DRUDGE: New Woodward book will be EXPLOSIVE

[ulTRAX]

Clarke is just the warmup.

Anyone have any titbits on this new book besides the release date?

[Pale Blue Dot]

1. Woodward? Drudge?

You'll excuse me if I don't get my hopes up.

[fearnobush]

2. I think Joe Wilson's will be a bit more explosive.

[young_at_heart]

3. I just finished watching "Horns and Halos" and had

a feeling of hopelessness afterward. What a sad tale! Maybe there are finally authors coming forward to tell the truth who will be listened to.

[0007]

29. My favorite book by J.H. Hatfield "Fortunate Son"

....and I do want to see "Horns and Halos" Been looking for it.

[slinkerwink]

4. I don't see that on Drudge at all

:shrug:

[ulTRAX]

9. it was on his radio show....

[alcuno]

5. If true, you gotta love Woodward.

First he writes, "Bush at War," then he writes "War on Bush." They'll turn on you on a dime.

[Penndems]

35. Especially if you lie to them

Journalists have long memories, and when they find out they've been lied to or bulshitted, the pen truly is mightier than the sword.

[Jane Austin]

39. How do you know

it will be exposive against Bush - - or for him?

[spotbird]

47. My thought exactly.

He had been gushing about the Chimp publicly for some time. If there is something negative in the book it would mean that he had a major change of heart.

[Raenelle]

60. He's still the reigning Whore of the Year

since MWO has been out to pasture, they never named 2003 Whore of the Year.

Maybe the title shamed him enough to do some honest reporting. It seems to have quieted Howard Fineman (Whore of the Year 2001) a bit.

[alcuno]

62. Limbaugh was railing about the book.

Enough said.

[Torgo Johnson]

6. Someone should tell Woodward

putting tiny sticks of dynamite in the book's binding is not such a good idea. Seriously, considering Drudge is pushing this combined with Woodward's recent history, this is more likely to be pro *

[nostamj]

12. "this is more likely to be pro *"

then why did Tucker C. say on Chris Matthews today that the WH is 'very worried' about this book.

maybe Woodward didn't tell ALL he knew in the first book...

maybe he was tenderizing the meat before tossing it on the grill?

we'll know soon enough.

[Torgo Johnson]

19. I hope your right

Actually, wasn't there a quote made by Bush somewhere in Bush at War that made him look bad? I can't remember exactly what it was, but I remember seeing it here.

[nostamj]

25. yes, there was...

the insipid chimp stated that he felt no "URGENCY" about bin Laden.

it was issue #1 until the Clinton team left.

then, it was ignored. 100 MSC meetings, NONE on al Qaeda until 9/4/01. no meetings of Cheney's terrorism group... he had 'other priorities'....

37 americans died from al Qaeda terrorism during the 8 years of Clinton....

you know, the rest of the story

[Torgo Johnson]

31. Thank you ...

I believe there was also another quote, someting that made Bush look egotistical. I'm going to see if I can find it.

[Torgo Johnson]

33. Found the quote

"I am the commander-- see... I do not need to explain to anyone why I say things" (p.276)

What a asshole. I also found out someone with my username has a right-wing blog. :puke:

[Zookeeper]

42. Well, I have seen * referred to as the "King" on Lucianne. n/t

[calimary]

56. As I recall, he added something in there about -

"that's the funny thing about being president. People have to explain things to me." NOT a verbatim quote. But I suspect I'll find it. It's in paperback now, and I just bought it last night. Don't know which to read first - Woodward, Clarke, or John Dean. OR the House of bush, House of Saud. My book store had all the good ones.

[Minstrel Boy]

30. "then why did Tucker C. say...that the WH is 'very worried'"

Because it's not.

He would not draw attention and lend credibility to a book which would do the Bush White House harm.

Why?

Distract from the truly damning books. Raise expectations that Woodward's has the White House worried, and then, when there's nothing particularly damning, use that as vindication for Bush.

Drudge and Carlson? This is a concerted Republican mind game.

[Raenelle]

61. Carlson is conservative, yes, but not completely intellectually dishonest

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. It's theoretically possible...

...since Woodward's first allegiance, for thirty-five years, has always been to the intelligence apparat -- in his case ONI -- through which he got into the Nixon White House as a Presidential briefer, then onto the WaPo.

If he has reached the conclusion that Junta Boy is a lethal threat to the intelligence community -- and I bet the Plaime affair affected him greatly -- then he could conceivably throw Blotchy to the wolves.

Conceivably.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

28. You're close to describing Woodward's background, but...

...you're a little off. From one of my ealier posts:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1296102&mesg_id=1298520>

Other than that, I think we're in agreement.

[maggrwaggr]

8. explosive good or explosive bad?

I mean, we're talking Druge and Woodward here. Neither are trustworthy.

[Nlighten1]

13. It will probably blame Clinton

[ulTRAX]

16. bad for bush

Drudge said he'd lost his (some) respect for Rove. They should have seen this issue coming.

[digno dave]

32. Woodward is a boob

Creative titling like "Plan of Attack" and the engaging personality displayed by the man on Larry King leave me chomping at the bit at the opportunity to dip into that prose.

[Renew Deal]

10. Drudge is a follower on this one.

We have heard this stuff already today.

[juajen]

11. No, I'm not keeping abreast of the situation.

LOL (at titbits)

[Jackpine Radical]

50. Titbit? Boob? Keeping abreast?

Is there something you'd like to get off your chest about this thread?

[Kimber Scott]

14. I heard Tucker Carlson was calling it the same thing today.

Something's up. Tucker Carlson and Drudge? Come on. What are they trying to do?

[ulTRAX]

17. what are they up to?

Maybe it's just to imply an anti-Bush conspiracy on the part of the publisher of both books.... or whoever owns them and CBS.

[Kimber Scott]

22. I don't think they would bring attention to this book if they didn't

want us to read it. Makes me suspect.

[belle]

36. Or just maybe they sense blood in the water.

Even beyond the rah-rah patriotism, ultimately, the bottom line is audience, and cash.

[Kool Kitty]

20. That was on Chris Matthews show today, right?

Tucker said that they were worried about Clarke's book and VERY WORRIED about Woodward's book.

[Kimber Scott]

23. I didn't see it, but I read something here about it.

Doesn't seem right. If they were that worried about it, they'd want to bury it, not advertise it.

[Soup Bean]

15. Has anyone here read "Bush at War"?

I did. I read it when it first came out. A great deal of what Clarke is saying now was written in black and white. I distinctly remember Woodward writing about an arguement that the team in the "situation room" had....Rumsfeld didn't want to "pound sand" so much in Afghanistan, and suggested, "Let's hit Iraq. We'll probably find out later that they've had something to do with this anyway." ...or something of that nature.

"Bush at War" was actually a trial balloon for all this foolishness we're engaged in at the time...it worked just like PNAC. Everything there in plain sight for all to see...the perfect hiding place for their plans.

If the American people would read a little, instead of letting the almighty television give them their info, they wouldn't be able to be taken advantage of so easily.

*sigh*

[jbfam4]

18. Welcome,

Soup Bean .........Where have you been? Excellent point about people not reading enough and getting all their info from TV.
Look forward to more of your posts.

[Kimber Scott]

27. Welcome to DU!

:bounce:

[submerged99]

41. Exactly

Soup Bean,

I read this book last year and was suprised that the discussions about Iraq were revealed in such a straight forward fashion. I was just telling a friend, who was going to buy Clark's book that the information in Clark's book can be corroborated by the information in "Bush at War." When I read "bush at war" I was puzzled as to why their wasn't more attention called to all the "lets bomb Iraq first" discussions that were going on among bushco.

[Zookeeper]

44. Welcome, Soup Bean! n/t

[kskiska]

63. Wesley Clark said the same thing

and he was there, also.

[riverwalker]

21. Release Date April 20th

Plan of Attack: The Road to War, "a follow-up to Bush at War, deals with the Iraq War and the ongoing war on terrorism". Not much buzz available at all, seems they are keeping it under wraps. He should plan on doing a trilogy. Maybe the third one will be called "Miserable Failure: The Road to Indictment".

[Nlighten1]

24. Welcome to DU!

:)

[Kimber Scott]

26. Welcome to DU!

:bounce:

[Zookeeper]

43. LOL! We can only hope....(Welcome!) n/t

[tishaLA]

49. Interesting. It comes out on Hitler's birthday

I'm just saying.

[Manix]

34. ..yeah, saw Mathews show and he and Carlson really hyped the book

as if this will be a huge bombshell!

[rumguy]

37. So does anyone know what the HELL is supposed to be in this book

that is so "explosive" - ?????

[dennis4868]

38. Woodward....

is a media whore...he is past the point of return. Dont get your hopes up to high about a wqoodward book. Plus, watching him on Larry King lately tells me he in bed with Bush.

[PATRICK]

45. Humpty Dumpty Part Deux?

All the King's Men softly showed Woodward's obsequious style of gaining information within conservative GOP circles. However he has spent decades being nothing but smarmy and subservient and career climbing since then. Was that ALL a biuildup to a second coup de grace? Even when they warily brought him in to do a fourth grade reading level encomium of Bush heroically responding to 911 he was not allowed to get close and has had a lot of better competition much closer to kissing the WH rear.

So it will be interesting and they will never trust him again if it is negative after all.

So it had better be good if he's being "bad".

[The Night Owl]

48. You might be on to something...

The only way for a guy like Woodward to get the kind of access he needs is by playing both sides.

[calimary]

58. Besides, the Drudges and Tuckers of the world may be trying to

blunt it a little before it breaks, attempting a little advance damage control. After all, hasn't that strategy been discussed, at length, here on DU, about the "finding of Osama?" If it doesn't come as such a blind-side surprise when it finally happens, it may not be as deadly. Like stocking up on band-aids and snakebite medicine before you go hiking. It's not damage control, it's damage containment and abetment. (If that's a word.)

[oasis]

40. "It's shameful, this recent flurry of anti-Bush books" Hannity, Coulter

Rushbo and the right-wing crowd will protest. "It's an election year. yada, yada yada. Read one, you've read them all" will be the inference.

And just before Joe Wilson's book hits the shelves. Hmmmmmm.

[RamboLiberal]

46. Daily News has a little snippet - Woodward 60 Minutes 4-18

Scroll down article

The briefing

Fit of conniption: I hear that "Plan of Attack," supersleuth Bob Woodward's still-secret study of President Bush's war on terrorism, will be very bad for the Bush reelection campaign - which is still reeling from gun-toting former terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke's critique of Bush, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and other administration figures in "Against All Enemies."

Woodward's book, to be released next month, will receive not only a multipart series in The Washington Post, but also the Mike Wallace treatment on "60 Minutes" April 18 - when I am absolutely confident that the common corporate ownership of CBS and Woodward's publisher, Simon & Schuster, will be mentioned.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/178600p-155314c.html

[slinkerwink]

51. this is probably a pro-bush book

[lancdem]

53. I really don't know what to think

It wouldn't make a lot of sense for an investigative journalist to write a pro-Bush book that would come out right in the middle of a reelection campaign. Would it sell?

[slinkerwink]

70. then why are the republicans pushing woodward's book?

it's probably to drive up public interest and sales if it's a pro-bush book.

[swinney]

52. I had run ins with woodward

He is full up with himself but I have enjoyed his writings.

His problem. No Sources.

He is like Bush. Trust Me.

If he attacks Bush I will drink two pepsi.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

54. If the rightys are saying this, its going to be explosive the wrong way

...like an exploding cigar in our faces.'

Or its just a prank they are pulling.

Cmon..Tucker Carlson, and now Drudge?

I smell a rat.

[VolcanoJen]

55. Oh, please. Woodward sucks at the Bush Family teat.

This will be nothing more than a self-satisfying, master-serving piece of Chimpy puffery.

I'm not holding my breath for anything earthshattering to come from Woodward's pen.

[troublemaker]

57. Woodward's #1 source is always Powell

From The Commanders (a solid book that first launched Powell-mania) to Bush at War to this upcoming book the common thread will be that Colin Powell is always right about everything. Powell and Woodward have a complex symbiosis.

Every word Powell said to the UN has been revealed to be false and I'm sure a life-long self-promoter like Powell wants to scrape the blame for that off while he's still in office. (Once he's out his story won't be a big deal anymore.)

We have known for a year that Powell won't be back if Bush holds power. Watching Powell edge away from the WH these days makes me think he may be ready (through Woodward) to settle scores with Rummy and Wolfiwitz. True story: during the transition Rummy told Powell's current deputy and old friend Dick Armitage that Rummy wasn't considering him for Deputy SEC DEF. Armitage told Rummy, "That's good because I wouldn't serve under you under any circumstances."

[Renew Deal]

65. I read somewhere that this might be Powells out.

Though I am not sure what that mean.

[fameless]

73. I heard the same thing about Powell.

[BabsSong]

59. a post here few days ago of transcript with a W. Post person

(I believe) where he is asked if there will be more people coming out against Bush like Clarke. The guy said yes and pointed to his boss Woodward's book. I have picked up in various places that Bush has let Woodward in on lots of things he doesn't tell the other media. I think that's because Woodward was a "notable person" and Woodward was busy kissing Bush ass. Hopefully, just as Condi performs her soft shoe act, Woodward steps on her feet. OHH, and aren't several of these pundits (remember Imus did) make reference to this publisher as the one who puts out all this "liberal crap" and is against Bush?-- it was one of their ways of attacking Clarke.

[grasswire]

64. Limbaugh said...

...that the Woodward book would make the Clarke book look like an "afternoon in the sandbox."

So maybe Woodward got access so he could play either way this year? Wouldn't it be cool if he really did go against Bush?

(I ain't holding my breath, but it *could* happen.)

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

66. This is bullshit...im sorrry...Rush? Rush said this?

Tucker C, Drudge, now Rush?


There is no way they are going to be touting this if it hurts the admin.

If anything Woodward is doing a demo job on the Demos....thats what makes it "explosive" for them.

This is going to really suck when it comes out....given what other have said it seems like Woodward has finally sold out.

[troublemaker]

67. Colin Powell is.... well, colored.

Never underestimate the nut Right antipathy for Powell. He's about as popular with them as McCain.

Powell selling out the WH would delight Newt and Rush et al.--confirming their years of warnings that Powell is a closet Democrat.

[eleny]

68. What I saw on the cable

was that Rush has been sandbagging the book because it's supposed to be hurtful to Bush*. So, we'll see if it's some sort of reverse hype or not. To be on the safe side, I ordered a hold on it from my library. No bucks till I know for sure what's up.

[Nashyra]

69. The only thing I saw was this

http://www.kepplerassociates.com

[Jane Austin]

71. The St Louis Post-Dispatch says this:

HERE WE GO AGAIN ... The four-star flap over Richard Clarke's war on terrorism book all began on "60 Minutes" March 14. Well, guess who's booked for the show on April 18? Journalist Bob Woodward, to tout his own book on the war on terrorism, "Plan of Attack," says New York's Daily News. And the tab reports buzz that the book will be much less kind to the White House than was Woodward's "Bush at War" two years ago.

[slinkerwink]

72. still not trusting this....