|
|
wPuri sermonis amator |
|
|
|
Politics and Pop Culture.
And occasionally informative, amusing, or bizzare non sequiturs.
Matt's in charge here, others can post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wWednesday, January 15, 2003 |
|
|
|
From Eric Alterman's review of Bush at War:
The larger problem with Woodward is not so much whether he can be trusted in the narrow sense (I'm sure he has notes to back up what he reports). Rather, Woodward's problems lie in the epistemological realm. We read Woodward to understand what goes on in the inner circles of power, and we come away thinking we know. We do not. On the day I am writing this review, The Washington Post contains three disturbing stories about the war on the homepage of its Web site. The headlines read as follows: "Many Jailed in Terror War Held in Limbo Indefinitely," "Plan to Enlist Citizens as Spies Dead" and "Saudi Funds' Link to Hijackers Probed."
All of these stories reflect badly on the Bush administration, and one would never guess that any of them might be taking place by reading Bob Woodward's book. Indeed, John Ashcroft, who cannot, in polite conversation, be molded into the heroic action figure that so many of the Bushies enjoy here, barely makes the index. The Bush administration's assault on civil liberties is left undiscussed, along with its shameless efforts to exploit the 9-11 attacks to further its agenda and expand its political dominance. Nor is there much investigation of the most fundamental question: Just who was asleep at the switch?
Read the review for a decent explaination of why Woodward was voted Whore of the Year by Media Whores Online. But I can't really feel any bad mojo towards Woodward, because he helped take Nixon down. And I hate Nixon.
posted by
Matthew Carroll-Schmidt at 1:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|