More from Neo's commenters, on the Jeffrey Goldberg travesty, which has been convincingly denied but still "rings true," which is the important part:
As another commenter said, it's fish bait. If it gets viewers to click, who cares whether anyone believes it?
According to my anonymous sources, Dan Rather doesn't understand what all the fuss is about. What is truth but a gut feeling that serves a purpose?
And now we have Woodward's book just out claiming that Trump "knew" the Wuhan Virus was deadly 'way back when--because it was deadlier than the flu.
ReplyDeleteAnd we have Fauci on the record saying there's no difference between what Trump told Woodward and what Trump said publicly, along with the actions Trump actually took early on in the situation, roughly contemporaneous with the Woodward interview.
As Karl Rove just said, also, lots of folks have given Woodward interviews and come to regret them afterward.
Eric Hines
Eric, I think it's a matter of expectations. Woodward might move some people but is it a bombshell that Trump comes off badly in his book? Would a significant number of people think that wouldn't happen? Probably Trump didn't even expect to do more than damage control. "I didn't want a panic" isn't awful, particularly when you look at Biden and Pelosi claiming stopping flights from China was 'racist' even though it was one of the few effective things he could do. The case count and death rate in late October are going to matter more.
ReplyDeleteWoodward's nonsense might have had more effect if it weren't coming so soon on the heels of the Left's The Atlantic unsubstantiated slurs, followed by dozens of folks who do know saying on the record that Goldberg's stuff is...false.
ReplyDeleteI'm waiting for Jennifer Griffin (a most disappointing journalist) to pretend to corroborate Woodward with phantom sources like she tried to do with Goldberg.
The only thing that's keeping the Woodward nonsense alive now is the NLMSM. The smears are just going to keep coming, with less and less credibility.
"I didn't want a panic" isn't awful....
Keep in mind, too, Trump's reaction when his Secret Service detail took him out of a press conference in response to (limited, as it turned out) gunfire on the major street crossing in front of the White House. When he came back in to finish the presser, a reporter asked him if he was nervous/excited/(I don't recall the exact wording). Trump responded, in a calm voice, "Do I look excited?"
It's easy enough to argue that Trump's commentary often is counterproductive, but what matters is what he does and the calmness with which he does it. And that he does it at the speed of business, rather than at the stately (one might say glacial) pace of politics. He's generally inside the others' OODA loops, and that frustrates and infuriates them.
Eric Hines
I wonder which groIup trump was a leader of in the past livves
ReplyDelete