ 2:18pm

23. I don't mean to nit-pick, but it seems Corn's argument against Woodward rests on the notion that Woodward implied that Bush would not have gone to war if they couldn't get the second resolution,

    The Manning memo shows that much else was going on. But let's stick with the issue of the second resolution for a moment. Imagine that Woodward's source(s) had informed him--and he had subsequently reported--that Bush had told Blair, If you need a second resolution, I will help, but I'm dead-set on war and have already picked March 10 as the likely date for its start. Would that be a significant change in the account? My view is that the addition of that information would have changed the tenor of Woodward's version.

    Unless I missed something, I think Woodward did quite a good job of torpedoing that accusation. Where did Woodward say, or imply, that Bush mislead Blair into thinking that without a second resolution, they would not go to war?

    Bush said, ok, we will get that resolution. I hear no conditional statement.

    Posted by Jay Cline at 04/07/2006 @ 2:24pm

24. Posted by Sailor at 04/07/2006 @ 3:31pm

25. I agree with David Corn on his comments on Bob Woodward. At this point in I would think that any interview with George Bush would not be food for keen minds. The only audience I think the Bushies have left is FOX and friends, Rush, and so on. I certainly will not waste any more money on books by Bob Woodward. Keep up the good work Mr. Corn.

    Posted by PATM at 04/07/2006 @ 4:03pm

26. I just read the first articles, Woodward's reply and the rebuttal to the reply. I wonder how Woodward enabled himself to listen to the strident selfishness of a man who had stolen power and was using to justify sending soldiers to their death, without once commenting on the lack of character this must take. It is remarkable that he could interview and report such arrogance with a straight face. It bothers me that Woodward's focus was on Bush permitting himself to take such measures, without once calling attention to the lack of character necessary for such raw abuse of power. The book was curiously empty of any presentation of the background, an up close portrayal of emptiness without calling it by name, consorting with it.

    Posted by Sailor at 04/07/2006 @ 4:06pm

27. Thank you, David, for writing the thoughtful piece; for letting Mr Woodward reply; and for your reply.

    We all can have a Ph.D in Retrospective Vision, and likely if the clock could be turned back, both of you would have written your articles slightly differently. Perhaps significantly, in Mr Woodward's case. But hopefully you can meet up soon, buy each other a drink, and move forward, firing in unison. We need you both, and at your best.

    Looming behind the details of your dispute is the behemoth, which you emphasise in your original piece, that reporters need to be more investigative, more evaluative, more suspicious of 'informed sources closely involved with corrupt regimes', and bolder. More professional, indeed!

    It is desparately frustrating to you, and to many of the public, that this is still happening so rarely. If there were an "informed source" that Condie had three testicles, it might be reported in The National Enquirer, but most reporters seem to be even less thoughtful about what they are going to write.

    Serious, well-researched journalism does occur on occasion. I regret that I have not yet got around to reading Mr Woodward's book - I am reading that now-ancient book "Shrub", which should have been given to every professional and amateur reporter long ago, and if they had not read it within 14 days, then committed to Abby Greb. But such research "shines like a pearl in the mud", to plaguarize F Zappa.

    But as for current reporting.... is it true that Condoleeza Lies was booed and jeered "wherever she went" in the UK last week? Did she indeed get pelted with eggs?

    Far, far more seriously, has anyone REALLY 'linked the dots' between the "What we need is another Pearl Harbor" and "Sorry to interrupt your desserts, Bin Ladens, but quickly jump into this overground train to freedom". And if Bush and Co were aware of, or in some way complicit with, 9/11, is NO-ONE going to explore and say anything?? And are "we" going to do nothing?

    What about those strange rumors that will not go away? Like a NY school kid "knowing" of the imminent attack; that Mayor Willy Brown got a midnight phone call warning him not to fly from SF to HY the following morning?; that there was a special Secrets HQ in the WTC?; that folk of a certain ethnic group were told not to go to work at the WTC that morning?; that The Pentagon was not hit by a plane at all? (There was an interesting series of photos and text on the internet which arguably 'proved' that - but the site vanished....)

    The mantra is that "There has been no act of terrorism in the Homeland since 9/11". What about the anthrax and the postal worker's death? Worse than the incident being thoroughly buried, why is there no investigative journalism - leading to reporting and to indictment? We had Watergate, is there a Postgate here?

    The administration's strategies: (1)"Ignore the complainers and they will go away", (2) "If some of the linen in the closet smells, just make loads more dirty linen, so that eventually everyone will ignore it as being too much trouble" and (3) "Keep releasing hares to chase, whether they get caught or not does not matter, it keeps the rest of them busy".

    These strategies are working. Working so successfully - the Democrats and liberals go racing around all over the place chasing the released hares (letting The Administration focus on the real issue of increasing their personal fortunes at the expense of the USA and the world); whilst too many of the public might not even care if "Vietnam-type' home and overseas news coverage were to be suddenly introduced.

    There is a frustration underlying David's piece; a frustration which is not too-apparent in Mr Woodward's. And that might be a cause, and worry over, their dissention. Is everything going to be left the Randi Rhodes and a few others to try to 'break the news', and to try to get some positive, successful reaction?

    Of course, the main press is gagged in the UK as well. (I was one of the 200,000 - or was it 2 MILLION? - who attended the anti-Iraq War demonstration. Reported attendance numbers depended upon the media position. I favor the 2 MILLION - an incredibly large percentage of the Brit population - since even the most pro-Blair papers stated that it was the biggest demonstration in UK history, hugely beating even the CND marches, and the procession was still pouring into Hyde Park at 16.50 hours, more than half an hour after the Speakers had finished doing their "Martin Luther King's". An amusing aside..... The March was supposed to start at midday, with your Rev Jesse Jackson being in the front line, linking arms with our George Galloway and the other Good Guys. The police, seeing how Central London was in risk of being overwhelmed (and presumably the risk of anti-social behavior if any unruly elements were able to channel the frustration, concern and anger at the whole business) told the marchers to start 11.30. Rev Jackson was brought from his hotel at the appointed hour, to find the march had already started. He had to be scurried down side streets to catch up with and be popped into the front line. He was unfazed by this surprise, of course.

    But whilst the UK press is controlled appallingly by the press barons, the Brits do have something which you do not: the fortnightly Private Eye magazine. This supposedly satirical scullilous mag is, in practice, 99.99% the source of 'The Truth'. Largely because investigative journalists anonymously pass on the stories which their papers refuse to print. Hopefully, one day soon, the USA will have its own similar-quality "Private Eye"; (until then you'll have to take out a Private Eye subscription or enjoy snippets on the internet).

    Current investigative jounalism here is not helped by the appalling condition of the Democratic Party and its supporters. They would argue between themselves which day of the week it is. Put two Democrats in a room and they could likely argue for an hour as to whether green is a more beautiful color than blue. All in the name of free-thinking, of course.

    So what should you, David, Mr Woodward and fellow quality investigators do?

    1. Fight fiercely with your investigative journalism, realising the "WMD" means "Words of Mass Deception".

    2. Batter the Democratic leadership to get focussed on what really matters; and appoint teams to work at these issues. E.g.

    Proposition 1: unless electronic voting is outlawed IMMEDIATELY, and a real paper trail established and followed through each time, the Democrats will not get back in for 20 or more years, if ever.

    Proposition 2: get united and support each other. E.g (a) The abandonment of Dick Durban was a disgrace which would never have happened in this disgraceful Republican Party; (b) stop "chasing all the released hares", but chose the battlegrounds (e.g. the individual's right to decide; Haliburton-troops in Iraq; This Adminstrtaion has effectively started the Fourth World War, with China {the Third World War started with The Berlin Airlift and finished with the Gorbachov peace accord}),

    (c) focus on The Administration's not giving a Reb Butler damm for the USA, its people's lives or the environment, the UN, or indeed, the world - just for personal, dynastic gain. (But don't focus on Wee Georgie - the Republicans would welcome that red herring since, like Elvis, he has really "left the building" already.

    (d) focus on the country and the party, not on personal gain. I can foresee that, before long the party will be ripped apart by debate as to which female Presidential hopeful could raise the more funds, rather than addressing the issue that x percent of Americans would vote for Michael Jackson's cheetah rather than a woman. What a sick joke that internecine warfare would be!

    Once again, thank you.

    Posted by Anabasis at 04/07/2006 @ 4:06pm

28. After reading Bob Woodward's "Wired" years ago, I decided to avoid badly written books by him and other newspaper journalists (I used to be one). Why would anyone expect truth and perspective from someone writing "quickie" books about current leaders or celebrities? I have seen Mr. Woodward's recent books displayed in stores, and the covers look like they were approved by Karl Rove. Mr. Woodward's books might be well-intentioned efforts, but he is closely tied to the world of celebrity. The immediate politics of Tony Blair's supposed survival are more important to him, as numerous readers have remarked, than callous mass slaughter, and a pre-emptive war built on lies and hypocrisy. Mr. Woodward is more concerned about his own reputation than the morality of what Mr. Bush has done. But this should not surprise anyone: If Mr. Woodward were an original thinker, his continued employment in the mass media would be extremely unlikely.

    Posted by watso at 04/07/2006 @ 4:49pm

29. Corn's last sentence has the kernel of this contretemps: "The Manning memo is a reminder of how even the nation's most renowned reporter can have the ultimate access and still miss an important part of the tale."

    Woodward was "embedded" with the president and his administration during the writing of his two books; to my thinking from the brief clips I have read in the two books, Woodward developed a crush on Bush. That accounts for why in Woodward's revelations of the president's having already made up his mind to go to war while at the same time pretending publicly that he had not made up his mind, and that war was to be a "last resort", that the president somehow appears "magnanimous", even stalwart.

    In fact, we can piece together from the Manning Memo that Bush was duplicitous, and that bald fact is what is missing in Woodward's coverage and in his research from all his embedded informants. That is exactly Corn's criticism, and Corn is right to so criticize.

    I myself have always been amazed at the lies and deceptions that this presidents gets away with unscathed, for example repeating ad nauseam that the U.N. Resolution 1441 called for Saddam to disarm, and Saddam would not comply; therefore the U.S. had to MAKE Saddam comply by invading. The simple fact, of course, is that Saddam had already complied with UN 1441 which became painfully obvious after the invasion. Yet even after the invasion, and even until the present day, Bush still brings out this duplicitous argument as though it were hard-rock proof.

    My regrets to Woodward here, but I lean toward Corn.

    Bob Locke Sacramento CA

    Posted by lockerh at 04/07/2006 @ 5:04pm

30. Call me a cynic, but can anyone really trust anything that a source within the Bush Administration has to say without properly verifying that source's information? I have the impression that Bob Woodward can be, and has been, used by Bush & Co. to act as a conduit for whatever information they wish to have reported.

    Posted by icarus9 at 04/07/2006 @ 5:19pm

31. Anabasis, Very interesting about Jackson being wedged into the parade. I don't like being against Mr. Woodward and see by his reply he thinks he is right. Don't we all? But I do wonder where Bernstein is and imagine if the ossified social order hadn't gotten so much worse in the time between Water Gate and the Pesky Chads, he would be the one we hear about. I am assuming he is too decent to have reached his partner's success level. Oh yes, the cover of that book must have passed over Rove's desk. Maybe Karl even took the picture. Maybe it is Karl dressed up as Bush?

    Posted by Sailor at 04/07/2006 @ 5:42pm

32. Call me a cynic too. But how can one not be a cynic when a 'reporter' i.e. Woodward gets the info from 'Deep Thoat' that gets Nixon, and then is accepted into the White House and writes an 'unredacted' book on bush which is mostly favorable if not entirely favorable.

    There can be only one possible explanation--Woodward was a shill then, doing what the big bosses wanted and he is a shill now. The 'Pugs do not forget and do not forgive, there is no way he could have 'earned' his way back into their confidence unless he was always there.

    What an envious place to be, the consummate double-agent reporter. The kind only a Judith Miller could appreciate.

    Posted by cole at 04/07/2006 @ 5:49pm

33. We are now learning that bush 'Declassifies' documents at his sole discretion. That would explain how the Iraqi 12,000 page disclosure got redacted in a single weekend to 4,000 acceptable pages. And we also now know what george meant by "It's hard work".

    Well, time to get back on the bike.

    Posted by cole at 04/07/2006 @ 5:59pm

34. I'll bet Bob Woodward feels about as relevant as Dennis Miller, right about now. When "Deep Throat" came forward, he was drastically de-mystified. Not to mention he held onto information that would have hurt Bush in the '04 election.

    Posted by toterola at 04/07/2006 @ 6:12pm

35. I am amazed and disappointed to see how Woodward has become a part of the machinery he so ably exposed back in the '70s. He speaks of current events as though they are nothing more than a historical record that he is writing...a symptom of his preoccupation with his own place in history and how best to provide himself with a cushy retirement. Recording events for the historical record is fine, but doing so while the events are still unfolding appears to be a backdoor method to manipulate the public's thinking about what it is seeing...a tactic that a strategist such as Karl Rove might find useful. Financial success and fame seem to have emasculated Woodward's reporting skills. Now that he's one of the good ole' boys, he understands that what is in their best interest is also in his. The great reporting feats of Bob Woodward are themselves now a part of history. He has begun a new and seamy career as the Bush White House historian.

    Posted by dtb at 04/07/2006 @ 9:20pm

36. Bob, keep on doing what you do, but I have to give David the edge on this one. Steve Henry 310.849.3814 cell

    Posted by steve henry at 04/07/2006 @ 10:03pm

37. I saw Bob Woodward give a talk a couple years ago at Penn State. After hearing him talk fondly about how Bush would give him noogies and call him "Woody," I left the auditorium a bit disillusioned. I think Bob Woodward is being a little overly sensitive here, although he makes a good case that he had a lot of the goods in his book before the memo came out. Surely any good journalist realizes that even if he is really just pretending to be buddies with his source, he can't get the whole truth from one side of the fence.

    Posted by jimus888 at 04/07/2006 @ 11:44pm

38. My feeling is that both writers have a point, although David Corn's column would have been less vulnerable if he'd acknowledged some basic truths about Bob Woodward's book at the onset. But Corn's primary point stands, and I would hope that Woodward (or his assistants) peruse the many interesting comments offered here by the Nation's web community. Several of Woodward's sources must have known that Bush would go to obscene lengths to justify going to war, but it's not likely that they would have disclosed the details to Woodward; they knew that allowing him a rare level of access would probably keep him from digging much below the surface. I wouldn't say that he's a "shill" for the administration, but he certainly lets privilege trump thorough investigation.

    Posted by kelvinw at 04/08/2006 @ 09:41am

39. Gulf of Tonkin, Invasion of Poland, Invasion of Iraq. All were done on false pretenses. None of these invaders did very well. Without truth there can be no democracy, only tryanny and war.

    Posted by richschneid at 04/08/2006 @ 7:01pm

40. Will arguing about the past save us from NUCLEAR WAR, or will BOTH OF YOU GET BUSY REVEALING THE IMMINENT THREAT POSED TO THE WORLD BY GEORGE W. BUSH AND ISRAEL?

    Wolf Blitzer and Sy Hersch both mentioned that it is Israel that is pushing for a quick strike against Iran. Blitzer once worked for AIPAC, and many believe he still does.

    Israel has claimed that Iran may have a nuke within one year. It's a lie.

    Most intelligence estimates put the timeframe between 5-10 years.

    What's the rush?

    Israel wants it to happen now.

    PERIOD.

    The reason that there is no pressure coming from congress to hold bilateral talks with Iran rather than simply nuke them is that they are all owned by AIPAC - whether through bribes, blackmail, or both.

    AIPAC is the single most destructive force in America today.

    What are we to do when the entire process of elections becomes subverted, controlled by an outside force that takes US tax payer dollars, offshores them, then launders them right back into the political process thereby ensuring that only their hand-picked candidates become government officials?

    When all that cash is utilized to purchase media time to promote AIPAC's hand-picked candidates - the executives of the media companies can clearly see who they need to support in order to enrich themselves. The news departments are instructed to perpetuate the game for profit.

    Our tax dollars have been used to destroy Democracy. The electoral process is completely broken as a result of the money in politics. It is ironc that there is a new cry for publicly funded campaigns. They already are publicly funded...it's just that the entity responsible for distributing the public funding is AIPAC.

    While the vast majority of Americans are crying out for lobbying reform, every Jewish organization is actively campaigning against it - to protect AIPAC's grip on the system.

    Remember this?

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101704A.shtml

    In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

    The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

    - Ron Suskind "Without a Doubt"

    All that cash leads to that kind of arrogance. Frankly, I'd rather fix the problem now than study it later.

    DEPORT AIPAC and win back your Democracy.

    It really is that simple

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/AIPACClinton.html

    Hedrick Smith noted in his book Power Game that AIPAC had become a "superlobby ... [It] gained so much political muscle that by 1985 AIPAC and its allies could force President Reagan to renege on an arms deal he had promised to [Jordan's] King Hussein. By 1986, the pro-Israel lobby could stop Reagan from making another jet fighter deal with Saudi Arabia; and Secretary of State George Shultz had to sit down with AIPAC's executive director -- not Congressional leaders -- to find out what level of arms sales to the Saudis AIPAC would tolerate."

    "You are the most effective general interest group…across the entire planet." Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich

    "Aipac has a lot of influence on foreign policy," says JJ Goldberg, editor of the Jewish newspaper The Forward. "They work hard to ensure that America endorses pretty much Israel's view of the world and the Middle East."

    "A great asset to our country". Condoleezza Rice describing AIPAC in March, 2003.

    "Fully three-fourths of America's foreign aid budget is devoted to Israeli security interests is a tribute in considerable measure to the lobbying prowess of AIPAC and the importance of the Jewish community in American politics." -- Prominent conservative lawyer and political commentator, Benjamin Ginsberg.

    "I asked Rosen if aipac suffered a loss of influence after the Steiner affair. A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. "You see this napkin?" he said. "In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin." Jeffrey Goldberg (The New Yorker).

    "AIPAC's Israel lobby has the power to pump up to a million dollars into the campaign coffers of any friendly member of Congress, or into the campaign of the opponents of an unfriendly member." -- Richard Curtiss, executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

    "A lobby is a night flower, it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun." -- AIPAC research director Steve Rosen, 2001.

    "The friendship between Israel and the United States is a great asset to our country. And AIPAC is a great advocate for this vital relationship." White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.

    "Congress is 'terrorized' by AIPAC... In practice, the lobby groups function as an informal extension of the Israeli government." -- "They Dare to Speak Out," -- Congressman (1961-1982) Paul Findley.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee

    Posted by plunger at 04/09/2006 @ 12:35pm

41. MR. WOODWARD... STOP THIS NUCLEAR ATTACK.

    Armageddon Ready?

    "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. 'God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan'." "And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq...' And I did.

    Secretary of State Rice's response to the disaster in New Orleans was: "The Lord Jesus Christ is going to come on time." She added: "If we just wait." "On time"? How does Rice know the exact time Armageddon starts? "If we just wait"? That means in her, that is our, lifetime!

    "At Church one day [Tom DeLay, House Majority Leader] listened as the pastor declared that 'the war between America and Iraq is the gateway to the Apocalypse.' DeLay rose to speak, not only to the congregation but to 225 Christian TV and radio stations. 'Ladies and gentlemen,' he said, 'what has been spoken here tonight is the truth of God.'"

    In an e-mail to Rabbi David Lapin, a West Coast talk show host, Abramoff lamented that the club had members with Nobel prizes but he had no awards to speak of. He asked if the rabbi's organization, Toward Tradition, could concoct one for him: "Perhaps something like Scholar of Talmudic Studies?"

    "Indeed, it would be better if it were possible that I received these in years past, if you know what I mean," Abramoff said in an e-mail.

    http://www.reopen911.org/

    http://jewishwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2005/06/senators-accuse-toward-t radition.html

    Iraq: A War For Israel

    http://paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=130386

    http://adlusa.us/israelis_evacuate.htm

    Scores dead in three Amman hotel bombings; Israelis evacuated before attack.

    A number of Israelis staying yesterday at the Radisson SAS were evacuated before the bombing by Jordanian security forces, apparently due to a specific security alert. They were escorted back to Israel by security personnel.

    The Foreign Ministry stated yesterday that no Israeli tourists are known to have been injured in the blasts. Representatives of Israel's embassy in Amman were I contact with local authorities to examine any report of injured Israelis, but none were received. There are often a number of Israeli businessman and tourists in Amman, including in the hotels hit yesterday.

    Odigo says workers were warned of attack By Yuval Dror

    Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

    http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744&contras sID=/has%5C

    Was Israel Warned Ahead of First Blast? Friday, 8 July 2005, 1:07 am Article: The Scoop Team Was Israel Warned Ahead of First Blast?

    Reports just in suggest U.S. Army Radio quoting unconfirmed reliable sources reported a short time ago that Scotland Yard had intelligence warnings of the attacks a short time before they occurred.

    The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address and economic summit.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0507/S00103.htm

    "This campaign designed to prepare the American people to blame Iran for a possible upcoming nuclear terrorist attack fits the description of a Mossad false flag operation, especially because of Israel's numerous, even flagrant recent violations of American nuclear security.

    Israel's long record of using terrorism and especially "false flag" terrorism - covert military operations designed to pin blame on an enemy - is extensive and well documented, beginning with the bombing of the Hotel King David by Menachem Begin's Irgun fighters, through the Lavon Affair and recently includes the bust up of a phony al Qaeda cell that was in reality manufactured by the Mossad.

    For those still under the illusion that Israel has always been a US ally, please note the USS Liberty Incident , wherein Israeli fighter planes and torpedo boats nearly sunk an unarmed US intelligence vessel in international waters, and also the US Army War College's assessment of the Mossad: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act." - Washington Times . Even the US army acknowledges that Israel can and does engineer "false flag" attacks.

    Citizens can afford to waste no time informing the President, the Pentagon, Congress, State Officials, FBI Counter Intelligence and the press that we are aware of the intent of this propaganda campaign and are not fooled. Recent Israeli and US efforts to publicly distance themselves from war plans for Iran may be part of a campaign to appear peaceful, such that a terrorist attack falsely blamed on Iran with the full force of the international media will look all the more brutal and undeserved."

    http://www.progressiveconvergence.com/nuclearfalseflagmail.htm

    Who celebrated in New York on 9/11?

    http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/ABCNEWS_com_Were_Israel is_Detained_Sept_11_Spies.htm

    Posted by plunger at 04/09/2006 @ 12:36pm

42. Mr. Corn, proven wrong by his own prior words, now resorts to the oldest trick in the books, which is to change the subject. First it is the limits of "accurate sourced reporting", then when that does not have enough substance to distract from Mr. Corn's dishonesty, he tries again. He trots out a new accusation, that Mr. Woodward missed the tenor or color of the meeting, because Mr. Corn's {incredably left wing bias} interpetation of the tenor is correct and thus news worthy.

    In my opinion, Mr. Woodward demostrated honesty, and adherance to the principle of publishing only material with sourceing, and Mr. Corn demonstrated total intellectual dishonesty, and hucksterism, and a real disconnect from reality, except his own biases. And, since Mr. Corn thinks that interpetation of the tenor of a meeting is more important than the substance, perhaps he would like to reveal to all the world all of the other dishonest errors that pervade the Nation, his books, and those of his fellow left wing spinners, who are the "substance" {used advisedly} of garbage usually the material published in the Nation, so the world can see the drum beat of dishonest left wing accusation that substitutes for fact in the left wing press. Then we could see the total dishonesty of the Nation, who belittle the use of sourced material, but freely invent their own "facts" to support their biases. Mr. Corn, and his ilk, are so self delusional, they can not see their dishonesty when it was so clearly demonstrated by the exchange between Woodward and Corn.

    Mr. Corn, you have half of the correct name. You should change it to CornPone, as that is what your highest level of intellectual honesty can produce. And, apparently, because you are so willing to demonstrate your total intellectual dishonesty, one could conclude from your behavior (a form of sourceing) that you don't even have a clue as to your complete dishonesty. You certainly have a home at the Nation, where Ms. Van DerHoven is one of the brightest, most dishonestly left biased individual whom I have ever seen demostrate her psychopathology regularly on TV talk shows.

    The fact she would allow your totally dishonest reply, your failure to totally acknowledge Mr. Woordward's corrections or your dishonesty, with your attempts to distract from the issue of your totally dishonest "reporting" with new charges, (which Mr. W could not refute, because you have the last word), are more demonstrations of both of your inability to understand and/or respect the truth, or at least accurate, well sourced reporting. You both demonstrate total contempt for the truth. My source for that opinion are your totally dishonest original article, and your responses to Mr. Woodward's corrections. These so clearly demonstrate that you subscribe to the principle of "the ends justify the means" and the truth be dammed. I think both of you (Corn VanDH) have demonstrated the ability to see no version of the truth, other than your own sorry left wing distortions.

    Just for clarity, I am not a big fan of Mr. Bush either, but I prefer to critizes him with truth, rather than the totally inacurate left wing garbage which fills the pages of the Nation.

    Your dishonesty confuses the issues, and the people. And, that is your contribution to the debate, dishonesty and confusion. I have higher standards, you will see that I sourced in your material all of my criticisms of you. Even my interpetations, have their basis sourced, in your writings. I would be embarrassed to demonstrate so much dihonesty as both of you do. But, that is the advantage of disconnection from the truth. The truth only bothers those who have an open enough of a mind, that the truth seeps in past the bias filter, so the intellect can see the truth. I doubt if you can understand what I am explaining, so I will stop. Why put pearls before, well you know the rest.

    Ray Exley, MD

    Posted by rwe9 at 04/10/2006 @ 12:35pm

43. More of the truth about Bush's march to war in Iraq.

    Below is an excerpt from a Time Magazine article; article was highlighted in Buzz Flash email I received.

    "Why I Think Rumsfeld Must Go"

    A military insider sounds off against the war and the "zealots" who pushed it

    By LIEUT. GENERAL GREG NEWBOLD (RET.)

    Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique:

    In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture--who became career members of the military during those rough times--the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again. From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq--an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat--al-Qaeda. I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough.

    Why Iraq Was a Mistake [time.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/10/2006 @ 3:06pm

44. The point here, I suggest, is of little consequence. Mr. Korn provides a sort of daily presentation of 'evidence to the jury' based on impressions of ongoing events as they unfold. Mr. Woodward provides the 'deposition', that is the history of stated fact upon which the case is constructed over time. The populace needs both of course. Woodward has to be credible to his sources, or we the readers get nothing from these power elites. Woodward keeps the 'personal impressions' to a minimum and that's okay with me because his access gives all I need to draw my own conclusions. After reading his 'plan of attack' I knew everything that subsequently was disclosed. That is Mr. Woodward's value to the reader. He gets them talking, and he gets them down on paper. They love the fame, the attention, they think they've manipulated him. He has exposed them, and the reader with insight, gets its. So this debate is ultimately silly. Let Woodward gather the deposition evidence, let that evidence stand unchallenged by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld. Then lets watch the American media close in on them, following the leads, the inferences Woodward cannot assert without losing his access. The process is working, it just takes time.

    Bob Philbin

    Posted by Philbin at 04/10/2006 @ 8:15pm

45. .

    Woodward You're a Dope

    It is a big mistake to give Corn even the time of day. He is a bottom feeder, not a reporter. He survives on journalistic gossip. He lives by pecking at ankles.

    There is no way to convince him of anything that does not serve his ideological program, the truth notwithstanding. Whatever you say only supplies a base for new servings of his piffles.

    Posted by nacl at 04/12/2006 @ 04:10am

46. More spin by the Washington Post:

    The enclose three stories truly highlight the problem with the Wash Post and other Main Stream Media:

    1. Wash Post's Fred Hiatt: Does Fred Read the Wash Post [tinyurl.com]

    2. Wash Post editorial: A Bad Editorial titled "A Good Leak" [tinyurl.com]

    3. Alterman rocks: Alterman: The open mouth of a snake filled with poison [msnbc.msn.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/18/2006 @ 10:39am

47. David,

    I'm in your corner on this boxing match with Woodward. After listening and observing him on Larry King several times, and reading a number of his articles, I'm left with the impression that he's a Bush lover. His book makes this clear. I don't think that he put Bush on the spot when he did those personal interviews. Bush was all too eager to provide him with selective information which is a hallmark of Bush's disinformation ploy. I don't care for Woodward anymore, and I let his newspaper editor know my feelings about him. As far as I'm concerned, Woodward lost credibility just like his lover, Bush!

    Posted by Dushan29 at 04/19/2006 @ 2:54pm