# Left-Leaning Dopers: who is a better investigative journalist, you or Bob Woodward? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 29, 2015, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124 "2015-05-29T15:18:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/41 "2015-05-29T16:33:10Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 1. One can be wrong and not be lying A distinction without a difference, in this case. W was obliged to find out the truth and easily could have if he had actually wanted to, which he didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/42 "2015-05-29T16:34:21Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You know, I do fear that my OP was incomplete. I should have spent some time letting the leftists know that there head would NOT explode if they admitted that Woodward’s investigation and conclusion changed their minds, or even gave them pause. But who could I possibly cite that would deliver that (what I believe to be factual) information that they would actually believe. Such a conundrum! Does your amplifier go to 11? ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/43 "2015-05-29T16:35:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Or, are you of the mind that Woodward is a secret Republican? Neocon? Bush lover? Sell-out? Idiot? Something else? There’s nothing secret about it. Woodward has been a fan of George Bush for years. He’s written extensively about the Bush administration. He’s close to many of the people in that administration and he relies on that closeness for special insider access. So now Woodward is trying to peddle the idea that George Bush told his people not to rely to much on the weapons of mass destruction evidence. Does Woodward provide any evidence to corroborate this assertion? Not in the links you’ve provided, no. How does Woodward explain George Bush’s caution when his administration was out talking about smoking guns that might turn into mushroom clouds? Colin Powell’s speech to the UN - what was that, in Woodward’s retelling? Just some over zealous underling? Let’s look at the actual things George Bush said in public about weapons of mass destruction. Here’s a quote from the Washington Post’s Fact Checker column that quotes a speech by George on October 7th, 2002. > [@George Lying Bush](#): > > ``` > The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons…. Surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world…. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints. > > Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. > > ``` Of course, it’s all bullshit. The Fact Checker article goes on to dismiss the exact claims by George before the war and how none of them panned out. It also covers how George himself tried to spin later in another display of errant lying. Funny how George’s supposed misgivings about the WMD evidence is nowhere to be found here while he’s trying to gin up support for his war in public. I think Woodward was played by the Bush admin, just like Judy Miller. I think Woodward is pushing this story now because he doesn’t want to admit that he was taken for a ride. I also think Woodward will do anything for “access” to powerful people. Powerful _rich_ people. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Woodward gets trotted out when the Bush family is trying to sell the idea that anyone might have made the same mistakes that George made. It’s a lie. It’s rotten, like everything the Bushes touch. George lied then, and he and the organized crime family to which he belongs, is lying now in order to get the next one into position. Woodward has been carrying water for the Bush family for years. This is just more of the same from him. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/44 "2015-05-29T16:38:18Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well, you’re assuming I stopped. 🙂 > > But tell me, are you of the mind that Bush lied to get us into war? Yes or no? I believe that he lied, but in the worst way possible-he lied to himself. He wanted to believe what was expedient, and he allowed himself to believe what wasn’t possible and what was against the available evidence. I can’t believe he was as stupid as he made himself appear to be in public, so if he was a dupe he was a deliberate dupe-he just passed the lies along willingly without glancing at them. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/45 "2015-05-29T16:39:44Z")
I think Bush lied about his own motivations for going to war with Iraq. Incidentally, this opinion puts me in the same camp as none other than Bill O’Reilly, who suggests that Bush et al. wanted a strong US ally in the region, and Iraq seemed like a easy target. Having thus made the decision to invade Iraq, Bush then sold it as a necessary war to protect Americans, and later as a war to liberate the Iraqi people. I think he may have ultimately convinced himself of the latter, but I don’t think he ever really truly believed the former. I don’t know what Bob Woodward investigated or what angles he explored, but Bush’s defense has always been that he believed his own bullshit. Barring some declassified document written in his own hand, or a deathbed confession, where he admits that he was never really concerned about WMDs, or that he knew most of the intelligence he was passing on to the public was bullshit, I don’t see how we’d ever be able to _prove_ that he lied. But given the scope of the error that was the Iraq war, Bush was either a reasonably smart liar who made a bunch of bad calls, or the stupidest person on the planet who made every bad call possible. Occams razor tells me its the former, because nobody is _that_ stupid. Assuming you voted for him, you ether voted for a liar or _the stupidest person on the planet_. I’m not sure why people are so quick to jettison the first option. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/46 "2015-05-29T16:39:58Z")
We all know Bush didn’t lie. It was Cheney!! ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/47 "2015-05-29T16:41:42Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > It’s not specific, and not really serious either since you’ll have a hard time pointing to a president who never lied, and even if there was such a president he would have been accused of lying by plenty of people anyway. That’s how politics works, if he doesn’t like being called names he shouldn’t have run for president. > > And if George Bush joins the board and wants to defend his actions you can take it up with the mods if someone accuses him of lying. That’s not right. Saying he lied is not like saying he’s dumb or evil or gullible or whatever else uses a broad brush. Saying someone “lied” is a specific accusation. It either needs to be substantiated or withdrawn. It appears you’re trying to have it both ways. You want the stink of him being a liar to stick to him, but without being able to substantiate the specific claim. If “he lied” is true, you need to be able to point to the actual lie. Without that it’s just lazy ad hominem throwing. You might as well call him a poppyhead. Let’s assume someone, Bush for instance, is _really_ stupid and makes lots of mistakes in his job and in his life. There are any number of ad hominems that you can heap on him without bringing our own credibility into question. But if you call him an embezzler, a thief, a vandal, a rapist, a diddler of little boys, a wife beater, etc., without being able to substantiate the accusation, then you’re the one with the moral failing. “Liar” is just like that. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/48 "2015-05-29T16:42:51Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > A distinction without a difference, in this case. W was obliged to find out the truth and easily could have if he had actually wanted to, which he didn’t. Oh, it was easy? Says you? Oh, okay. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/49 "2015-05-29T16:44:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s not right. Saying he lied is not like saying he’s dumb or evil or gullible or whatever else uses a broad brush. Saying someone “lied” is a specific accusation. It either needs to be substantiated or withdrawn. It appears you’re trying to have it both ways. You want the stink of him being a liar to stick to him, but without being able to substantiate the specific claim. If “he lied” is true, you need to be able to point to the actual lie. Without that it’s just lazy ad hominem throwing. You might as well call him a poppyhead. > > Let’s assume someone, Bush for instance, is _really_ stupid and makes lots of mistakes in his job and in his life. There are any number of ad hominems that you can heap on him without bringing our own credibility into question. But if you call him an embezzler, a thief, a vandal, a rapist, a diddler of little boys, a wife beater, etc., without being able to substantiate the accusation, then you’re the one with the moral failing. “Liar” is just like that. There is no specific accusation in “Bush lied to get us into war”. You can refute specific claims that he lied if you like, but you aren’t going to be able to show that he never lied. So you’re just flat out wrong. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/50 "2015-05-29T16:46:55Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I believe that he lied, but in the worst way possible-he lied to himself. He wanted to believe what was expedient, and he allowed himself to believe what wasn’t possible and what was against the available evidence. I can’t believe he was as stupid as he made himself appear to be in public, so if he was a dupe he was a deliberate dupe-he just passed the lies along willingly without glancing at them. 1. You’re depending here too much on your 20-20 hindsight. 2. Intelligence is almost always imperfect. 3. Look at the vide I cited in the last link I provided. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/51 "2015-05-29T16:50:23Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I think Bush lied about his own motivations for going to war with Iraq. Incidentally, this opinion puts me in the same camp as none other than Bill O’Reilly, who suggests that Bush et al. wanted a strong US ally in the region, and Iraq seemed like a easy target. Having thus made the decision to invade Iraq, Bush then sold it as a necessary war to protect Americans, and later as a war to liberate the Iraqi people. I think he may have ultimately convinced himself of the latter, but I don’t think he ever really truly believed the former. > > I don’t know what Bob Woodward investigated or what angles he explored, but Bush’s defense has always been that he believed his own bullshit. Barring some declassified document written in his own hand, or a deathbed confession, where he admits that he was never really concerned about WMDs, or that he knew most of the intelligence he was passing on to the public was bullshit, I don’t see how we’d ever be able to _prove_ that he lied. But given the scope of the error that was the Iraq war, Bush was either a reasonably smart liar who made a bunch of bad calls, or the stupidest person on the planet who made every bad call possible. Occams razor tells me its the former, because nobody is _that_ stupid. > > Assuming you voted for him, you ether voted for a liar or _the stupidest person on the planet_. I’m not sure why people are so quick to jettison the first option. Actually, I’ve I’ve stated numerous times on this board, I did not vote for him either time. I was incensed he got the nomination. I like Bush the Elder, but have no use for the other two. If Jeb is the nominee this time around, I won’t be voting for him either. I think you, too, should watch the video in the last link of my OP. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/52 "2015-05-29T17:32:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 1. You’re depending here too much on your 20-20 hindsight. If you’ll look back on the contemporaneous reporting, and even this very board, you’ll find no end of people screaming about the falsehoods the pending war was being predicated on - _with foresight_. :dubious: You do know that, don’t you? > [@](#): > > 1. Intelligence is almost always imperfect. Especially if you manufacture it, interpret it to fit a predetermined conclusion, and dismiss if it doesn’t fit what you want to say. Which is what happened in this case, as you also know. > [@](#): > > 1. Look at the vide I cited in the last link I provided. How about just listing the few key points you’re claiming Woodward made, and the basis on which he made them? Or, if in fact he presents nothing new other than his name, just say _that_. You need to make your own case here. This thread isn’t about Cheney’s and his staff’s, including Bush’s, lying us into a ruinous and murderous war of aggression, not really. It’s about the failure of some people to face up to the way and the extent to which they got fooled by those lies, and the fact that so many others never were. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/53 "2015-05-29T17:40:21Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But tell me, are you of the mind that Bush lied to get us into war? Yes or no? You’ll need a corset if you want to use such narrow tailoring. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/54 "2015-05-29T17:49:52Z")
The whole thing about the WMDs is that most people were, I think, willing to believe that SH had some bad shit hidden somewhere. It wouldn’t have been too hard for him to do if he wanted to. But that’s only a part of the story. The other two parts that “stretch credulity” are 1) that SH had ties to al-Qaeda; and 2) the WMDs were any threat to the US. For me, it was those two issues that I was concerned about-- not whether WMDs existed or not, since that was something very difficult to ascertain. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/55 "2015-05-29T18:11:07Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > How does Woodward explain George Bush’s caution when his administration was out talking about smoking guns that might turn into mushroom clouds? Colin Powell’s speech to the UN - what was that, in Woodward’s retelling? Just some over zealous underling? > > Let’s look at the actual things George Bush said in public about weapons of mass destruction. Here’s a quote from the Washington Post’s Fact Checker column that quotes a speech by George on October 7th, 2002… Let’s say I am called as a witness in a trial about a man who robbed a bank. As it happened, last year I was on the street when I saw someone who was 5’3", 250 lbs, with bright red hair run out of Wells Fargo carrying a bag with a dollar sign on it. So I’m called to testify about what I saw. The defendant matches the description perfectly, and when asked by the prosecutor, I say, “That’s him! That’s the man I saw.” Then the defense attorney comes up and says, “But aren’t you aware that my client as a twin brother? And that at the time of the crime, my client was undergoing extensive DNA analysis that conclusively proves that he was at the Georgetown University Medical Center, 10 miles from the bank, at the exact moment you said you saw him downtown?” Clearly, my testimony was incorrect. Would you say I have committed perjury? If you repeated my statement to the prosecutor 1,000 times while posting on a message board – “That’s him! That’s the man I saw.” – would the number of times it is repeated then make me guilty of perjury? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/56 "2015-05-29T18:13:43Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Let’s say I am called as a witness in a trial about a man who robbed a bank. As it happened, last year I was on the street when I saw someone who was 5’3", 250 lbs, with bright red hair run out of Wells Fargo carrying a bag with a dollar sign on it. > > So I’m called to testify about what I saw. The defendant matches the description perfectly, and when asked by the prosecutor, I say, “That’s him! That’s the man I saw.” > > Then the defense attorney comes up and says, “But aren’t you aware that my client as a twin brother? And that at the time of the crime, my client was undergoing extensive DNA analysis that conclusively proves that he was at the Georgetown University Medical Center, 10 miles from the bank, at the exact moment you said you saw him downtown?” > > Clearly, my testimony was incorrect. Would you say I have committed perjury? > > If you repeated my statement to the prosecutor 1,000 times while posting on a message board – “That’s him! That’s the man I saw.” – would the number of times it is repeated then make me guilty of perjury? Identical twin? If so, who can we be certain which one was undergoing DNA analysis? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/57 "2015-05-29T18:18:37Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Clearly, my testimony was incorrect. Would you say I have committed perjury? Had you, prior to your testimony, rejected any information that would have subverted what you wanted to believe, and failed to question the information manufactured by your staff that supported it? It’s certainly possible to lie to one’s own self. It actually makes it easier to go on to lie to other people. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/58 "2015-05-29T18:21:59Z")
I wonder how reliable Woodward’s sources were. > [@](#): > > According to Woodward, Bush himself was skeptical about the presence of weapons of mass destruction and urged caution on then-CIA Director George Tenet lest he stretch the case that there were. Does that sound like Bush? Skeptical? Cautious about the existence of WMDs? My guess is that there was a bit of revisionist history being sold to Woodward. We all remember Bush talking about smoking guns in the form of a mushroom cloud, how he tried to mention Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence without coming out and saying he was involved, but surely trying to get us to infer the same. Even if we generously assume that Bush had doubts in private meetings, when he made public statements he made every effort to give us the impression that he harbored no doubts at all. He very clearly said that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the US. That was a lie, even if he believed it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/59 "2015-05-29T18:28:13Z")
It certainly doesn’t jibe with any other reporting, or anything Bush or Cheney or anyone else in the administration said at the time. Cheney set up his own intelligence organization to tell him what he wanted to hear, if you’ll recall, since the CIA wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124/60 "2015-05-29T18:32:51Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Had you, prior to your testimony, rejected any information that would have subverted what you wanted to believe, and failed to question the information manufactured by your staff that supported it? > > It’s certainly possible to lie to one’s own self. It actually makes it easier to go on to lie to other people. Are we going to continue responding to questions with other questions? Is your definition of perjury and lying broad enough to include “If I think a reasonable person SHOULD have come to another conclusion, but you didn’t, you have lied or committed perjury?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/left-leaning-dopers-who-is-a-better-investigative-journalist-you-or-bob-woodward/721124.md?page=4)