Comments on: Hanson vs. Woodward

By: vegetius

vegetius — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:02:07 +0000

..”Of course if Victor Davis Hanson were to write a history of the Peloponnesian War, he would rely on sources such as Thucydides….”

Thucyidides’ sources (and the author) are DEAD..
Woodward’s (if real) are alive….not a difference of degree but a difference of kind.

By: moheroy

moheroy — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:06:56 +0000

Of course if Victor Davis Hanson were to write a history of the Peloponnesian War, he would rely on sources such as Thucydides, who are not all that different from Woodward at their best and often much worse. Thucydides for example was a disgraced Athenian general and politician who was intimately involved in the events he described and had a tendency to make up whole speeches that he could not possibly have heard himself to create drama. And he is widely regarded as the finest and most honest of sources. Many of the others are far less reputable. But that was 2400 years ago and besides the wench is dead.

I think people and sadly historians seem to forget that they always rely on a lot of unsubstantiated rumor.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 01:28:29 +0000

Tom Bevan at RCP posts a very interesting statement from Brent Scowcroft that puts the lie to at least some of what Woodward writes. Or at least moves it solidly into the realm of fiction.

"I have spoken to Bob Woodward a number of times about a variety of subjects over the years, but I did not agree to be interviewed for his latest book. Further, there are statements in the book, directly or implicitly attributed to me, that did not and never could have come from me."

Dave in W-S

By: triticale

triticale — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:13:10 +0000

Has any gaze anywhere ever taken any prisoners?

By: Lem

Lem — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:28:43 +0000

I read someplace that Woodward was turned down for a novel he wrote while at Yale.
Woodward should thank Richard Nixon everyday from when he wakes up, google’s himself and back to sleep again.

For those of you missing “All Foley, all the time” here is a curious list.

http://tinyurl.com/gw7go

By: syn

syn — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:03:58 +0000

Why is a respected journalist working for an influential newspaper withholding news information in order to write a book on behalf of a carefully scheduled book tour?

By: vegetius

vegetius — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:57:10 +0000

“Rumsfeld looked at Garner for a moment with his take-no-prisoners gaze. Well, he said, I don’t think there is anything we can do, because we are where we are.”
There’s something laughably melodramtic about this phrase. Who is the person describing Rumsfeld’s gaze?? Jay Garner?? A fly on the wall?? Woodward is having “Prisoner of Zenda” flashbacks. His next opus should start, “It was a dark and stormy night…”

By: Roger

Roger — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:37:53 +0000

mrbones, you have made what we would call “a distinction without a difference.”

By: Terrye

Terrye — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:58:30 +0000

Woodward said that his editor told him to wait until now to publish this book, because of the election of course. Increases book sales. Screw history.

The interesting thing is that when Woodward wrote a book about Bush that was favorable he was denounced far and wide by his social set for daring to be evenhanded. My guess is he is trying to get back in with the BDS people who don’t invite him to dinner parties anymore.

But to be truthful I don’t think that many people actually set down and read these books and I have no faith in most of them. How do I know he does not just make stuff up?

For instance he made some remark about Bush hiding the level of violence in Iraq. That information is available in the Brookings reports. Anyone, certainly any journalist can find. So how is that hiding it?

I remember when Saddam was in power journalists were bribed and threatened into lying for him but it did not seem to upset all that many people.

By: mrbones

mrbones — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:43:15 +0000

But Woodward’s not a historian, and has never claimed to be.