John Kerry was today using the contents of another book against President Bush. Yes, another book, this time by Bob Woodward. I’ve just finished reading 10 (ten) articles published today about Woodward’s book. All the articles contained wording like “Woodward wrote,” “Woodward said,” “he contends,” etc. So if someone says something, it’s true? Please show me a memo or play a tape -- show me the evidence. Is Woodward’s new book substantiated as badly as Richard Clarke’s book? I did see a memo written by Clarke himself which contradicted his own book and the claims he made before the 9/11 Commission. I lost all respect for Clarke when I realized he was peddling a book and movie deal. And Woodward’s book? The Washington Post, whom Woodward works for, has a “deal” with the book’s publisher, Simon & Schuster, to print excerpts. No conflict of interest? Hmmm…

Of the 10 articles I read today, only one, written by Mike Whitney for counterpunch.org, was truly compelling. I found Mr. Whitney to be over the top in his assessment of American poltics, but he was the only person willing to question Woodward’s intentions. While Whitney is scathing in his criticism of Bush’s Iraq policy, he takes Woodward to task, branding him a “political assassin:”

…there is a question of whether Woodward may have had a larger purpose in savaging Bush on national TV. …

Could it be that Woodward has an agenda of his own, or is he just the straight-shooting journalist who "tells it like it is?" …

Woodward is the ultimate insider; a major player among Washington power brokers. He is as much a part of the established order as anyone in the Administration or anyone leading a major American corporation. …

Woodward is a bright guy. He saw through the Bush façade long ago, but it didn't suit his purposes to blow the whistle. Now, he is trying to affect the appearance a cub reporter who is merely "acting in the public interest".

It's pure hypocrisy.

Bob Woodward is at the very epicenter of the nation's corrupt core; a poseur who regulates the flow of information so it fits his own political agenda.

So Woodward claims there were divisions in the Bush Administration between, for example, Colin Powell and Vice President Dick Cheney. Powell has vociferously denied Woodward’s allegations. But what’s the point? Is anyone surprised by differences between a group of power-brokers? Our democracy is supposed to encourage dissent.

So the Bush administration had contingency plans for a war in Iraq. Is this a surprise? Aren’t our leaders supposed to plan ahead? So what if the president decided to go to war in January 2003 instead of in March 2003?

The UN Security Council voted unanimously on 08/11/2002 to hold “Iraq in ‘material breach’ of its obligations under previous resolutions.” The same resolution “recall[ed] [a] repeated warning of ‘serious consequences’ for continued violations” by Iraq. Knowing Bush as a man of his word, what do you think he would be doing after this resolution passed?

Finally, what about Woodward’s claim the Bush and the Saudi royal family were secretly manipulating oil prices? They must not being doing a very good job, because oil prices are really high right now. I’ve heard all sorts of post-9/11 conspiracy theories about Bush and the Saudis. I personally despise the Saudi royal family, but I haven’t seen any proof that Bush is making secret deals with then. Woodward claims Bush briefed the Saudis before the Iraq war? What, so Bush could listen to Saudi objections? What the Saudis fear most is democracy -- a democracy on their own border. What more could undermine their theocratic dictatorship? I hardly think there was collusion between Bush and the Saudis on something that the royal family finds to be the greatest threat to their continued tyranny. Again, show me a memo or play me a tape.

What a surprise, the appeaser Kerry is trying to make political hay out of another book. Kerry doesn’t have much a track record from my vantage point. The senator has based much of his campaign criticizing Bush on Iraq. The problem is, Kerry has nothing substantial to say. He claims that he’d get the world community more involved. But how will he do this when the U.N. won’t touch Iraq with a 10-foot pole because of “security concerns?” Just who’s going to provide “security” for a U.N. presence in Iraq, besides the United States? Look at Spain. First the new Spanish Socialist prime minister said he’d only keep his troops in Iraq if he got U.N. approval. Now he’s pulling his troops out in 15 days. So what, he lied? With this type of support, who needs supporters? Books or not, Kerry is an armchair quarterback.