President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Look, if meticulous reporter Bob Woodward gained access to Casey's room, why doesn't he five a date and time for when this happened?

He tells us when he was refused entry, but not when he got in to see him.

Of course he knows that if he gives a time and date, Casey's family might be able to prove that they were there at this time. Or logs wold show that security was on duty, and would identify the guard, who could confirm or deny that Woodward was there.

Similarly, we'd know what doctors and nurses were on duty, and could ask them if they saw Bob Woodward.

But, he doesn't do this, and only tells us that it was "subsequent" to the visit in which he was not allowed in the room.

And, then, there's the fantastical scene he describes:

His head jerked up hard. He stared, and finally nodded yes.

"Why?" I asked.

"I believed."

"What?"

"I believed."

Then he was asleep, and I didn't get to ask another question.

My gosh. There are working journalists who think this is anything but fiction?

He might as well have muttered "rosebud".

 

Who is giving Trump the benefit of the doubt?

Woodward didn't talk to Trump for the book.

We're talking about Kelly and Mattis. We're not talking about firsthand quotes, that Woodward attributes to them, in conversation with him. We're talking about second hand quotes, that are anonymous, from a collection of sources -- given who's come and gone at this White House -- who don't deserve the credibility they're being given.

We're also talking about a guy, in Woodward, who's had his reporting called into question on a number of occasions, despite what his fans would like us to believe.

The Casey episode is just the most obvious example of his abilities as a fiction writer.

 

The Book is the gift that keeps on giving. Watching racist dummies running diversions is so fucking entertaining. LOL, dummies.

 

If it's a binary choice, who do you believe is telling the truth? Donald Trump or Bob Woodward?

 

But, it's not a binary choice at all. Why do you say that it is?

 

Donald Trump says the book is bullshit. Bob Woodward says it's not.

Who do you believe?

 

As for the Casey "interview" read it for yourself, it literally closes the book, on page 517.

 

First of all, for us to believe that the book is truthful, it's not Bob Woodward we have to believe. We need to believe that people he talked to, folks who for two years have been called backstabbing, incompetent, liars, who were working in a toxic White House, anonymously provided Woodward with accurate accountings of what went on, including the quotes they provided for people like Kelly and Mattis.

Are you telling me you believe these folks?

 

you unconditionally support these folks

 

It's fair to question Woodward's reporting tactics and even the veracity of his work. Either it holds up to scrutiny or it doesn't.

Those who are doing so don't apply the same standard to the President. Quite the opposite, they bend over backwards to make excuses for him to such a degree that it's laughable they would call anyone else an apologist.

Listen to the phone call with Woodward. Pres. Trump starts out genial, welcoming, having a chummy conversation. He almost treats Woodward like an old friend, or certainly like someone he considers to have some degree of professional respect.

Then Woodward catches him in a lie, when Pres. Trump has to admit Sen. Graham did mention Woodward was trying to reach him. Listen to the change in Pres. Trump's tone. Now he's dismissive, churlish, boastful in grandiose terms. When he can't bully his way out he has no where to turn. It's an uncomfortable listen because you realize these sorts of conversations likely happen often -- with staff, with other lawmakers, with heads of state.

Those loyal to Pres. Trump are within their rights to pick away at Woodward if they choose. That phone only bolstered the overall them of the book -- this is an unprepared, at times unstable and potentially dangerous individual relative to the position he holds. And the book only reinforces the reporting that dates all the way back to the campaign and earlier.

 

Woodward's shortcomings have been there for decades. They've been discussed on this board and elsewhere. They were there when he was writing sympathetic portraits of George W. Bush going to war on a complete fucking lie. He writes secondhand accounts in scenes that sound like something out of a novel. But as Ari Fleischer has stated, the reporting is there. Someone told him that. That's the impression one person in that room got. He's not fabricating that scene. You are always getting one side. But when the other side doesn't respond to his requests to talk, you can't get that side.

I thought this was understood by anyone who has ever read one of his post-Watergate books. To suddenly be up in arms about his writing and reporting styles is playing the part of a fainting goat.

Both sides use Bob Woodward's books as either weapons or targets depending on whether they like what he reports. Both the left and the right.

They are artifacts of history, up for dispute. But they are what key players remember from these events and they are worthwhile to be recorded. Do I wish Woodward wouldn't be so authoritative in his style with these rememberances? Yup. I have for years. I do believe he gets closest to the truth of those moments of any historian trying to write about events in the very near past, however.

You can get lost in the weeds on this one. Or you can understand that he's painted a portrait of an incompetent president we've only started to unravel.

 

If Donald Trump tells me the sky is blue, I'm going to immediately question it. We're all wondering why you don't do the same.

Nevertheless: Remember when Woodward wrote Plan of Attack, and Rumsfeld questioned the veracity of quotes? How did that turn out?