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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (88526)	5/29/2012 11:59:30 AM
From: Cautious_Optimist	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 89467

Pat Buchanan knows all about historical revisionism.

To: longnshort who wrote (88526)	5/29/2012 12:04:02 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 89467

Bradlee spoke about that fear gnawing at him: "I just find the flower in the window difficult to believe and the garage scenes. ... "If they could prove that Deep Throat never existed ... that would be a devastating blow to Woodward and to the Post. ... It would be devastating, devastating." When Himmelman showed him the transcript, Woodward "was visibly shaken" and repeated Bradlee's line -- "there's a residual fear in my soul that that isn't quite straight" -- 15 times in 20 minutes. Woodward tried to get Bradlee to retract. He told Himmelman not to include the statements in his book. He pleaded. He threatened. He failed. Read more: newsbusters.org

To: longnshort who wrote (88526)	5/29/2012 12:04:53 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 89467

Earlier in the month, Himmelman complained about the harassment of his former employers and friends at The Daily Beast: During the past two weeks, my former boss Bob Woodward has compared me to Richard Nixon, referred to me in the pages of The Washington Post and The New York Times as “dishonest,” and generally attempted to discredit me and my authorized biography of Bradlee, Yours in Truth, which was released by Random House last Tuesday. The prevailing narrative in nearly every description of my work thus far, much of which has been influenced by Bob, is that I “betrayed” my former mentor to write a cheap “tell-all.” The New York Times, in a Styles section piece published Sunday, compares my book, a 473-page, deeply researched portrait of Bradlee, to the novel The Devil Wears Prada. Does anyone else find it amusing that Woodward would attack someone else for betraying their colleagues for a "cheap tell-all"? Isn't that what Woodward encourages people to do for his own cheap tell-alls? Read more: newsbusters.org