Should Woodward Have Been Picked To Review Tenet’s Book?

Not according to Tyler Green:

    To recap: Woodward reviewed the book that he repeatedly advised the writer to write. Woodward reviewed the book even after he made extensive recommendations to the writers on what to include. (Judging from Woodward’s description he was a full-fledged advisor to the co-writer.) And, of course, Woodward reviewed the book after the writer(s) failed to follow his advice. Naturally he half-pans it. (To entirely pan it might, I suppose, call into question his recommendation to write it.)

    I know we’re all supposed to be numb to Bob Woodward’s ethical conflicts: When the 99th doesn’t matter, why should the 100th? But this is an unquestionably clear example of where the disclosure of conflict of interest is not enough. Woodward should not have been allowed near this review.

Read the review here and below is Woodward’s “full disclosure”:

    Full disclosure: In discussions with Tenet as a reporter for this paper, I many times urged him to write his memoir, and, after he resigned from the CIA, I even spent a day with him and his co-writer, Bill Harlow, in late 2005 to suggest questions he should try to address. Foremost, I hoped that he would provide intimate portraits of the two presidents he had served as CIA director — George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Instead, he has adhered to the rule of CIA directors: protect the president at all costs.