There's a fight on the playground...who do you root for?
2006-10-02 04:50:56 · 16 answers · asked by a kinder, gentler me 7 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
You cannot really compare the two.
One is a journalist while other is a President.
One raised his profession while other lowered his office.
One is a legend who is arguably the only journalist (together with Carl) who changed Presidency compared to all the other parrot journalists nowadays. Name me a journalist who has made a similar impact. Truth is journalists despite all the talk about power of journalism. yada yada...they do not make serious immediate impact like Bob did in Watergate.Of 'cos as with any journalist, he has his critics.
The other on other hand will go down in history as arguably the worst. Possibly the only President to be booed/heckled on both his inauguration and his departure. It is sad 'cos normally when Presidents are about to leave office, there is usually sentimentality by public but it is impossible to see that happening. Many will be just so glad to see him get out.
Usually when you compare a journalist with a President, you are disgracing the President but in this case, the opposite is true.
So really there is no comparison.
2006-10-02 06:15:39 · answer #1 · answered by TheErrandBoy 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
All I have to say is that when Woodward wrote a complete suck-up book about the run-up to the war and Bush's "steadfastness," Bush created a link to his book from the White House's home page. Funny how Woodward was a believable guy back then, but now he's not. So much for steadfastness.
2006-10-02 05:00:25 · answer #2 · answered by Jack 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Bob Woodward. He proved everything he said about Nixon was true.
2006-10-02 04:59:05 · answer #3 · answered by butterflykisses427 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Woodward!! bush is too much a sissy boy and when he would yell for help, he would stutter so much, woodward would just kick the tar out of him!
2006-10-02 06:37:46 · answer #4 · answered by mcbrian2000 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Woodward, he has been shown to be honest in the past, while Bush has only been shown to be a liar.
2006-10-02 05:12:17 · answer #5 · answered by John J 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Bush.
Woodward needed to gin up his rating with Watergate fans. Not to mention a pro-Bush book wouldn't make nearly as much money. (Bush-bashing can be oh so lucrative...right Mr. Moore?)
2006-10-02 05:47:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Woodward... I am ashamed to be from Texas, or an American for that matter, with who was "elected" to represent us.
2006-10-02 04:58:29 · answer #7 · answered by betterlife_travel 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I bear in strategies listening to Rumsfeld conversing approximately this concept that later became into the call of his e book, and noticing one obvious logical omission. He reported that for the time of Iraq, there have been "everyday knowns", or issues we knew with fact; there have been "everyday unknowns", or issues we've been conscious that we did not understand; and there have been "unknown unknowns" or issues that we did not understand we did not understand. He for sure skipped over the class of "unknown knowns", or the failings we concept we knew, yet that have been in actuality thoroughly fake. He additionally blew my strategies whilst he reported that we knew precisely the place Saddamn's prohibited WMD have been....."in the section around Baghdad and Tikrit, and somewhat to the East, North, South, and West of there". No, he in no way made any errors...
2016-10-18 08:43:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bob Woodward is a self-serving lying scumbag...
2006-10-02 04:58:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Forget them & start enjoying with Yahoo Answers
2006-10-02 04:55:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋