I agree with you totally on this one Bruce!

>>It is interesting that you bring up Woodward. I listened to an interview (actually two on separate news channels) where Sec of State Colin Powell directly contradicted Woodward's claims in his book in regards to statements about him. Now which is telling the truth? Do we know specifically that George Bush attacked Iraq because he felt it answering a holy call to make the world free or was it to avenge the death attempts on his father or perhaps because Saddam was a growing threat to the west or exactly why? I wonder if we will ever know....
>
>That's hard to say - perhaps a combination of these, I would guess. But we do know a few things already...
>
>1) Woodward is not a "truthteller" per se, but rather a "quoter" and "revealer" of others, and what they said and did (a reasonably objective newsman, IOW). Is he occasionally wrong? Sure - but usually it's not actually him, but others he quotes that are "wrong" - but even then, it is more often simply due to hazy recollections of very busy, pre-occupied people. His mistakes in the past 30 years have been not corroborating everything 100% (sometimes not possible, but he probably shouldn't speculate then). But he's become better and better over the years since Watergate. He also has no political ax whatsoever to grind, to my knowledge - but you do have to be careful when book-sales are involved, naturally. If it ain't politics, it's money or religion or sex, or a similar driving-force to watch out for.
>
>2) The White House, with the one notable exception (so far) of Powell, is much in favor of the Woodward book (or so they are told to be by top Bush officials, anyway). It's even listed as "very good, recommended reading" on the Bush political site. Bush Admin people were instructed to cooperate with Woodward by Bush himself. Most were quite willing, according to several sources, excepting very notably Powell. Bush genuinely believes he's doing the right thing, rightly or wrongly in various persons' views, and wants historical documentation of his efforts to make the world better. As I said, he does have good intentions - but this is not necesarily the same as good results. As in, "The road to...is paved with..."
>
>3) If there's one guy involved here with a real good grasp of world diplomacy, decency, and a deep-conscience about losing American lives and alienating the US from much of the world, it is Powell, both IMO and Woodward's.
>
>So yes, it is very confusing. But so far, the one person that actually sticks out as being the most wrong, and in conflict (mainly with 9/11 commission, at this point) about the most critical things is Tenet, not Powell, not Rice, not Bush, etc. Tenet's the one who said WMD in Iraq were "slam dunk," and even Bush was skeptical about Tenet's "evidence," according to Woodward. As of currently, anyway, the heat is most on Tenet. But stay tuned, who knows where this is going...