Bartlett Blasts Woodward, Claims He ‘Formulated Some Conclusions’ Before He Began New Book
Bartlett Blasts Woodward, Claims He ‘Formulated Some Conclusions’ Before He Began New Book
In 2004, Bob Woodward wrote a book, Plan of Attack, that was largely positive about the Bush administration. White House Counselor Dan Bartlett and other top officials were singing Bob Woodward’s praises:
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: He is terrific. He’s a great journalist, and I look forward to reading it. He’s talking about a pretty complex set of discussions about military issues and diplomatic issues, and I’m sure it will be — be fantastic. [CNN, 4/25/04]
DAN BARTLETT: I think Bob Woodward has done a pretty — particularly good job of describing how complicated of a process it is for a commander in chief to do two real important but sometimes conflicting responsibilities. [CNN, 4/25/04]
BARTLETT: We’re urging people to buy the book. What this book does is show a president who was asking the right questions and showing prudence as well as resolve during very difficult times. This book undermines a lot of the critics’ charges. [Washington Post, 4/21/04]
JOHN KING, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: But what is most striking is that, here at the White House, they say read the book. They believe it shows — it paints the picture of a president who asks the right questions, the tough questions, before going to war and then decided that he was right in launching that war. [CNN, 4/19/04]
Woodward has a new book, State of Denial, that is critical of the Bush administration. In particular, it alleges that President Bush and other top officials are misleading the public about Iraq. Now, Bartlett claims that Woodward had “formulated some conclusions before the interviewing began.” Watch it:
Transcript:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, in 2004, Bob Woodward wrote a book, Plan of Attack. You went out publicly, urged people to go buy it and read it. I take it you’re not going to do that with State of Denial?
BARTLETT: Well, George, it is a book that we participated at various levels within the administration, both in the White House and other parts of the administration, Department of Defense and State.
But I must say, George, I think as we worked with Bob on this project from the very outset, it was unfortunate that we felt he had already formulated some conclusions even before the interviewing began.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s a pretty stiff charge. You’re saying he is a biased reporter on this?
BARTLETT: Well, we’ve had a lot of experience with Bob, and I think — in the first two books, as you did mention — and what we found in those books is that he came in very much with an open mind, very much wanting the facts to lead him to a conclusion. And after reading this book over the weekend, I was really struck by the fact that the central thesis of this book, the claim that the president was in a state of denial, that he was misleading the American people about what was happening in Iraq, quite frankly, is not backed up with the own facts that are in the book.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to get there in one second, but before we get there — because you’re making a pretty, pretty serious charge here. You’re saying that Bob Woodward, been around Washington for an awful long time, went into this with an agenda and basically wasn’t an honest reporter.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
45 Responses to “Bartlett Blasts Woodward, Claims He ‘Formulated Some Conclusions’ Before He Began New Book”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I don’t suppose anyone held Mr. Bartlett accountable and asked him to support his conclusions with reasons or evidence. It is just another assertion that is broadcast, never challenged and treated as fact.
October 1st, 2006 at 10:25 amIt’s the journalism of assertion. One who screams the loudest wins.
October 1st, 2006 at 10:28 amI’m surprised Bartlett didn’t say that because Woodward is no longer “with us” (the White House), he must be “with the terrorists”.
October 1st, 2006 at 10:29 amIt is imperative that the Democrats take back the House this November so that John Conyers can introduce Articles of Impeachment against this corrupt administration. One of the weapons that the congressman can use, among many, would be Woodward’s book, the book that this administration is now suddenly loath to praise. During the 9/11 Commission hearings, Richard Clarke apologized for the government’s failure to stop the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Accountability must now replace those apologies against those who continue to hold power in this corrupt administration. A scene in the moving film The U.S. vs. John Lennon shows Richard Nixon boarding a helicopter on his final day in office on the White House lawn. How much longer will this country have to wait before they see a similar scene unfolding regading the many debased members of this administration?
October 1st, 2006 at 10:33 am“I must say George, I have to spin this - and I think - in the first two books, as you did mention — and what we found in those books is that he came in very much with free publicity, very much taking the facts to a conclusion to our liking. And after reading this book over the weekend, I was really struck by the fact that the central thesis of this book, the claim that the president was in a state of denial, you can’t say this, especially in wartime, quite frankly this is helping the terrorists. And we have an election coming up.”
October 1st, 2006 at 10:40 amBefore we blast the right for changing their opinions of Woodward based on his new book, we should remember that we did / are doing the same thing. We blasted him for the last two, and now cheer him on with this one. Just sayin’…
October 1st, 2006 at 10:44 amThree words. Downing Street memo.
Any Republican whining about fixing the facts to fit the policy is talking out his ass.
October 1st, 2006 at 10:55 amHe did worse than bash Woodward. He described an emergency meeting between Tenant and Rice as being something that 1. never happened, and 2. if it did happen could have been lost in all the details.
These were his comments to Schieffer.
Habeas Corpus is your right to be seen by a judge.
October 1st, 2006 at 11:00 amI posted this on another thread yesterday, I think it’s worth posting again:
Habeas Corpus
Latin for “you [should] have the bodyâ€, in common law countries, habeas corpus is the name of a legal instrument or writ by means of which detainees can seek release from unlawful imprisonment.
A writ of habeas corpus is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a detainee be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody. The writ of habeas corpus in common law countries is an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
Slippery slope…..
October 1st, 2006 at 11:05 amI think as we worked with Bob on this project from the very outset, it was unfortunate that we felt he had already formulated some conclusions even before the interviewing began.
And this statement can be backed up by what facts…. ????
Never trust a Republican to speak the truth. If you want further insight into Bush’s behaviors, read “Bush on a couch”. It’s the same type of profiling that our FBI uses in their criminal investigations. Bush was always a loser and he will always destroy everything he touches. I knew it would be bad for our nation when Bush was elected the first time, what I didn’t know was that it would be this bad for the entire world/
October 1st, 2006 at 11:08 amHi Zooey,
Thanks for the post on Habeas Corpus.
Our Congress and Bush want to adopt the same policy as the Iraqi insurgents… kidnap people, torture these people, kill them and then dump the bodies in the street.
This is what will happen when the Constitution of the US is considered nothing more than a “piece of paper”.
October 1st, 2006 at 11:13 amBefore we blast the right for changing their opinions of Woodward based on his new book, we should remember that we did / are doing the same thing. We blasted him for the last two, and now cheer him on with this one. Just sayin’…
Comment by beep52
Not the same thing.
Then, we bashed Woodward for becoming a cheerleader for those not willing to live in reality.
Here, we applaud him for awakening from his slumber and joining the ranks of the reality based humans.
They are just sychophants of a Fascist traitor scumbag Fuhrer who will use whatever leverage he can use to get his irrationale/unrealistic talking points advanced.
October 1st, 2006 at 11:22 amHey Dan, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. With all of the time Mr. Woodward has spent hanging around with BushCo, is it any wonder that he would adopt their tactics for his own use? Mr.Bartlett obviously recognized the methodology used by Mr.Woodward for this book, it has been used repeatedly by this administration. Don’t be so selfish, Dan! Too bad you can’t classify your deceptive tactics, huh? Oh well, you can’t have absolutely everything, no matter how hard you try. Another guy with no upper lip. I’m telling you, you cannot trust those ‘Lip Lackers’. I know it sounds goofy, but it hasn’t let me down so far. No upper lip. LOOK OUT! Do not trust them. GWB? No lip. Cheney? No lip. Bartlett? No lip. Mmmhmm…
October 1st, 2006 at 11:28 am#11
October 1st, 2006 at 11:30 amcorrection ‘goddamned piece of paper!”
Bartlett is part of the inner circle of a corrupt administration; it will be very hard for him to be taken seriously in anything he says.
George Bush is ethical, moral and intellectual scum
October 1st, 2006 at 11:30 amThis is what will happen when the Constitution of the US is considered nothing more than a “piece of paperâ€.
Comment by CoffinsDrapedWithFlags
Precisely, Coffins. It may be a piece of paper to GWB, but what is lost on him is the great idea contained on that paper. The same great idea that enabled him to get what he wanted most — to be the President of the United States of America.
Then he destroyed the whole thing, like a petulant child on Christmas morning.
October 1st, 2006 at 11:32 amBoth Bartlett and Andrew Card seem beside themselves this morning.
“Yes, that’s true but…”
Habeas Corpus is your right to be seen by a judge.
October 1st, 2006 at 11:36 amStephanopolous called Bartlett on the hypocrisy of praising Woodward previously when he wrote favorably, but dismissing his assertions now when it is unfavorable.
October 1st, 2006 at 11:51 amBartlett is making the rounds today — he drew the short straw in defense of the White House this week.
October 1st, 2006 at 11:52 amso when a woodward book shows things positively, bartlett pimps it; when a woodward book says otherwise, bartlett attacks woodward. i think i know who’s biased in that equation.
October 1st, 2006 at 11:53 amBarlett is one of the reasons, along with Karen Hughes and Joe Allbaugh that we will never know the absolute truth about Gunga Din Bushs true service in the National Guard! Those three individuals were responsible for sanitizing Cowboy Bush’s, Service Record Book, prior to him running for President in the late 90’s.Osma has more creditability that Barlett has,he’s human lying machine! The only time you see Good Ole Dan on the tube,is when he has to get out and defend Bush on another lie,with lies of his own!
October 1st, 2006 at 11:57 amBartlett with his pompous title “Counselor to the President” is running from one network to the next to try to spin the WH’s position. Forget it Dan, the american people are smarter than you give them credit for. I think the wheels are finally coming off of the bus–and it is about high time. This crowd in the White House are a bunch of lying, scheming freaks. I love the part in Woodward’s book where Rove is making fun of their own base and mocking them. Bunch of hypocrits.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:47 pmBelieve me, I formulated those same opinions far before Barlett is accusing Woodward of. I didn’t have the benefit of the one on one access to the president and cabinet that Woodward did either. I didn’t trust Bush ever since the McCain smear job before the 2000 election. I watched closely, and it was never hard to see the disception, corruption, dishonesty and hypocracy. What is difficult is trying to understand how so many others missed it.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:56 pmWait till you hear Dan’s thoughts on how the Foley situation should be handled. It’s a jaw dropper.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:14 pmOh yeah, and because Woodward’s name starts with a W, or it has eight letters in it, he should not be allowed to formulate any conclusions. WTF?
October 1st, 2006 at 1:15 pmOf freakin course he’d have formulated conclusions!
That’s what writers do. They conduct interviews, do research, formulate conclusions and write about them.
Geez, what a breeze-eared dolt.
What is unbelievable is that the media continues to provide a forum for these liars to lie and treat it as truth. There is plenty of daily evidence that the bush people lie on a daily basis and propably only know what a truth is in order to lie about it. Why does the media continue to give credibility to anything that comes out of the bush team’s mouth? Why not have people with some creditbility on to talk about this?
October 1st, 2006 at 2:15 pm#
Bartlett is making the rounds today — he drew the short straw in defense of the White House this week.
Comment by Marie — October 1, 2006 @ 11:52 am
Marie - that’s funny. Wonder if his co-workers are laughing at him.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:29 pmHey Bartlett,
October 1st, 2006 at 4:24 pmI have formulated one big conclusion and it has nothing to do with any book.
Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld are losers.
Once again we see a wild charge thrown out there, hoping it will stick, without one single piece of evidence to back it up. Why did someone not stop Bartlett in his tracks by asking for him to display some evidence.
After all of these years reporters are still behaving like stenographers. Have they no shame.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:55 pmIt’s over. No one can save the Rove presidency and now some very honorable and qualified Republican public servants will lose position and face over the next two years. There are many interesting and even fantastic books and articles coming to print soon that will make Woodward’s look tame. Gonna be fun, fun fun……Betcha Murdoch replaces Roger as the tide turns and a real balance comes forth. Possible, because ratings are down and revenues will follow, and Rupert won’t tolerate that for long. Remember, you can’t buy groceries with idealogy and Rupert has but one and it’s legal tender, mate.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:34 pmBartlett and Karne Hughes scrubbed the military records of the Shrub then moved over to clean up the DUI off his driving record before he ran for governor…why would anyone expect him to be honest about Dubya the drunken AWOL clown? Bartlett is part of the problem…the enabling circle that protects the bubble boy.
October 1st, 2006 at 10:48 pmI’ve always thought Bob Woodward was a straight and narrow, unimaginative dullard. That is his best defense against the Bushies’ assaults. He doesn’t pretend to have any particular insight into the people he’s covering and doesn’t offer anything other than their own words and physical evidence. He’s always been just a stenographer, taking down (or taping) the participants’ words, gathering the documentation, etc. That’s what he’s done in `State of Denial.’ From 60 Minutes:
Woodward interviewed President George W. Bush for the first two books for hours.
“And do you know what? There are people who are gonna say, look Woodward is savaging President Bush because he wouldn’t see him for this book,” Wallace remarks.
Woodward says that’s not true. “He did not, and I asked. And I made it very clear to the White House what my questions were, what my information was. What could he say? That the secret chart is not right?” Woodward says. “That these things that happened in these meetings didn’t occur? They’re documented. I talked to the people who were there. Your producer, Bob Anderson, has listened to the tapes of my interviews with people to make sure that it’s not just kind of right, but literally right. This is what occurred.”
It seems that everybody around Bush, in the Bush administration, the Pentagon and State Department “formulated conclusions,” not Woodward.
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:07 amGiven that Woodward was so thoroughly condemned for his first book on the Bush Adminstration, it is ironic that he is now being so embraced by those same Democrats.
Is there such a thing as a “born-again” Democrat? Welcome back to the fold, Bob.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:59 amZooey #9 and Concerned (I like your approach). We’ve heard a lot in this age of ‘cut and run’ about Churchill and Chamberlain. Well here’s Winston Churchill on the subject of habeas corpus, which is your right, since 1215 in western common law not to be detained without charge or trial:
- Winston Churchill, 21 November, 1943
The current Republican Party has a pre-1215 mindset.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:48 amSome time ago I wrote what I thought of Bob Woodward, below. Now I think I have to write part two on The Art of Coat Turning. Phil Linehan
The Bob Woodward Story
or How to Make a Sharp U-Turn
by Phil Linehan
Two young reporters, like all their kind,
yearned to escape their daily grind.
Keen they were, enthusiastic,
and prayed they’d clinch that scoop fantastic.
Little did they dream that fate
would lay before them Watergate,
and all the President’s men’s skullduggery
best described perhaps as thuggery.
Bob typified the dogged sleuth
who’d dig ‘til he unveiled the truth.
Investigation was his strength;
for a story he’d go any length.
He’d probe the White House fabrications,
delve into Nixon’s aberrations,
uncover every lie or prevarication
and expose a rotten administration.
So Bob and fellow newsman Carl
vowed Tricky Dicky to ensnarl.
Lucky for them a mole appeared
with a modus best described as weird.
He’d meet with Bob in a garage under ground
where his whispers did not make a sound.
He earned the nickname of Deep Throat
and he gave our Sherlock cause to gloat.
Bob and Carl gained widespread admiration
for what they did to save the nation.
They exemplified steadfast persistence
as they wore down editor Ben’s resistance.
So President Nixon was thrown out –
a mighty triumph without a doubt.
A task not easy to repeat
on a humble newsman’s normal beat.
New fields of effort they had to find
and leave their news desks far behind.
Carl’s modest ways stayed as of yore
while Bob’s huge ego was now a bore.
To young journalists he was quite the hero,
a role he took to like De Niro.
A real colossus he became,
a legend now of worldwide fame.
Made managing editor at the Post
he seemed to vanish like a ghost.
Now his by-line seldom would appear
and co-workers soon began to sneer.
They asked wherever could he be found
and why he was never seen around.
Eager hacks set out to trace him
and it did not take them long to place him.
He was seen as he left in a rush
from an office occupied by Bush.
The guy who hated presidents’ men
had now become just one of them.
The White House was in disrepair
as leaks oozed out from everywhere.
All around were phone call buggers
when what they needed were good pluggers.
George W. considered him a chum
and how could poor Robert not succumb?
He was handed info cherry-picked
and it dawned not on him he’d been tricked.
He played his cards close to his chest
and his editor did not keep abreast,
He was gathering all that he could muster
for inclusion in his next blockbuster.
He had once reported all the news
but now felt he could pick and choose.
He would decide which well-cooked brownie
to feed to editor Len Downie.
He appeared with awe-struck Larry King
who allowed him his own praise to sing.
His methods, once investigative,
had now become accommodative.
When asked if he felt any blame
for keeping mum on Valerie Plame
he denigrated the prosecutor
though others called him a straight shooter.
There are many who have grown quite leery
as every word of his they query.
Why some still pay to hear him lecture
is only open to conjecture.
He no longer can be called a model
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:57 amwhen all he says is now just twaddle.
But remember this, you who would berate him,
Bob’s still a reporter, though now verbatim.
So, what did you all expect? That Bartlett’d come out and say, “yeah, right, we’re in a state of denial”? (Which isn’t possible by definition, by the way.) Seems that Woodward has had it with being the poodle of White House. It’s a bit late, though. His first Bush book did a lot to strengthen Bush. He lend credibility to Nixon II - and that will forever haunt him.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:27 pm“It is only when extreme danger to the state can be pleaded that this power may be temporarily assumed by the executive, and even so its working must be interpreted with the utmost vigilance by a free parliament…â€
9/11 didn’t represent an extreme danger? Is not Congress the one passing such legislation to give the President that power?
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:05 am[…] When Woodward’s last tell-all, “Plan of Attack,” came out in 2004, the White House took exception to some passages, but liked the flattering portait it painted of a determined president so much that it posted the book as recommended reading on the Bush-Cheney campaign website. Now, of course, they have nothing but criticism for Woodward’s latest effort. […]
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:04 pmIf someone flatters me (please!), I would certainly appreciate it, until I found the knife in my back.
But, then, I am only human.
October 4th, 2006 at 11:37 amWhen doing the rounds on Sunday, Bartlett changed his talking points from the time of his appearance on Russert to the Last Word on CNN. Apparently his “agenda” comments looked as foolish to his staffers as it did to all of us. He went on CNN saying that Woodward was just wrong. These spinners are amazing and slippery.
October 4th, 2006 at 2:48 pmI updated my comments on Woodward.
Bob Woodward’s State of Denial
By Phil Linehan
Quick, finish dinner! At the TV we must look
to hear Woodward plug his latest book.
It’s easy to learn Bob’s point of view
for he’s on the networks, and on cable too.
As we wait for his findings to be revealed
we hope that nothing will be concealed.
Will he throw any light on that odd love affair
between George Bush and Tony Blair?
When he sits face to face with 60 Minute’s Mike
it’s awesome how they are so alike.
It’s hard to decide whose demeanour is sternest
as they prepare to discuss the book in earnest
No levity here, no how are the folks?
But we are all aware it’s no time for jokes.
Have such austere expressions been seen before?
Indeed they have, on Mount Rushmore.
So we anxiously wait and with bated breath
for Bob’s disclosures, we hope in depth.
What will he tell us? What can we expect to learn?
What inside stories that might cause concern?
He addresses Wallace in ponderous tones
as on and on and on he drones
with that steady and unblinking gaze
and then pauses for Mike his words to praise.
As he gives all his phrases the self-same stress
it‘s not easy their importance for us to guess.
Could anyone ever consider terrific
a delivery best called soporific?
Once he decided his reporting role to abdicate,
Was when Woodward began to pontificate.
Now, should he find things get too hot at home,
he could always hop on a plane to Rome.
Newsweek says he knows how to excavate
but that claim leaves room for much debate.
We recall how he lauded Bush’s “moral determinationâ€
leaving none in doubt of his open admiration.
But wait! What is reaching my disbelieving ears?
The sound of Bob as he again changes gears?
Can he really be saying that his erstwhile cronies
Are nothing more than a bunch of phonies?
He swears that Bush has been known to lie,
and says things in Iraq have gone awry.
So it’s obvious that he’s now jumping ship
and has learned how to do a pancake flip.
We’re mesmerised by his asseverations
and dumbstruck at his aberrations.
Is he telling us that he has seen the light
in the book that he took two years to write?
Alas! What he serves us is reheated hash
when what we expected was a hot news flash.
So what may we get when the Post’s straight shooter
again hits the keys of his laptop computer?
Will he tell us that tomorrow the sun will rise?
That Polaris is seen in Northern skies?
That Cheney’s is not the steadiest hand
when he picks up a gun while he’s still half canned?
Will he discover that Halliburton steals,
charging millions for non-existent meals?
Will he say Condi continues with her to’s and fro’s
the reason for which God only knows?
Will he warn us the CIA makes mistakes?
Or tell us Laura is good at baking cakes?
Will he say the Intelligence Service we cannot trust
or drop another such nugget to leave us nonplussed?
There is one question I feel I have to ask
and hope that I’ll not be taken to task.
While Rummy’s stuff may happen, or perhaps may not,
for how much longer must we endure Bob’s tommy rot?
As I wondered what became of the Bob I once admired,
October 29th, 2006 at 11:58 amand, like many, whose footsteps to follow had aspired,
I realized I’d overlooked a significant factor,
That the Bob I was thinking of — is Redford, the actor!
Cash Loans
Cash advances service consumers by certainly providing and making it speedy and manageable.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:47 amdui defense
The point of this post is not to deter people from being lawyers or scare the daylights out of them. Rather, it aims to prepare aspiring lawyers for what lies ahead of them in the real world of the law. The more prepared you are, the better the oppor…
April 7th, 2008 at 1:18 pmEric
Thanks, this is good stuff. You are spot on.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:26 pmto ship wheels and tires…
Six Apart started a working group in February 2006 to improve the Trackback protocol with the goal to eventually have it approved as…
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:46 am