"Fear" the book 'bout Trump

[Kidd]

Deep Throat ring a bell?



I saw the movie , Deep throat  , does that count for anything?   

[Savago]

For people willing to learn a bit more about Bob Woodward:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward

Born in 1943 (so 75 years old now), Yale Alumni, 5 years at the Navy.

After being discharged as a lieutenant in 1970, was accepted by Harvard Law School, dismissed it to join the Washington Post where he partnered with Carl Bernstein to investigate on Watergate.

2 times Pulitzer winner, this guy is the real deal.

And yes, he will also report on dems:
a) In 1996: "The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC.[8]".

b) In 2013: "... shortly before the United States federal budget sequester took effect, The Washington Post published a column by Woodward in which he criticized the Obama administration for their statements in 2012 and 2013 that the sequester had been proposed by Republicans in Congress".

I guess this is why Mr Trump called Bob to know a bit more about the book before it was published:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/04/transcript-phone-call-between-president-trump-journalist-bob-woodward/?utm_term=.0da552866890

Now let's wait for the smear campaign against Woodward to discredit his book.

[The emperor has no clothes]

For people willing to learn a bit more about Bob Woodward:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward

Born in 1943 (so 75 years old now), Yale Alumni, 5 years at the Navy.

After being discharged as a lieutenant in 1970, was accepted by Harvard Law School, dismissed it to join the Washington Post where he partnered with Carl Bernstein to investigate on Watergate.

2 times Pulitzer winner, this guy is the real deal.

And yes, he will also report on dems:
a) In 1996: "The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC.[8]".

b) In 2013: "... shortly before the United States federal budget sequester took effect, The Washington Post published a column by Woodward in which he criticized the Obama administration for their statements in 2012 and 2013 that the sequester had been proposed by Republicans in Congress".

I guess this is why Mr Trump called Bob to know a bit more about the book before it was published:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/04/transcript-phone-call-between-president-trump-journalist-bob-woodward/?utm_term=.0da552866890

Now let's wait for the smear campaign against Woodward to discredit his book.

Hasn't it already begun ?

[f6john]

Then why can’t he reveal his sources? And why are principals in the story denying statements attributed to them? Why would they talk to Woodward if they were going to turn around and deny they took part? It’s all too convenient.

[baldo]

For people willing to learn a bit more about Bob Woodward:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward

Born in 1943 (so 75 years old now), Yale Alumni, 5 years at the Navy.

After being discharged as a lieutenant in 1970, was accepted by Harvard Law School, dismissed it to join the Washington Post where he partnered with Carl Bernstein to investigate on Watergate.

2 times Pulitzer winner, this guy is the real deal.

And yes, he will also report on dems:
a) In 1996: "The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC.[8]".

b) In 2013: "... shortly before the United States federal budget sequester took effect, The Washington Post published a column by Woodward in which he criticized the Obama administration for their statements in 2012 and 2013 that the sequester had been proposed by Republicans in Congress".

I guess this is why Mr Trump called Bob to know a bit more about the book before it was published:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/04/transcript-phone-call-between-president-trump-journalist-bob-woodward/?utm_term=.0da552866890

Now let's wait for the smear campaign against Woodward to discredit his book.

Hasn't it already begun ?

Oh yes...He Who Must Not Be Named has already been up to his usual tricks.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Then why can’t he reveal his sources? And why are principals in the story denying statements attributed to them? Why would they talk to Woodward if they were going to turn around and deny they took part? It’s all too convenient.

Several reasons as I understand it. First, let's look back at "deepthroat" . He was an unnamed source because he worked for the FBI and would have been fired and probably faced prosecution if he had been named. I assume you agree it was a good thing that he informed on the criminality of the Nixon administration ?
 Now, to our current situation with the unnamed sources for Woodward's book. They agreed to talk with the promise that they wouldn't be outed. Probably for several reasons, most of them being self serving. But, Woodward informed them they would be taped and he wouldn't divulge their identities. They willingly talked knowing this.
 Why are they denying they said these things ? I can only surmise the reasons. 1) they don't want to be fired. 2) they think they are protecting the country by staying. 3) they are trying to distance themselves from the actions of the President. 4) they think when this is all over and done with they can come back and say "look I tried to protect us". In my opinion all are wrong assumptions. A person with good moral character who feels the President is not suited or qualified to hold the position should come out and say that along with resigning. The cast of characters we have and have had has not been brimming with moral character though. There has been and likely will continue to be a cast of people who talk crap about each behind the backs of each other. "All too convenient" ? For them probably. For Woodward, I think he would prefer to be able to play the tapes for everyone to hear for themselves. But then that character thing comes creeping back in. He is a respected journalist who gave his word. He would no longer be if he did.

[..]

Best laugh of the day.

Using unnamed sources is a far cry from "making crap up".

From a Chicago Tribune piece on 9/4

Woodward writes that his book draws from hundreds of hours of interviews with firsthand participants and witnesses that were conducted on "deep background," meaning the information could be used but he would not reveal who provided it.

My words. So pretty much no PROOF.

Ask yourself who is benefiting THE MOST from the book. Could it be the author and a big fat payday?

[Kidd]

what part do you all not understand ?

he has cherry picked  info and used the info  out of context , that way , the info tells  a different story , not the intended one

I think that is pretty easy to follow , no ?

All it means is  " he is misleading the reader ".
He is an entertainer more then anything else .

 

[98valk]

Joan Didion has leveled the most comprehensive criticism of Woodward, in a lengthy September 1996 essay in The New York Review of Books.[43] Though "Woodward is a widely trusted reporter, even an American icon", she says that he assembles reams of often irrelevant detail, fails to draw conclusions, and make judgments. "Measurable cerebral activity is virtually absent" from his books after Watergate from 1979 to 1996, she said. She said the books are notable for "a scrupulous passivity, an agreement to cover the story not as it is occurring but as it is presented, which is to say as it is manufactured." She ridicules "fairness" as "a familiar newsroom piety, the excuse in practice for a good deal of autopilot reporting and lazy thinking." All this focus on what people said and thought—their "decent intentions"—circumscribes "possible discussion or speculation", resulting in what she called "political pornography".

    Woodward has been accused of exaggeration and fabrication regarding "Deep Throat", his Watergate informant. Ever since W. Mark Felt was announced as the true identity behind Deep Throat, John Dean[45] and Ed Gray,[46] in separate publications, have used Woodward's book All The President's Men and his published notes on his meetings with Deep Throat to argue that Deep Throat could not have been only Mark Felt. They argued that Deep Throat was a fictional composite made up of several Woodward sources, only one of whom was Felt. Gray, in his book In Nixon's Web, even went so far as to publish an e-mail and telephone exchange he had with Donald Santarelli, a Washington lawyer who was a Justice Department official during Watergate, in which Santarelli confirmed to Gray that he was the source behind statements Woodward recorded in notes he has attributed to Deep Throat.[47] However, Stephen Mielke, an archivist at the University of Texas who oversees the Woodward-Bernstein papers, said it is likely the page was misfiled under Felt because no source was identified. The original page of notes is in the Mark Felt file but "the carbon is located with the handwritten and typed notes attributed to Santarelli." Ed Gray said that Santarelli confirmed to him that he was the source behind the statements in the notes.[48]
    J. Bradford DeLong has noted considerable inconsistencies between the accounts of the making of Clinton economic policy described in Woodward's book Maestro and his book The Agenda.[49]
    Some of Woodward's critics accuse him of abandoning critical inquiry to maintain his access to high-profile political actors. Anthony Lewis called the style "a trade in which the great grant access in return for glory."[50] Christopher Hitchens accused Woodward of acting as "stenographer to the rich and powerful."[51]
    Writer Tanner Colby, who co-wrote a biography of John Belushi with the late actor's widow Judy, wrote in Slate that, while Woodward's frequently criticized 1984 book Wired: The Short Life and Fast Times of John Belushi is largely accurate in its description of events, Woodward either gets the context wrong or does not find any context at all. For example, Belushi's grandmother's funeral, which led him to make a serious effort to sober up, gets merely a paragraph in Woodward's retelling, while a 24-hour drug binge in Los Angeles goes on for eight pages simply because the limo driver was willing to talk to Woodward. "It's like someone wrote a biography of Michael Jordan in which all the stats and scores are correct, but you come away with the impression that Michael Jordan wasn't very good at playing basketball," he concluded. Because it was unique among Woodward's books in that it made no use of confidential or anonymous sources, Colby was able to interview many of the same sources that Woodward had used, making comparisons of their recollection of events to Woodward's accounting of them relatively easy.[52]
    Woodward believed the Bush administration's claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the war, and the publication of the book At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA by former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet led Woodward to engage in a rather tortuous account of the extent of his pre-war conversations with Tenet in an article in The New Yorker in which he also chastised New York Times op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd for being critical of him.[53]
    Woodward was also accused of fabricating a deathbed interview with CIA Director William Casey, as described in Veil. Critics say the interview simply could not have taken place as written in the book.[54][55][56][57] Robert M. Gates, Casey's deputy at the time, in his book "From the Shadows", recounts speaking with Casey during this exact period. Gates directly quotes Casey saying 22 words, even more than the 19 words Woodward said Casey used with him.[58] The CIA's internal report found that Casey "had forty-three meetings or phone calls with Woodward, including a number of meetings at Casey's home with no one else present" during the period Woodward was researching his book.[59] Gates was also quoted saying, "When I saw him in the hospital, his speech was even more slurred than usual, but if you knew him well, you could make out a few words, enough to get sense of what he was saying."[60] Following Casey's death, President Ronald Reagan wrote: "[Woodward]'s a liar and he lied about what Casey is supposed to have thought of me."[61]

[Kidd]

Best laugh of the day.

Using unnamed sources is a far cry from "making crap up".

I saw that and I agree ,  

[The emperor has no clothes]

Best laugh of the day.

Using unnamed sources is a far cry from "making crap up".

Do you feel he made up the stuff from Watergate ?

[Gavin_Sons]

Some of you know an awful lot about "deepthroat"ing  ???

[Kidd]

never mind   

[The emperor has no clothes]

what part do you all not understand ?

he has cherry picked  info and used the info  out of context , that way , the info tells  a different story , not the intended one

I think that is pretty easy to follow , no ?

All it means is  " he is misleading the reader ".
He is an entertainer more then anything else .

 

I'm sure not everything he discovered is in his book. I doubt any investigative reporter would be able to include everything.

[baldo]

 

what part do you all not understand ?

he has cherry picked  info and used the info  out of context , that way , the info tells  a different story , not the intended one

I think that is pretty easy to follow , no ?

All it means is  " he is misleading the reader ".
He is an entertainer more then anything else .

 

And you know all this....how?

[The emperor has no clothes]

Best laugh of the day.

Using unnamed sources is a far cry from "making crap up".

From a Chicago Tribune piece on 9/4

Woodward writes that his book draws from hundreds of hours of interviews with firsthand participants and witnesses that were conducted on "deep background," meaning the information could be used but he would not reveal who provided it.

My words. So pretty much no PROOF.

Ask yourself who is benefiting THE MOST from the book. Could it be the author and a big fat payday?

Could also be the citizens of USA.

[MAD6Gun]

Best laugh of the day.

Using unnamed sources is a far cry from "making crap up".

From a Chicago Tribune piece on 9/4

Woodward writes that his book draws from hundreds of hours of interviews with firsthand participants and witnesses that were conducted on "deep background," meaning the information could be used but he would not reveal who provided it.

My words. So pretty much no PROOF.

Ask yourself who is benefiting THE MOST from the book. Could it be the author and a big fat payday?

Could also be the citizens of USA.

 You guys are unfreekingbelieveable. You believe everything this guy has to say without reservation because it's about Donald Trump. But don't believe one thing that Obama or Clinton did that was much worse than anything Trump has been accused of. But since they were democrats they can do NO wrong. Some of the crap they did even resulted in the death of American citizens. Fast and Furious and Bengazi just to name two. So save your sanctimonious BS for your liberal friends because the majority of us here are not buying it.....

[..]

Best laugh of the day.

Using unnamed sources is a far cry from "making crap up".

From a Chicago Tribune piece on 9/4

Woodward writes that his book draws from hundreds of hours of interviews with firsthand participants and witnesses that were conducted on "deep background," meaning the information could be used but he would not reveal who provided it.

My words. So pretty much no PROOF.

Ask yourself who is benefiting THE MOST from the book. Could it be the author and a big fat payday?

Could also be the citizens of USA.

 Fast and Furious and Bengazi just to name two.

[scooperhsd]

There are many people in this country that just want the truth also.

I'm beginning to believe that is unfortunately not true.  What most people seem to be seeking is only a truth that will support what they have already decided to believe.

For all our sakes I hope you are wrong. It is human nature to want to be proven correct. Nobody wants to be wrong. But to deny facts out of hand is just plain stupid.

I think if you stop for a minute and consider our circumstances that the majority would fall into the group Willow describes. I consider myself one who just wants the truth. The real problem I face is being able to discern the truth if and when I hear it. For every fact you hear or read about your hear an equally convincing argument that the fact is false or in some way not credible. For this reason I don’t take a source of news,supposedly facts, and run with it as “truth”. With all the information available out there the challenge is to not fall into the trap that Willow speaks of.

I don’t think that Woodward’s book is fact, truth or fiction. It’s one mans opinion based I think on conversations with people who may or may not know what they are talking about, may or may not have an axe to grind with administration, and the author feels no compulsion to divulge his sources or confirm the info to be factual. On the other hand, some people will see it’s a Woodward book and for them it’s fact, truth and any other positive connotation you can imagine.

+1

[..]

Best laugh of the day.

Using unnamed sources is a far cry from "making crap up".

Do you feel he made up the stuff from Watergate ?

What does Watergate have to do with this latest book offering.

I made no mention of Watergate.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Best laugh of the day.

Using unnamed sources is a far cry from "making crap up".

From a Chicago Tribune piece on 9/4

Woodward writes that his book draws from hundreds of hours of interviews with firsthand participants and witnesses that were conducted on "deep background," meaning the information could be used but he would not reveal who provided it.

My words. So pretty much no PROOF.

Ask yourself who is benefiting THE MOST from the book. Could it be the author and a big fat payday?

Could also be the citizens of USA.

 You guys are unfreekingbelieveable. You believe everything this guy has to say without reservation because it's about Donald Trump. But don't believe one thing that Obama or Clinton did that was much worse than anything Trump has been accused of. But since they were democrats they can do NO wrong. Some of the crap they did even resulted in the death of American citizens. Fast and Furious and Bengazi just to name two. So save your sanctimonious BS for your liberal friends because the majority of us here are not buying it.....

I don't think any of us have said we believe everything this guy said. At least I didn't. I think Obama did things wrong. I know Clinton did things wrong. Doesn't really have much bearing on what Trump did, now does it ? The majority here are free to believe what they want. Doesn't make it any closer to the truth now does it ? Doesn't make it any worse than what Trump is accused of ? Oh, I beg to differ. If, and I say IF he conspired with our enemies, I can't think of much worse a President could do. But, you go on keeping your beliefs. I have confidence in our system of government.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Best laugh of the day.

Using unnamed sources is a far cry from "making crap up".

Do you feel he made up the stuff from Watergate ?

What does Watergate have to do with this latest book offering.

I made no mention of Watergate.

It has to do with your statement.

[..]

Best laugh of the day.

Using unnamed sources is a far cry from "making crap up".

Do you feel he made up the stuff from Watergate ?

What does Watergate have to do with this latest book offering.

I made no mention of Watergate.

It has to do with your statement.

I refuse to follow you down this rabbit hole.

Enjoy it.

Why I generally don't look at your posts is made clear once again.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Best laugh of the day.

Using unnamed sources is a far cry from "making crap up".

Do you feel he made up the stuff from Watergate ?

What does Watergate have to do with this latest book offering.

I made no mention of Watergate.

It has to do with your statement.

I refuse to follow you down this rabbit hole.

Enjoy it.

Why I generally don't look at your posts is made clear once again.

Your non answer is revealing.

[..]

Best laugh of the day.

Using unnamed sources is a far cry from "making crap up".

Do you feel he made up the stuff from Watergate ?

What does Watergate have to do with this latest book offering.

I made no mention of Watergate.

It has to do with your statement.

I refuse to follow you down this rabbit hole.

Enjoy it.

Why I generally don't look at your posts is made clear once again.

Your non answer is revealing.

C'mon, I'll bite. It's more fun than watching Florrie.

What statement of mine are you referring to?

[MAD6Gun]

Best laugh of the day.

Using unnamed sources is a far cry from "making crap up".

From a Chicago Tribune piece on 9/4

Woodward writes that his book draws from hundreds of hours of interviews with firsthand participants and witnesses that were conducted on "deep background," meaning the information could be used but he would not reveal who provided it.

My words. So pretty much no PROOF.

Ask yourself who is benefiting THE MOST from the book. Could it be the author and a big fat payday?

Could also be the citizens of USA.

 You guys are unfreekingbelieveable. You believe everything this guy has to say without reservation because it's about Donald Trump. But don't believe one thing that Obama or Clinton did that was much worse than anything Trump has been accused of. But since they were democrats they can do NO wrong. Some of the crap they did even resulted in the death of American citizens. Fast and Furious and Bengazi just to name two. So save your sanctimonious BS for your liberal friends because the majority of us here are not buying it.....

I don't think any of us have said we believe everything this guy said. At least I didn't. I think Obama did things wrong. I know Clinton did things wrong. Doesn't really have much bearing on what Trump did, now does it ? The majority here are free to believe what they want. Doesn't make it any closer to the truth now does it ? Doesn't make it any worse than what Trump is accused of ? Oh, I beg to differ. If, and I say IF he conspired with our enemies, I can't think of much worse a President could do. But, you go on keeping your beliefs. I have confidence in our system of government.

 They have been "investigating" for almost two years and haven't found any evidence of Trump collusion. How much longer does it need to go on?   So you are saying supposed collusion which has not been verifed is somehow worse then FOUR DEAD AMERICANS in Bengazi.and a dead border agent by a gun sold to Mexican cartels by Eric Holder and Obama?

 Where was your confidence in the government then?

 You make it sound like I am the only one here who has these beliefs. I guarantee you I'm not the only one....

[Kidd]

I read this book , there may be no collusion  , but damn , there sure is a lot of circumstantial evidence .

https://www.amazon.com/Collusion-Secret-Meetings-Russia-Helped/dp/0525562516

It was really entertaining , a must read  it you like entertainment

[The emperor has no clothes]

Best laugh of the day.

Using unnamed sources is a far cry from "making crap up".

From a Chicago Tribune piece on 9/4

Woodward writes that his book draws from hundreds of hours of interviews with firsthand participants and witnesses that were conducted on "deep background," meaning the information could be used but he would not reveal who provided it.

My words. So pretty much no PROOF.

Ask yourself who is benefiting THE MOST from the book. Could it be the author and a big fat payday?

Could also be the citizens of USA.

 You guys are unfreekingbelieveable. You believe everything this guy has to say without reservation because it's about Donald Trump. But don't believe one thing that Obama or Clinton did that was much worse than anything Trump has been accused of. But since they were democrats they can do NO wrong. Some of the crap they did even resulted in the death of American citizens. Fast and Furious and Bengazi just to name two. So save your sanctimonious BS for your liberal friends because the majority of us here are not buying it.....

I don't think any of us have said we believe everything this guy said. At least I didn't. I think Obama did things wrong. I know Clinton did things wrong. Doesn't really have much bearing on what Trump did, now does it ? The majority here are free to believe what they want. Doesn't make it any closer to the truth now does it ? Doesn't make it any worse than what Trump is accused of ? Oh, I beg to differ. If, and I say IF he conspired with our enemies, I can't think of much worse a President could do. But, you go on keeping your beliefs. I have confidence in our system of government.

 They have been "investigating" for almost two years and haven't found any evidence of Trump collusion. How much longer does it need to go on?   So you are saying supposed collusion which has not been verifed is somehow worse then FOUR DEAD AMERICANS in Bengazi.and a dead border agent by a gun sold to Mexican cartels by Eric Holder and Obama?

 Where was your confidence in the government then?

 You make it sound like I am the only one here who has these beliefs. I guarantee you I'm not the only one....

I KNOW you are not the only one here with these beliefs. I read about them on a daily basis. I'm not saying "supposed collusion " is worse. I'm saying IF there was conspiracy on his part or his people's part with our enemies to subvert our electoral process, then that is worse. I think it's closer to a year and a half. Actually, if you look back historically it's going pretty fast. The Whitewater investigation was 4 years, if memory serves me the Iran/Contra investigation went on for 3 years. I think if Trump would talk to Mueller like he said he would, it would get wrapped up pretty quick. But, it looks like he going to force them to subpoena him, which will likely go to the Supreme Court, wasting even more time.

[f6john]

If there was ever to be an honest man or woman with great credentials and a support organization big enough and talented enough to run a Presidential campaign they would have to be literally crazy to run for the office in this country.

I have to believe that Trump probably knew this but given his station in life he just said what the hell, I’ll take a stab at it. He doesn’t give a rats ass about what his detractors think and I’m sure he laughs when people say the walls are closing in on him. I’m still waiting for him to really screw up, hasn’t happened yet and he is mostly on his own out there. Outside of family, he can probably name on one hand the people he can trust. I trust Trump more than any career politician I can think of. If there ever was a time for a non politician to be in the Whitehouse, now was that time. Just the shakeup of the status quo has been worth it to me.

If Bob Woodward said he had it on good authority that the sun was shining, I’d have to go outside and have a look for myself.

[Kidd]

, now IS  that time. 

[Jess from VA]

John, I like Trump for exactly the same reasons.

But while he has thick skin, I wonder if it's thick enough to live with the hatred and constant insult and assault he faces, seemingly in perpetuity.  It's a lot to ask of any man.  And he is not without ego.  With his wealth and business acumen, he certainly didn't need the job.  Many would say he did it for the fame and power, but I think he did it for his country, and there can be no higher calling.

I didn't like George W nearly as much, but it seems he himself started to believe all the bad press and mouth about him in his 2d term, and he caved in way to much to the opposition thereafter trying to please everybody, which cannot be done (IMHO).

He needs to keep up the good work and do his best to ignore the TDS around him.  When he continually engages his detractors, he simply empowers them (just like talking to forum trolls).

Woodward's book is nothing more than (yet) another assault on a good man doing his best for our country.  We are lucky he is putting up with it.  

[Robert]

What hypocrisy 

We can have a bogus investigation into a proved setup, this setup breaking federal laws and many of the FBI, CIA, have been taken down proved to be financed by Hillary and no one is prosecuted, yet. Even the basis for the Mueller investigation that was investigated by the house and senate is been proved false.

 But some still consider and talk about a Russia investigation as if its a reality, when it was the Russians that gave Hillary millions for Uranium one deal, along with a Russian lawyer having an office in the Obama White House, proofs and meetings with Russians on Hillary's and Obama parts and the Clinton foundation closing its doors when Hillary lost.

How can you have an meaningful discussion with anyone who even thinks like that?

How can you be so biased and blind to not see that its hurting the country, has no benefit, its a constant drag on the president and essentially sham. Come on really?

With all that has come out about Hillary and the Dems how can you even not call for the prosecution or at very least the investigation into all the issues associated with Hillary and call for a stop to this witch hunt, Russia investigation.

It has gone beyond the rational explanation of the facts to some, thinking they don't understand, it has come down to them turning a blind eye to the overt corruption and manipulation of the election not by Russians but by our media, Hillary, Obama. If anyone turns a blind eye to this corruption what is the point of any discussion with someone who thinks like this?

If you want a strong US and endorsed the Mueller investigation then in that same thought you would endorse the same investigation into the Clintons, Obamas, FBI,CIA and many more since the collusion that was so worried about by Trump has already been shown and been proven by the ones mentioned.

When Hillary was predicted to win by 90 percent and yet Trump won isn't that ALONE collusion to influence an election and not just bad polling? Yet we dismiss it and that is influencing an election more than Trump ever did yet we hear NOTHING. Its propaganda at the height of use and influence, since like advertising that promoted herd mentality its very much the same.

Have we as a nation become so stupid and ignorant that we allow and dont see the real collusion? That we would even consider those that talk about a Mueller investigation with a straight face as sane when so much has already gone down by so many others? REALLY?

IF this is the case we have to revise the land of the free and the Home of the brave since we are not free if there is no rule of law and you would have to be brave to challenge the corruption that is at the highest levels of government.

[Alpha Dog]

John, I like Trump for exactly the same reasons.

But while he has thick skin, I wonder if it's thick enough to live with the hatred and constant insult and assault he faces, seemingly in perpetuity.  It's a lot to ask of any man.  And he is not without ego.  With his wealth and business acumen, he certainly didn't need the job.  Many would say he did it for the fame and power, but I think he did it for his country, and there can be no higher calling.

I didn't like George W nearly as much, but it seems he himself started to believe all the bad press and mouth about him in his 2d term, and he caved in way to much to the opposition thereafter trying to please everybody, which cannot be done (IMHO).

He needs to keep up the good work and do his best to ignore the TDS around him.  When he continually engages his detractors, he simply empowers them (just like talking to forum trolls).

Woodward's book is nothing more than (yet) another assault on a good man doing his best for our country.  We are lucky he is putting up with it.  

Last week I heard an interview Brian Kilmeade had with Dr. Gina Loudon ( new book Mad Politics ) who spent a lot of time with Trump during the campaign ( in some advisor role ) and gained real knowledge of the guy in both personal and phycological perspective.  This was on Brian's morning radio show.  I looked a bit for it but am not connected with facebook, however it was fascinating.   She for one is not worried a bit.

[¿spoom]

It's pretty simple, really. Sides have been chosen and the losing side has been in a battle to overturn the election ever since. Impeach! Resist! Write books!

[Gavin_Sons]

It's pretty simple, really. Sides have been chosen and the losing side has been in a battle to overturn the election ever since. Impeach! Resist! Write books!

you forgot "tell lies"   

[Psychotic Bovine]

It's pretty simple, really. Sides have been chosen and the losing side has been in a battle to overturn the election ever since. Impeach! Resist! Write books!

you forgot "tell lies"   

Also:  boycott businesses that support anything conservative, sue-sue-sue, get in their faces, do violence, surround their houses, deny them sleep, harass their families, open fire on members of congress at baseball games and encourage general lawlessness directed towards anyone who voted for, or supports, the President.

[Serk]

I almost started a thread for this one, but we've got enough of those, so I'll just put it here... TDS is reaching levels we never thought of, not only are "journalists" pumping out books such as this one but now.... well.... Read what the #Resistance is doing now to bring down Trump.... That'll show him!

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/11/mark-bird-college-southern-nevada-professor-shot-h/

[..]

I almost started a thread for this one, but we've got enough of those, so I'll just put it here... TDS is reaching levels we never thought of, not only are "journalists" pumping out books such as this one but now.... well.... Read what the #Resistance is doing now to bring down Trump.... That'll show him!

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/11/mark-bird-college-southern-nevada-professor-shot-h/

I'm beginning to believe in chem trails and that they are a right wing plot to make the left delusional and mentally unstable.

[Gryphon Rider]

Joan Didion has leveled the most comprehensive criticism of Woodward, in a lengthy September 1996 essay in The New York Review of Books.[43] Though "Woodward is a widely trusted reporter, even an American icon", she says that he assembles reams of often irrelevant detail, fails to draw conclusions, and make judgments. "Measurable cerebral activity is virtually absent" from his books after Watergate from 1979 to 1996, she said. She said the books are notable for "a scrupulous passivity, an agreement to cover the story not as it is occurring but as it is presented, which is to say as it is manufactured." She ridicules "fairness" as "a familiar newsroom piety, the excuse in practice for a good deal of autopilot reporting and lazy thinking." All this focus on what people said and thought—their "decent intentions"—circumscribes "possible discussion or speculation", resulting in what she called "political pornography".

    Woodward has been accused of exaggeration and fabrication regarding "Deep Throat", his Watergate informant. Ever since W. Mark Felt was announced as the true identity behind Deep Throat, John Dean[45] and Ed Gray,[46] in separate publications, have used Woodward's book All The President's Men and his published notes on his meetings with Deep Throat to argue that Deep Throat could not have been only Mark Felt. They argued that Deep Throat was a fictional composite made up of several Woodward sources, only one of whom was Felt. Gray, in his book In Nixon's Web, even went so far as to publish an e-mail and telephone exchange he had with Donald Santarelli, a Washington lawyer who was a Justice Department official during Watergate, in which Santarelli confirmed to Gray that he was the source behind statements Woodward recorded in notes he has attributed to Deep Throat.[47] However, Stephen Mielke, an archivist at the University of Texas who oversees the Woodward-Bernstein papers, said it is likely the page was misfiled under Felt because no source was identified. The original page of notes is in the Mark Felt file but "the carbon is located with the handwritten and typed notes attributed to Santarelli." Ed Gray said that Santarelli confirmed to him that he was the source behind the statements in the notes.[48]
    J. Bradford DeLong has noted considerable inconsistencies between the accounts of the making of Clinton economic policy described in Woodward's book Maestro and his book The Agenda.[49]
    Some of Woodward's critics accuse him of abandoning critical inquiry to maintain his access to high-profile political actors. Anthony Lewis called the style "a trade in which the great grant access in return for glory."[50] Christopher Hitchens accused Woodward of acting as "stenographer to the rich and powerful."[51]
    Writer Tanner Colby, who co-wrote a biography of John Belushi with the late actor's widow Judy, wrote in Slate that, while Woodward's frequently criticized 1984 book Wired: The Short Life and Fast Times of John Belushi is largely accurate in its description of events, Woodward either gets the context wrong or does not find any context at all. For example, Belushi's grandmother's funeral, which led him to make a serious effort to sober up, gets merely a paragraph in Woodward's retelling, while a 24-hour drug binge in Los Angeles goes on for eight pages simply because the limo driver was willing to talk to Woodward. "It's like someone wrote a biography of Michael Jordan in which all the stats and scores are correct, but you come away with the impression that Michael Jordan wasn't very good at playing basketball," he concluded. Because it was unique among Woodward's books in that it made no use of confidential or anonymous sources, Colby was able to interview many of the same sources that Woodward had used, making comparisons of their recollection of events to Woodward's accounting of them relatively easy.[52]
    Woodward believed the Bush administration's claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the war, and the publication of the book At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA by former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet led Woodward to engage in a rather tortuous account of the extent of his pre-war conversations with Tenet in an article in The New Yorker in which he also chastised New York Times op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd for being critical of him.[53]
    Woodward was also accused of fabricating a deathbed interview with CIA Director William Casey, as described in Veil. Critics say the interview simply could not have taken place as written in the book.[54][55][56][57] Robert M. Gates, Casey's deputy at the time, in his book "From the Shadows", recounts speaking with Casey during this exact period. Gates directly quotes Casey saying 22 words, even more than the 19 words Woodward said Casey used with him.[58] The CIA's internal report found that Casey "had forty-three meetings or phone calls with Woodward, including a number of meetings at Casey's home with no one else present" during the period Woodward was researching his book.[59] Gates was also quoted saying, "When I saw him in the hospital, his speech was even more slurred than usual, but if you knew him well, you could make out a few words, enough to get sense of what he was saying."[60] Following Casey's death, President Ronald Reagan wrote: "[Woodward]'s a liar and he lied about what Casey is supposed to have thought of me."[61]

Why don't you cite the stuff you copy and paste here?  To do otherwise is at best, lazy, and at worst, dishonest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward#Criticisms_of_content

[Kidd]

lol , you otta see the sky here , the chem trails are everywhere 

I'm beginning to believe in chem trails and that they are a right wing plot to make the left delusional and mentally unstable.
[/quote]