This morning on Face the Nation, Bob Woodward weighed in on the Obama scandals:
"But it's all very troubling, and you lump all these things -- the IRS, Benghazi, and this -- together and what you've got is a feeling that no one's coming clean, that we aren't getting straight talk," said Woodward. "And this goes to President Obama. He's got to find a way to unravel this. We live in an age of distrust. I think it's more severe now, and he has to find some way to clean this up and say, 'This is what happened. This is what it means.'"
The former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and Air Force general Michael Hayden is by all accounts a good man and a good officer. He has certainly done yeoman’s work since leaving government in defending controversial Bush administration interrogation and detainee policies. He didn’t have to say one word and speaking out has not benefited him personally in any way—quite the opposite—so he deserves the nation’s thanks on that score and many more.
Elliott Abrams, Eliot Cohen, Eric Edelman, and John Hannah have an op-ed in the Washington Post that responds to "a curious op-ed this week about the Bush administration’s response to the secret al-Kibar nuclear reactor built by Syria and North Korea," which was written by Bob Woodward. The former Bush administration officials go on to defend Vice President Cheney and call Woodward's account "a revisionist and misleading history."
Bob Woodward’s recent piece in the Washington Post argues that the debacle of the Iraq-WMD case should have made the Bush administration more circumspect about intelligence—and that everyone understood this lesson except the vice president. He offers the Syrian nuclear reactor destroyed by the Israelis in September of 2007 as an example.
In an interview with President Obama on Sunday night’s 60 Minutes, Steve Kroft asked:
Right now, it certainly...the location of the compound just raises all sorts of questions. Do you believe people in the Pakistani government, Pakistani intelligence agencies knew that bin Laden was living there?
One of the inherent difficulties of defining left-wing bias in the press to journalists is that it is something like describing the ocean to fish: It is so pervasive, and such a comfortable, nurturing environment, that it is hardly noticed.
On October 1, Rahm Emanuel announced his departure as White House chief of staff, ending the shortest and most hapless tenure in that position since Bill Clinton replaced his childhood friend, Mack McLarty, in 1994. McLarty is a nice guy who wasn’t tough enough to bring order to Clinton’s White House. Emanuel is a tough guy who wasn’t mature enough to bring good judgment to Obama’s.
If Bob Woodward’s newest book, Obama’s Wars, is anything like his prior inside accounts of previous administrations, there will be plenty of quotations without sources, lengthy accounts of private conversations that seem too detailed to be believed as totally accurate, and an untold number of back-biting comments about administration officials by other administration hacks.
Many will weigh in, surely, and determine whether Bob Woodward's latest book is full of great scoops, or whether it's a dud. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Drudge Report all seem to believe it contains great revelations. Having not seen the book -- it's not yet in bookstores -- I'm hesitant to comment too deeply. But it seems to me that if there are scoops contained within, then they haven't yet been revealed.