Will the Real Bob Woodward Please Stand Up?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/BlogEntry.asp?ID=727

EXCERPT

Michiko Kakutani, the NY Times' book critic is a shrewd reader of texts, albeit a member of the over-the-top critics of the war crowd. Here is how she begins her review of Bob Woodward's new book:

'In Bob Woodward’s highly anticipated new book, “State of Denial,” President Bush emerges as a passive, impatient, sophomoric and intellectually incurious leader, presiding over a grossly dysfunctional war cabinet and given to an almost religious certainty that makes him disinclined to rethink or re-evaluate decisions he has made about the war. It’s a portrait that stands in stark contrast to the laudatory one Mr. Woodward drew in “Bush at War,” his 2002 book, which depicted the president — in terms that the White House press office itself has purveyed — as a judicious, resolute leader, blessed with the “vision thing” his father was accused of lacking and firmly in control of the ship of state.

As this new book’s title indicates, Mr. Woodward now sees Mr. Bush as a president who lives in a state of willful denial about the worsening situation in Iraq, a president who insists he won’t withdraw troops, even “if Laura and Barney are the only ones who support me.” (Barney is Mr. Bush’s Scottish terrier.) Mr. Woodward draws an equally scathing portrait of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who comes off as a bully and control freak who is reluctant to assume responsibility for his department’s failures, and who has surrounded himself with yes men and created a system that bleached out “strong, forceful military advice.” Mr. Rumsfeld remains wedded to his plan to conduct the war in Iraq with a lighter, faster force (reflecting his idée fixe of “transforming” the military), even as the situation there continues to deteriorate.' NY Times, Saturday, September 30, 2006

Well, which is it?

 

"In this situation, the judgement -- and fortitude -- of the writer in asking questions, in assessing answers, is absolutely crucial to establishing a reliable picture of what actually took place. That is why Woodward's dramatically inconsistent portrait of Bush is so disturbing. It is even more disturbing in that it corresponds to the shift in Washington attitudes towards Bush between 2002 (before the Iraq war) and after. If Woodward is so susceptible to the tides of opinion how can he navigate readers through the contentious waters of Washington politics. The probability is he can't, which is why this book should be called Caveat Emptor, rather than State of Denial."