Arkansas Blog

What did you think of his answer to the question about whether he believed W was sincere when he said he had a duty to free people in Iraq?

I certainly understand your take on Woodward, Max, and respect your opinion. I went largely because I wanted to hear the man who was part of the team that brought down the most criminal presidential administration in history (to that point, at least). Whatever his failings as a watchdog early in the Bush administration (and, as you noted, he was far from alone), he still has much experience and knowledge that is worth hearing, IMHO. Frankly, I'd go listen to W. talk if he came to town, out of curiosity to hear what he says.

I've not read Woodward's books, so I can't intelligently address your criticism of him. But last night, he said some pretty frank and critical things about W., making it clear that he couldn't believe how this man was conducting himself as president. To me, the most telling was when he was interviewing W. and asked about the decisions that led to the surge in Iraq. The national security adviser was also in the room and piped up to say those decisions came during a meeting between himself and other military higher-ups. Bush's response (which I'm paraphrasing here) was, "I didn't know that. I don't attend those meetings. I have other things to do."

Woodward's comment on that was: If you're president, and you're sending American troops to fight a war you started, what could you possibly have to do that is more important than overseeing that?

It was a good talk, and I was pleased to see such a large crowd turn out to hear a journalist speak.

To live in D.C. day to day is to see that people like Woodward walk among the rest like gods. To maintain this status, they have to reinvent themselves on a regular basis, like Hollywood actors.

I don't know about the rest of you diligent citizens, but I don't like reading non-fiction books that place quotation marks around huge blocks of conversation between historical figures -- conversations in quotes that were never taped or transcribed from tape; conversations to which the author was not privy. I feel like I'm reading "The Agony and the Ecstasy," the overemotional "bio" of Michaelangelo that employs the same tactic.

But if you wanna call him a journalist, don't let me get in your way.

It might have been the handful seated behind me, but I didn't notice anyone rising to applaud prior to the speech. And I was paying attention, because I was wondering if they would. It certainly wasn't any noticeable standing ovation. In fact, even at the end, it seemed like most of the people were rising just to beat the crowd out the door.

That said, it was a good talk. I don't think he knew Martha Mitchell was from Arkansas.

I thought his most interesting comments were those about the changes in journalism. He told a great story about seeing a reporter standing in front of the courthouse during Kobe Bryant's trial. The reporter said she was live outside the courthouse, no one was talking, and she had nothing to report. She then said she'd check back in later, likely with nothing to report, but it would be live!

I think the Daily Show makes this point in a subtle way, every time they show a reporter obviously standing in front of a green screen, pretending to be on some location.

Beyond that, he talked about how sometimes during the Watergate investigation, he wouldn't have anything new for six weeks. Now, people want to know every little detail as it unfolds, so it can be on the website by noon. The results in a lack of depth in reporting and gives those being investigated an opportunity to change or cover up their behavior before the whole story can come out.

He seemed to think the demise of the real, tangible newspaper is inevitable, but hopeful that forces like google would come up with some new model that allowed for real, responsible, deep reporting while embracing technology.

I enjoyed the speech and the anecdotes. But he's still a Republican.

ARK. BLOG: My source on that is a faithful blog reader who I ran into immediately after the event. He perhaps can provide further elaboration of what he told me last night.

"Bush's response (which I'm paraphrasing here) was, "I didn't know that. I don't attend those meetings. I have other things to do.""

That's close, but you left out one phrase that is fairly revealing of our ex-president. He said something like, "You'd be glad to know that... I don't attend those meetings because I have other things to do." I was quite taken aback by that myself.

I got in kind of late, but I didn't see any ovations before the speech started either. I sure didn't stand up. One funny thing I noticed about the crowd was one guy sitting near me raised his hand when asked who voted for McCain, then later raised his hand again when asked who has ever received a grade of D-. Maybe Woodward will write a short article investigating how Beebe earned his "half-a-D-minus," that he apparently admitted getting last night.

Though not the one referenced above, I too am a faithful reader of this Blog and I definitely remember a standing ovation when Woodward was introduced. I throughly enjoyed his talk and was happy to be in the audience.

When I started reading the first book for this series of four I was so disappointed I couldn't finish it. (He didn't reference it last night that I remember.) I heard better reviews about the second but skipped it. When "State of Denial" came out I decided to give it a try and couldn't put it down.
There was more detail there than I had known.

I forgave him for getting it wrong in the beginning because he absolutely got it right before he quit.

I think you're right mcbsmith, he's a republican.

i was on the front row. there was no standing ovation before he spoke, unless it was the back four rows in a crowd of 1300+, i.e. no one noticed. Either way who cares, it was an enlightening talk. Maybe in the eyes of the way left on here he's sounds like a republican, but i don't think so.

I was in the very back of the room (sitting sideways for some reason -- what were chair setter-uppers thinking) and could see everyone. Maybe 15 people stood up when he was introduced. Not exactly a resounding Standing O but still a few.

You must have been eating when he also said that he thought Bush had the purest of intent to save the many Iraqi people who WERE freed from Saddamm. And he also thinks the surge was successful and that Iraq is in better shape now than ever. Read the latest book

I'm the one who told Max about people in the audience standing up when Woodward was introduced. The whole row behind me jumped up as did a number of others scattered among the audience. My wife told me to be quite when I whispered to her wondering why anyone would want to give Woodward a standing ovation before he uttered a word. I suspect your location in the audience would color your opinion as to who stood up and where they were.

As for Woodward's presentation I enjoyed it and wish Woodward had caught on to Bush long before he did. I haven't read any of Woodwards Bush books but now intend to with his current opinions in mind.

When I got there I was on the last row on a side. A bit later there were a few rows of chairs behind me. I did not see anyone standing when he was introduced. At the end some people stood, but I think it was mostly people hurrying to leave and not a standing ovation.

It was an interesting talk and I am glad I went. It underscored my beliefs about how bad Bush was as President.