Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (29596)	10/2/2006 12:24:51 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 540836

Thanks for the long post, Win. As for the Carr piece in the Times today, I agree with it. In fact, I don't see anything I genuinely disagree with. The difference which struck me the most was his differing portrait of Rumsfeld. And Carr captures that well: One of Mr. Woodward’s chief discoveries was that Donald H. Rumsfeld was not the asset that he first described him as. In “Bush at War” in 2002, Mr. Rumsfeld was described as “handsome, intense, well educated with an intellectual bend, witty with an infectious smile.” In “Plan of Attack” in 2004, he was a leader whose “way was clear, and he was precise about it.” In “State of Denial,” he is a turf-obsessed control freak whose “micromanaging was almost comic.” I have no idea why Woodward changed his mind so dramatically about the Bush administration between book II and III. I'm tempted by the thought that as he was working on the drafts for this latest one, the consensus among Washington journalists shifted toward a judgment that the Bush administration's Iraq policy is a disaster. As it's principle chronicler, at least in his own mind, Woodward would embarrass himself with any other judgment. So the frame shifted to the one we now see.