१७ नोव्हेंबर, २००५
Bob Woodward is in the news.
I haven't been following the Plame story closely. The infusion of Bob Woodward into it excites some folks, but I've always found Woodward frightfully dull. Maybe he gets his stories by being so gray that people don't notice him. But I ran across a drawing I did of him a while back, saying something so quintessentially Woodwardish. I have no idea what he was talking about, but I love the maddening blandness of it.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२० टिप्पण्या:
How could something that is undefinable/indefinable (it would seem enough people make the substitution that undefinable has become acceptable, though indefinable is preferred) be described as clear.
Clarity can't be a quality of something that can't be defined, the very definition of indefinable precludes that which deserves description as being indefinable as being clear.
Unless you are talking about the quote itself cause clearly, it's undefinable.
(and nice drawing by the way, sort of Crumb meets Cocteau in my opinion)
And I think Scooter might be off the hook since Chris Matthews went with Sen. Kerry pontificating about how much better we would be with him making decisions about Iraq (and did he forget to mention that he served in Vietnam, why no he didn't forget, he even managed to mention Vice-President Cheney's five deferments since somehow that's relevant to a discussion about Iraq policy).
Matthews has been all Plame all the time for quite some time, so now that a potentially major revelation counter to his own views on the matter has arisen, he's changed topics.
Scooter's off the hook? That's hilarious.
I admit I've lost interest in the case, or maybe it's so labrynthine I simply don't have the time to figure it out, but I don't see that this has any impact on Scooter's case. He's not being prosecuted for leaking; he's being prosecuted like Martha was, for lying about the lie...er, alleged lie. See, I'm lost!
The big macro picture that's developing is the incestuous and cynical relationship that the press has with government. They are hangers on and users, not whistleblowers, and stars like Woodward or Miller use their access for private gain as much as for a sense of dedication to journalism.
Oh, I like the drawing, too, especially with the text!
(and nice drawing by the way, sort of Crumb meets Cocteau in my opinion)
Wow, XWL -- you hit the nail on the cuticle!
Crumb meets Cocteau. Perfect.
I propose Ann do a sketch for Christmas, for her Althouse readers.
Cheers,
Victoria
Victoria:
I second that motion. All in favor, say "aye"!
Darn, I wish I could draw.
I think you figured out what your critics don't like. Ugh. Leave drawing to the School of Design.
I propose we send Reggie to Barbizon, to show us how it's done.
Cheers,
VIctoria
And the text in the bubble is priceless! Seems so Woodwardian.
He was one of my early-teen heroes, but I've been so over him since the "Veil" era.
Enjoyed the drawing.
I, too, don't really see this as changing the Libby case. This does push back the timeline a bit, and adds to the suggestion that at least some in the Administration thought that she was working for the DI, not the DO, side of the CIA in WMD. But BFD.
It is going to be fun though. Libby's lawyers have every incentive to plow through whatever remains of a press privilege. I fully expect a good chunk of the Wash. D.C. and national press crowd to get involved somehow, either reporting, or testifying, or in Chris Mattews situation, no doubt both. It should be exp. enlightening as he talks in the 3rd person with his guests about the trial, in which he is the star prosecution witness.
But back to Woodward and Libby. Nada.
I get the feeling that Bob Woodward spied another opportunity to keep a man's name a secret for another 20 years.
Re: the pic -- But Bob Woodward has such a wrinkly face! How, as an artist, can you resist all those wrinkles? Wrinkles are such a joy to draw!
Balfegor: The picture is a good 10 or 12 years old.
sinister looking sketch
A holiday drawing? What the hell are you talking about?
Ann, in Victoria's comment, she called for a holiday drawing (well, sketch) from you, which I seconded, and then I called for a vote. Poor Wild just jumped on the bandwagon.
No, I just can't see why you picture me doing such a drawing. I wasn't thinking about the Christmas/holiday issue.
WOW! That's almost Greenspanspeak!
"It is going to be fun though. Libby's lawyers have every incentive to plow through whatever remains of a press privilege."
Amen. Perhaps this is why Woodward has been denigrating the investigation. I can't wait for the veil to be lifted, once and for all!
A holiday drawing? What the hell are you talking about?
Aww.
I guess this means our Christmas drawing petition has been rubbished.
Well pfui on you, Ann!
And that drawing looks nothing like Bob Redford, either.
Cheers,
Victoria
You just have to know how to ask.
A holiday drawing with Santa mulling an important legal question while some sort of discharge flows from a bodily orifice might get a response.
(and a tastefully disgusting, and instructive drawing)
And the Hardball promos today have been hyping the fundraising for Libby's defense fund ($5M and counting, which evil corporations donated, tune in at 7pm EST to find out!) and Mo Dowd of all people is supposed to have an important new angle on the case (cause she is well known as an investigative journalist?).
Thank god, I was worried that he was going to drop this case, I prefer that he be distracted by the current bright and shiny object than spread half-truths about the War in Iraq or the Alito nomination.
And Woodward has been compared to Chance the gardener from Being There, that has always seemed apt.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा