Brutal battle among the US elite: "Woodward adds little of interest to the preponderance of evidence that the war was both unwise and unnecessary... It is striking that Woodward was able to interview 75 of the highest ranking government officials without any of them suspecting that he might blind sight the President with privileged information... His newspaper, (The Washington Post) while more nuanced than either FOX News or the Washington Times, is equally guilty in crafting a narrative that supports the basic institutions of American power. To be sure, the Post did not equivocate when it came to creating a "story-line" that was sympathetic to invading a defenseless Iraq. Now, apparently, since the policy of staying in Iraq is set in stone, he feels comfortable in tossing Bush out of the lifeboat.

"This is a struggle between American elites battling over the political direction of the country. Woodward knows how to play the game as well as anyone. His interview on 60 Minutes was just the first salvo in what looks to be a brutal campaign. He has reconciled the idea of sticking the dagger in Bush knowing full well that Kerry is in the wings ready to carry out the same policies with just a tad bit more discretion. His assault on Bush is not so much a challenge to the existing framework of American power, as it is an effort at "fine-tuning" its operation by supporting more competent leadership.

"This is how newspaper editors assume the role of "kingmaker;" creating heroes out of flawed politicians, and then, knocking them down with a stroke of the pen. 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"."

But what if the Bush gang decide they dont want to play this game any more, that they dont want to be thrown out of power by some 'brutal' journalist?

Brutal battle among the US elite: "Woodward adds little of interest to the preponderance of evidence that the war was both unwise and unnecessary... It is striking that Woodward was able to interview 75 of the highest ranking government officials without any of them suspecting that he might blind sight the President with privileged information... His newspaper, (The Washington Post) while more nuanced than either FOX News or the Washington Times, is equally guilty in crafting a narrative that supports the basic institutions of American power. To be sure, the Post did not equivocate when it came to creating a "story-line" that was sympathetic to invading a defenseless Iraq. Now, apparently, since the policy of staying in Iraq is set in stone, he feels comfortable in tossing Bush out of the lifeboat.

"This is a struggle between American elites battling over the political direction of the country. Woodward knows how to play the game as well as anyone. His interview on 60 Minutes was just the first salvo in what looks to be a brutal campaign. He has reconciled the idea of sticking the dagger in Bush knowing full well that Kerry is in the wings ready to carry out the same policies with just a tad bit more discretion. His assault on Bush is not so much a challenge to the existing framework of American power, as it is an effort at "fine-tuning" its operation by supporting more competent leadership.

"This is how newspaper editors assume the role of "kingmaker;" creating heroes out of flawed politicians, and then, knocking them down with a stroke of the pen. 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"."

But what if the Bush gang decide they dont want to play this game any more, that they dont want to be thrown out of power by some 'brutal' journalist?