... about him?
How much of our distrust of Bob Woodward is from his near-identical resemblance to PNAC founder and Weelky Standard editor William Kristol? This is particularly relevant since he is on the verge of being the next big story regarding insider info potentially damning to the Bush administration. (
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040416/D81VTC301.html ,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml)
Seriously. Ever see the two wide by side?
Can YOU tell which is which?Seriously, though. I know he wrote a portrait of Bush that has generally been considered to be flattering regarding his actions post 9-11. But that was before Iraq, when a lot of people felt that way. And some of what he wrote is beginning to be used against Bush (like he didn't feel Bin Laden was an "urgent" threat).
I read a lot of posts here talking about how he's been carted out as an administration apologist on news shows throughout Bush's term. But is that really the case? I say this because I've read posts here in the past which have mistakenly made reference to Woodward appearing on a show speaking for Bush, when I have seen the same show and knew it to be, in fact, Kristol.
"Bush at War" aside, is Woodward really a big Bush apologist, or just an honest reporter who admittedly played some softball with Bush to get access? Is some of this anti-Woodward sentiment here simply a case of mistaken identity?