No Tom, I don't know anything one way or the other about Woodward's credibility except from his past history with the Watergate era. Obviously he established credibility during that time but I'm not naive enough to believe that credibility is good for life.

But here's where the human part comes in, the part you never seem to address. If Woodward is lying or misrepresenting the facts about the issues he raises in his book, what's the motivation? Let's say your assumption is that his motivation is simply selling books. That by itself would be a valid conclusion but there a huge side-effects to this tactic. Woodward and any other journalist has a requirement, if they intend to continue making an income in this business, to keep their reputation stellar. The man worked in a newspaper environment. He understands the implication of printing startling revelations without some form of backup. He's seen others around him fall for plagarism.

For Christ sake Tom, the man was given access into the corridors of the White House and has to know that his book is going to close that door shut for any future opportunities. I think if you'd just once drop your political blinders and start looking into the hearts of the people you're villifying you'd see why others are so annoyed at the way you pick out tiny details at the expense of the big picture.

Just for once let's imagine your post was more like this one:

Woodward's revelations, if true, would cast a dim light on the reasoning and decision-making ability of the President and his staff but let's take a look at the possibility that Woodward might be wrong. His motivation might be .......

But no Tom, there's no possibility in any truth to the things Woodward says to you because you are in until the end of this bunch and to give an inch feels like defeat. I can't ever imagine painting myself into a corner like that no matter how much I liked a particular philosophy or person. It must be a lonely feeling.

Art