Okay, so Bob Woodward wrote a book a few years ago that made George W. Bush out to be a decisive leader. The White House even recommended that people read the book in order to know the "real" Bush.
Now, Woodward's written a book that makes Bush out to be a pretty bad leader…one who ignored or isolated himself from good advice and who now presides over a military situation that's in chaos. (The book is entitled State of Denial: Bush at War, Part Three and that's an Amazon link to buy it, hint hint.)
So what happened here? Was Woodward accurate in the previous book and he's got it all wrong now? Was he wrong then and now he's wised up? Is there any way both portraits could be correct? I imagine both could be wrong but that's quite a contortion. Does Woodward suggest that George W. has undergone a massive change of personality and integrity in the last few years? Somebody help me here.
The book is just now getting out, just now being read. The last few days, we've seen people debating it on the basis of a few excerpts that have hit the Internet. Last night on The Tonight Show, Jay Leno and Bill O'Reilly discussed it and I don't think either had even read the excerpts, let alone the whole book.
So far, without benefit of actually knowing what Woodward wrote, the pro-Bush camp has tried suggesting that Woodward's earlier book was a work of integrity and that now that Bush-bashing is in vogue, he's gone that route because there's money in it. The anti-Bush crowd is throwing out the idea that Woodward was conned by Bush and hypnotized by Karl Rove before, but that he's finally snapped out of it and wised up. I don't know about you but I don't buy any of these explanations.
Mr. Woodward is making a promotional tour for the book. In the next week or so, he'll be on more shows than Brad Garrett…which makes sense because Woodward is funnier. Presumably, someone will ask him to reconcile his two versions of the current White House occupant. I'm curious to hear what he has to say.