Woodward, Bob 1943- (Robert Upshur Woodward)

PERSONAL:

Born March 26, 1943, in Geneva, IL; son of Alfred E. Woodward (a judge) and Jane Woodward Barnes; married Elsa Walsh, November 29, 1974 (some sources say November 25; divorced); children: Mary Taliesin, Diana. Education: Yale University, B.A., 1965.

ADDRESSES:

Home—Washington, DC. Office—Washington Post, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20071-0001.

CAREER:

Montgomery County Sentinel, Rockville, MD, reporter, 1970-71; Washington Post, Washington, DC, reporter, 1971-78, editor, 1979-81, assistant managing editor, 1981—. Military service: U.S. Navy, active duty, 1965-70; became lieutenant.

AWARDS, HONORS:

Pulitzer Prize to the Washington Post, Drew Pearson Foundation award, Heywood Brun award, George Polk Memorial Award, Sidney Hillman Foundation award, Worth Bingham prize, and Sigma Delta Chi award, all 1973, all for investigative reporting of the Watergate scandal; Worth Bingham Prize, 1986.

WRITINGS:

(With Carl Bernstein) All the President's Men, Simon & Schuster (New York, NY), 1974, reprinted, 1999.

(With Carl Bernstein) The Final Days, Simon & Schuster (New York, NY), 1976.

(With Scott Armstrong) The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court, Simon & Schuster (New York, NY), 1979.

Wired: The Short Life and Fast Times of John Belushi, Simon & Schuster (New York, NY), 1984.

Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987, Simon & Schuster (New York, NY), 1987.

The Commanders, Simon & Schuster (New York, NY), 1991.

(With David S. Broder) The Man Who Would Be President: Dan Quayle, Simon & Schuster (New York, NY), 1992.

The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House, Simon & Schuster (New York, NY), 1994.

The Choice, Simon & Schuster (New York, NY), 1996.

Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate, Simon & Schuster (New York, NY), 1999.

Maestro: Greenspan's Fed and the American Boom, Simon & Schuster (New York, NY), 2000.

Bush at War, Simon & Schuster (New York, NY), 2002.

Plan of Attack, Simon & Schuster (New York, NY), 2004.

The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat, Simon & Schuster (New York, NY), 2005.

State of Denial, Simon & Schuster (New York, NY), 2006.

Contributor to The Fall of a President, by the staff of the Washington Post, Dell (New York, NY), 1974. Coauthor, with Christopher Williams, of The Nightmare Years, a screenplay for television based on William Shirer's memoir of the same title, in 1986; and Under Siege, a movie made for television by the National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) in 1986.

ADAPTATIONS:

All the President's Men was made into a Warner Bros. film starring Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford in 1976; a film version of Wired was produced by Edward S. Feldman for release in 1989.

SIDELIGHTS:

Journalist Bob Woodward had been with the Washington Post nine months on the night police beat when he was called upon to cover the arraignment of five men who had been arrested for breaking into the Democratic National Committee's offices in the Watergate complex. The astonished young reporter learned the burglars had CIA connections and that one of them, James McCord, was an employee of the Committee to Reelect the President. Woodward teamed with Carl Bernstein, and the two followed the story from a Washington courtroom through a complicated tangle of clandestine political activity into the highest offices of the White House. The affair eventually led, in part due to Woodward and Bernstein's persistent efforts, to the resignation of numerous government officials in the executive branch, including that of President Richard Nixon.

All the President's Men was originally planned to be a compilation of articles describing Woodward and Bernstein's investigative work for the Washington Post. At the time—October 1972—Woodward and Bernstein were the only reporters pursuing the Watergate story. Scant attention from the rest of the press had left the two with a lot of unpublished information, which they intended to publish in a book describing the secret activities of White House aides. Two chapters of this book were already written when Judge Sirica released to the press a letter he had received from James McCord, in which McCord revealed the involvement of higher-ups in the burglary, and the perjury and political pressure that had occurred during his trial. Realizing that by the time their book was finished it would appear to be merely a rehashing of well-reported events, Woodward then suggested that the book should tell the story of how the two discovered and reported on the Watergate cover-up.

The story was written in a third-person narrative style. The authors worried that a more personal point of view might appear to be an "ego trip" when describing their successes or a defense or justification of their failures. The reporters openly acknowledged their mistakes: they approached grand jury members for information; they revealed a confidential source; and they overstepped some guidelines in certain rights to privacy. As reporters and authors, they wanted to be objective and honest. It was decided that the third-person narrative, with its advantage of impartiality, would allow them the best opportunity to do this. Critics praised the book wholeheartedly for its ability to sustain reader interest, for its behind-the-scenes explanation of the workings of a large metropolitan newspaper, and for its indispensable historical value. Reviewers commended the coauthors for their frankness and their fascinating personal portraits of the men surrounding the president.

After the completion of All the President's Men, the reporters turned their attention back to the final ranklings of Watergate. They planned to focus on six senators and compile background for a book about the apparent upcoming impeachment trial of Nixon, a project they dropped when it became obvious that the president was going to resign. They then decided their next book would be based on the significant news in the day-today operation of the White House that was being overlooked by much of the rest of the press. The authors explained in the foreword to The Final Days: "Some of our most reliable sources said that the real story of those final days of the Nixon presidency had not been adequately told; to report that story and sort through the contradictions would require a concentrated effort of perhaps a year or more."

The authors, taking a leave of absence from the Washington Post, hired two assistants and quickly fanned out a few days after Nixon's resignation to interview everyone associated with the White House who agreed to talk with them. Many sources demanded they not be identified before they consented to be interviewed, and some suggested that they would publicly deny any cooperation after the book appeared. Nearly 400 people were interviewed in six months. Many of them gave the authors access to their notes, memos, diaries, and logs.

In allowing the sources complete anonymity, Woodward and Bernstein knew they would have to accept responsibility for the accuracy of every statement made in The Final Days. In the foreword, the authors explained: "If we obtained two versions, we resolved disagreements through re-interviewing. If this proved impossible, we left out any material we could not confirm." Woodward added: "Anything in the book has been checked and rechecked. The more sensitive the material, the higher the standard we applied. There are several things being disputed now that we have as many as six sources for." The cross-checking and confirmation of all statements in the book was an enormous task of which the authors were quite proud.

The publication of The Final Days developed into a media event. Highlights of the book had been syndicated by Newsweek in a two-part, thirty-thousand-word excerpt containing many of the more controversial passages. The issue that included the second part was the fastest-selling issue in Newsweek's history. Like All the President's Men, The Final Days was a sure bet for commercial success. Upon release in 1976, it sold 500,000 copies in the first month. Another record was set in the book industry when paperback rights were sold for 1.5 million dollars.

The people written about in The Final Days were reported to believe the account to be "basically accurate" and without "factual error"; yet many complained that the book's total effect was an exaggeration, an overdramatization, and a distortion. These people and a few critics blamed the book's style, remarking that The Final Days was a narrative written from an omniscient point of view. In a Christian Science Monitor review, John Hughes commented: "Woodward and Bernstein were not inside the heads of the participants at the moment crucial events took place, and yet the book unceasingly gives that impression." On the other hand, New York Review of Books contributor Nicholas von Hoffman defended the point of view: "Assuming they have a good base for believing that so-and-so did say or think something close to that at the time, there's no reason to object. Using such devices as ‘he thought,’ ‘it seemed to her,’ etc., may make the narrative flow more easily and there's no need to think history has to be dull to be good." In fact, the self-imposed journalistic restraints limit the accuracy of the book, observed Von Hoffman, who concluded that, regarding Nixon's fall from power, "The Final Days isn't the last word."

John K. Galbraith, writing in the Washington Post Book World, felt that the authors of The Final Days could have analyzed flaws in the American political system instead of prolonging the public scrutiny of Nixon's demise. In Woodward's next book, The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court, Woodward and coauthor Scott Armstrong also decline to analyze what they uncover about the inner workings of the U.S. government. Reviewers again questioned the reliability of the reporter's sources and complained that some of the revelations in the best seller were of a personal nature and made in poor taste. That The Brethren has sold so well despite these concerns reflects Woodward's ability to satisfy public curiosity in the United States, a country in which, said Galbraith, "politics … has become a major spectator sport."

After popular actor and comedian John Belushi died of a drug overdose in 1982, his widow asked Woodward to write about the popular actor's death. With characteristic diligence, Woodward interviewed hundreds of people "and conducted a marathon paper chase" for supporting evidence, Matt Beer related in his Detroit News review of Wired: The Short Life and Fast Times of John Belushi. In Beer's opinion, the scene in which "a friend finds Belushi's bloated body amid the trash of a week long binge in a Hollywood hotel" presents, in Beer's words, "the gonzo lifestyle of the 1970s in its harshest, most revealing light ever." Many reviewers found the amount of detail in the book overwhelming and sometimes irrelevant. "John Belushi died of excess. And it is excess that deals a near-fatal blow to investigative reporter Bob Woodward's encyclopedic, intermittently tedious account of the comedian's death," noted Beer.

Most notably dissatisfied with Woodward's portrayal of Belushi was his widow, Judy Jacklin Belushi, who felt that the book contained "too much of Belushi the cocaine fiend and bad boy, and not enough of Belushi the artist and good soul," in the words of Chicago Sun-Times reporter Darel Jevens. Jacklin Belushi tried to block the distribution of the book on the grounds that it contained family pictures she had not authorized for use; however, the real reason, she told Jevens, was that she wanted the public to know she did not approve of the book as a whole. Woodward's response to these and other negative comments was: "Read the book. It goes on and on about his talent, going into skit after skit. I think they are reacting to a strong and reasonable wish that it had been different, that it hadn't happened, and I understand they don't want to remember him this way…. I believe their distress is directed at what happened to John and not my reporting."

Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987 presents what many considered a largely sympathetic portrait of the late William Casey, formerly the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), who saw the CIA as an active branch of the Reagan administration. Casey felt that it was up to the CIA to make its own foreign policy, using covert means when necessary. Angered by various parts of the book were Casey's widow, Ronald and Nancy Reagan, other journalists, and critics who felt that the book contained either too much or too little truth. Other reporters questioned Woodward's claim that the usually reticent Casey had granted him dozens of private interviews.

Some readers expressed disappointment that Veil revealed so little new information about the diversion of profits from Iran arms sales to the Contras in Central America. At the end of the book, Woodward records a conversation that took place in a hospital room shortly after Casey had undergone brain surgery. When asked if he knew of the diversion, Casey nodded his head to indicate yes; when asked for an explanation, he reportedly replied, "I believed." In the opinion of several reviewers, disputes about whether or not this exchange actually took place sidestep more important issues raised in the book. More important, reviewers suggested, are the other CIA activities disclosed in the book, such as a failed assassination attempt in Beirut that left eighty dead and hundreds injured. Woodward apparently agreed. The book's subject, he told Los Angeles Times writer Betty Cuniberti, is "Casey and the CIA, six years and one day, how essentially they went unmonitored, where he had in a certain sense a blank check within the executive branch to do what he wanted and that he was able to roll, or frustrate Congress. To a certain extent we all kind of have to face what happened. And it's not a very encouraging story."

In The Commanders Woodward covers the events leading up to both the Panama and Iraq military conflicts. In particular, Woodward examines the conversations and decision making of General Colin Powell, President George Bush, Sr., and administration figures such as Brent Scowcroft, Jim Baker, and Dick Cheney. Ross Thomas, reviewing in Los Angeles Times Book Review, called the tale "thoroughly engrossing." Michael Massing, however, writing for the New York Review of Books, felt that Woodward failed to exploit the potential of his material. He quoted Woodward's admission of it in a 1989 interview with Playboy: "I can't write those big cosmic analyses…. I read things by various people that I wish I could replicate, weaving fact and judgment, the kind of sophisticated calls that really help the narrative. But I am just not capable." Massing directed more serious criticism against Woodward's withholding of the Iraq information until after the war began: "To have sat on this information for so long might at first glance seem strange for the reporter—and the newspaper—that kept the Watergate story alive." However Massing conceded, "It suggests, though, a more guarded tendency on the part of journalists during the last twenty years…. The road from Watergate to the Gulf War is marked by ever greater cautiousness, and opportunism, on the part of the press. And Bob Woodward provides a particularly disquieting example of the change."

Woodward moves his camera-like eye to President Bill Clinton and his economic policies in The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House. Kevin Phillips, writing in Washington Post Book World, gave the work high praise: "No subsequent chronicler will be able to explain the Clinton administration's economic program without first reading Bob Woodward." While Phillips remarked on Woodward's failure to adequately follow up on the results and changes in "Clintonomics" (despite the epilogue), he concluded that "the essential corpus of the book should stand the test of time…. as a watershed in the interpretation and understanding of the ideology and intramural combat of Clintonomics." James Bowman, reviewing the book in the Times Literary Supplement, was less impressed, finding the book "shockingly ill written" and deploring Woodward's investigative style as "a new version of the omniscient narrator—now a tired and unfashionable figure in fiction who has acquired a new lease on life, it appears, in non-fiction." Reviewer Andrew Sullivan in the New York Times Book Review found The Agenda lacking "in major surprises … and, like Mr. Woodward's previous books [it] is animated by no coherent analysis and no guiding idea," but he concluded: "That doesn't make it any the less worthwhile as adumbrated, reliable gossip." In American Spectator contributor David Brock praised Woodward's "yeoman work in securing the kind of access to the highest levels in government that no other reporter can match."

The Choice is Woodward's examination of President Clinton and Senator Bob Dole during the 1996 presidential election. Dole and his wife, Elizabeth, allowed Woodward unprecedented access to themselves, while the Clintons were less forthcoming. According to reviewer David J. Garrow in Washington Post Book World, while the information on the Clintons—provided by persons other than themselves—was more "newsworthy," including campaign finance allegations and Mrs. Clinton's consultation with a spiritual advisor, "the most fascinating portions … concern Bob and Elizabeth Dole." Garrow continued: "Woodward succeeds in making Bob Dole a more intriguing and complex character than Bill Clinton." However, he concluded that "Bob Woodward's top-notch journalism as instant history is an impressively well-done product, but almost inescapably, its shelf-life is destined to be relatively brief." Echoing previous reviewers of Woodward's books, Michiko Kakutani in the New York Times found fault with Woodward's style, omniscient voice, propensity to bestow equal weight on unequal facts, and insider status. Kakutani concluded: "No vision, no ideas, but lots of inside baseball." In the New York Times Book Review, Michael Lewis commented on Woodward's essential control of his subjects as a result of Woodward's own reputation: "Because of who he is, he doesn't have to pause to inquire: Is this really the story? Whatever he writes becomes the story."

In Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate, Woodward discusses the effect of the Watergate scandal on politics over the course of the ensuing thirty years. Specifically, Woodward outlines how increased media scrutiny has tarnished the reputations of all the presidents from Gerald Ford to Bill Clinton. Ford suffered from his pardon of Nixon, Carter from promising he would never lie to the American people and then having a hard time maintaining that policy in the face of foreign affairs turmoil. Reagan got caught in the media's web during the Iran-Contra scandal, Bush by association also suffered from the Iran-Contra scandal, and Clinton's many infidelities—legal and otherwise—led to an impeachment trial. The book is characterized by Woodward's trademark detailed re-creations of conversations between important players, a technique that some critics did not like. David N. Stone summarized the issue in a review in Tikkun: "I think there's a difference between a statement someone actually said and a statement someone recalls making or hearing. To me, the former deserves those quotations marks. The latter is merely conjecture."

A critic in Economist wrote that Shadow demonstrates how "the standards of honesty in [post-Watergate] Washington are so exacting that even the saintly Mr. Carter could not live up to them." Noting that an outline of the Clinton administration's problems, including those of Hillary Clinton and independent counsel Kenneth Starr, takes a disproportionate amount of space in Shadow, James Nuechterlein, reviewing in Commentary, wrote that the subject matter of the book is "painfully familiar" and that Woodward "does not add much that is substantively new." Art Levine, reviewing in Washington Monthly, praised Woodward's brand of journalism as "not only a monument to exhaustive and canny reporting, but he's also evolved, all by himself, into the Fifth Estate of government." Levine concluded that Shadow is an "unrivaled inside tour of Washington power."

Woodward examines one of the most talked-about Washington figures of the 1990s in Maestro: Greenspan's Fed and the American Boom. Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, gained celebrity status during the economic boom years of the 1990s for his management of banking industry interest rates in a manner widely believed to facilitate the decade's unprecedented financial market growth. The work presents a flattering portrait of a man who, according to Woodward, "helps breathe life into the vision of America as strong, the best, invincible." The book traces Greenspan's actions from Black Monday in 1987—just two months into his tenure—to the end of the twentieth century. Reviewer Noam Scheiber in Washington Monthly stated that "Woodward's Greenspan cuts an Olympian figure," although Scheiber countered that "the real Greenspan was just a bright guy with better-than-average instincts."

Greenspan also became an unofficial economic advisor to the Clinton administration, an expansion of power that previous Federal Reserve chairmen did not enjoy. Readers "get a revealing taste of the heavy politics involved and how Greenspan quietly and effectively shuffles through the most powerful ranks in Washington," wrote Time reviewer Daniel Kadlec. Acknowledging the mystique that has risen around Greenspan's sphinx-like demeanor, Maclean's writer Deirdre McMurdy likened Greenspan to Greta Garbo: "He cultivates an inscrutable veneer, punctuated by cryptic comments," and concluded that Maestro "presents a fascinating behind-the-scenes account of life at the epicentre of the economy." A Business Week writer noted that "while it doesn't contain any startling revelations … it's still replete with the sort of fly-on-the-wall reporting for which the Washington Post assistant managing editor is known." The writer concluded that "it's clear that [Woodward] enjoyed unparalleled access to many of the principal players in this saga."

Author William Greider, a former colleague of Woodward's at the Washington Post, wrote in the Nation that "the most compelling quality of a Woodward narrative is the authoritative sense of intimacy. The reader is right in the room with high officials, listening to the spirited back and forth among important players." Cuniberti reported that "There is a common thread in the criticisms leveled against all the books Woodward has written or coauthored…. And that thread, Woodward believes, is not inaccuracy. ‘It's contested ground,’ said Woodward, ‘and it's essentially people living their lives and conducting their business a certain way and projecting a way that is untruthful.’"

Woodward covered the George W. Bush White House in three separate books, Bush at War, dealing with the war in Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks; Plan of Attack, a blow-by-blow account of preparations for the war in Iraq; and State of Denial, a critique of the mismanagement of the war itself. Interviewing seventy-five key people in the administration for Plan of Attack, Woodward presents a picture of the two years of presidential maneuvering to launch a war against Saddam Hussein. A contributor for Publishers Weekly observed that the divide in critical assessment of Plan of Attack generally fell along political lines: "While many conservatives see it as a smear on the administration, many liberals feel Woodward has handled the situation with kid gloves." Thus Robert Kuttner, writing in the American Prospect, called Plan of Attack "another big wet kiss" for the president's re-election campaign. Likewise Matthew Rothschild of the Progressive thought that "Woodward lets Bush off easy and ultimately distorts the historical record." However, Christopher Meyer—a backer of the war in Iraq—writing in the New Statesman, found Plan of Attack to be an "engrossing book." Coming down in the middle was the Nation contributor Eric Alterman, who felt that Woodward "has partially redeemed himself" with this book after the rather hagiographic Bush at War. Some reviewers avoided the political for matters of substance. James Bowman, writing in the New Criterion, observed that though Plan of Attack "is as full of information as the rest of Woodward's books, [it] makes virtually no contribution to our knowledge either of President Bush and his administration or of the war in Iraq. Part of the problem is Woodward's own inarticulateness." Hendrik Hertzberg, writing in the New Yorker, also had problems with Plan of Attack on stylistic grounds, noting that its publication "is an event, but not, it must be said, a literary event." Hertzberg went on to observe that "writing … has never been [Woodward's] strength." And, like Woodward's earlier books, Hertzberg contended, Plan of Attack is a "stranger to anything resembling emotive prose, narrative ingenuity, or analytic power." Bowman also noted that "you don't have to be a high stylist or any arty type to be shocked by the poor quality of the writing here." Other critics dealt with substance over style. Stan Crock, writing in Business Week, noted that Woodward's work "offers a close study of signposts passed on the way to America's current difficulties in Iraq." Along the same lines, a critic for the Economist commented that "more than thirty years after the Watergate scandal Bob Woodward still has the power to open up the inner workings of the White House." And Karl Helicher, reviewing Plan of Attack in Library Journal, noted that "at times the reader can be overwhelmed by an abundance of facts and the author's shifting from one topic to another." Still, Helicher felt that "some notable chapters about intelligence in Iraq are as engrossing as the best espionage thrillers."

The deference toward the president that, according to many critics, characterized much of Bush at War is notably absent in State of Denial, which chronicles the mismanagement of the Iraq war. In this volume, Woodward depicts George W. Bush as uninformed, intellectually dull, and driven by an irrational optimism rather than any realistic assessment of world conditions. According to New York Times Book Review contributor Franklin Foer, "Where Bush appeared resolute in the first two installments of Woodward's trilogy, he now comes across as a ‘Saturday Night Live’ version of himself." Despite evidence of failure in Iraq, the president continued to speak of victory and to pursue doggedly his view that his ideals can be imposed in the Middle East. As a writer for the Economist put it, Woodward shows Bush to be "incurious to the point of doltishness" and "optimistic to the point of delusion." Harsh as this criticism is, however, Woodward levels worse at then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, whom he casts as the main architect of the failure in Iraq.

"Although others have detailed the Bush administration's incompetence and head-in-the-sand attitude as the Iraqi insurgency took root," wrote a USA Today contributor, "State of Denial provides fresh details about the myriad ways administration officials, particularly … Rumsfeld, bungled the Iraq war." The book's message, the reviewer noted, is that "a ruinous mix of arrogance and naivete" on the administration's part is what led to such calamitous results in Iraq. Noting in particular the book's charge that in July of 2001 National Security Council head Condoleezza Rice brushed off the warnings of CIA director George Tenet that high levels of "chatter" indicated the probability of a terrorist attack, the Economist reviewer concluded that State of Denial would aim a devastating blow at the Republican party. More muted praise came from Spectator reviewer Jonathan Sumption, who called Woodward's method of research "haphazard" and who observed that "every page of this book rings with the sound of grinding axes." Woodward, Sumption went on to write, describes dramatic anecdotes but fails to provide "profound insights" about his material. On the other hand, Lawrence D. Freedman, reviewing the book in Foreign Affairs, deemed it "essential, and compelling, reading."

Though Woodward's The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat was published too late to make his source's identity a journalistic scoop—W. Mark Felt had revealed his role in a Vanity Fair article a few months earlier—the book nevertheless caused a considerable stir. Mark Harris, writing in Entertainment Weekly, observed that the book's real appeal is not its mystery story but its larger theme about journalistic ethics. "It is impossible to read Secret Man as anything but a ringing defense of the importance of confidential sources," wrote Harris, "and to wonder what turns history might have taken if Felt—who the author makes clear protected his identity with a fierce and wily instinct for self-preservation—had stayed silent." In the New York Times Book Review, contributor Christopher Hitchens noted that "Woodward's latest book is the best short discussion of [the] distinction—between the reporter as private eye and the reporter as stenographer—that has ever been published."

BIOGRAPHICAL AND CRITICAL SOURCES:

BOOKS

Havill, Adrian, Deep Truth: The Lives of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, Carol Publishing Group (Secaucus, NJ), 1993.

PERIODICALS

African Business, July, 2004, review of Plan of Attack, p. 65.

American Journalism Review, June-July, 2004, Mark Lisheron, review of Plan of Attack, p. 16.

American Prospect, June, 2004, Robert Kuttner, "All the President's Handouts," p. 44.

American Spectator, August, 1994, David Brock, review of The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House, p. 65.

Biography, fall, 2005, David M. Shribman, review of The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat; spring, 2007, Franklin Foer, review of State of Denial.

Booklist, August, 2005, Ilene Cooper, review of The Secret Man, p. 1951.

Business Traveller Asia Pacific, September, 2005, Margie T. Logarta, review of The Secret Man, p. 18.

Business Week, December 4, 2000, "Greenspan Revealed," p. 23; May 17, 2004, Stan Crock, "The Road to—and from—Iraq," p. 24.

Chicago Sun-Times, October 16, 2005, Darel Jevens, "The Un-wired Belushi."

Christian Science Monitor, May 19, 1976, John Hughes, review of The Final Days; July 31, 1996, Lawrence J. Goodrich, review of The Choice, p. 15;

Chronicle of Higher Education, June 17, 2005, "With ‘Deep Throat’ Revealed, U. of Texas Will Get Remaining Watergate Papers."

Columbia Journalism Review, September 1, 1992, William Boot, review of The Man Who Would Be President: Dan Quayle, p. 57; September 1, 2005, "Beyond Deep Throat: Other Watergate Mysteries Remain, and the Woodstein Archives Are Full of Clues," p. 51.

Commentary, September, 1999, James Nuechterlein, review of Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate, p. 66.

Credit Union Journal, March 13, 2006, "Credit Union Questions for Bob Woodward," p. 13.

Detroit News, July 1, 1984, Matt Beer, review of Wired: The Short Life and Fast Times of John Belushi.

Economist, September 18, 1999, review of Shadow, p. 7; April 24, 2004, "All Another President's Men; Bob Woodward on Iraq," p. 84; July 9, 2005, "A Principle to Protect; Deep Throat," p. 73; October 7, 2006, "Cross-eyed and Clueless; Lexington," p. 42.

Entertainment Weekly, July 22, 2005, Mark Harris, "Throat Lozenge: In the Secret Man, Bob Woodward Offers Fitful Relief to a Watergate Mystery" p. 80.

Foreign Affairs, January 1, 2007, Lawrence D. Freedman, review of State of Denial, p. 160.

Harvard International Review, summer, 2003, "The Buck Stops Here: The Bush Administration at War."

Library Journal, June 15, 2004, Karl Helicher, review of Plan of Attack, p. 86.

Los Angeles Times, June 17, 1984, Lawrence Christon, review of Wired, p. B2; September 30, 1987, Betty Cuniberti, "Did ‘Nod’ Mean He Knew of Diversion?," p. 15 October 2, 1988, Betty Cuniberti, "Woodward's High Wire Act," p. 1.

Los Angeles Times Book Review, October 11, 1987, Doyle McManus, review of Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987; May 12, 1991, Ross Thomas, review of The Commanders.

Maclean's, December 18, 2000, Deirdre McMurdy, "The Greenspan Mystique," p. 36.

Nation, September 9, 1996, Lynn Phillips, review of The Choice, p. 39; January 1, 2001, William Greider, "Father Greenspan Loves Us All," p. 11; May 10, 2004, Eric Alterman, "Woodward Returns," p. 10.

National Review, December 4, 1984, Victor Gold, review of Veil, p. 48.

New Criterion, June, 2004, James Bowman, "Not Made up but Unmade," p. 55.

New Leader, June 1, 1992, Barry Gewen, review of The Man Who Would Be President, p. 5.

New Republic, August 9, 2004, James Wood, "The Digressionist," p. 26.

New Statesman, May 17, 2004, Christopher Meyer, "The Heart of the Matter," p. 48; October 30, 2006, "Gang of Three," p. 56.

New Yorker, May 10, 2004, Hendrik Hertzberg, "In the Soup," p. 98.

New York Review of Books, June 10, 1976, Nicholas von Hoffman, review of The Final Days; February 7, 1980, Anthony Lewis, review of The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court, p. 3; June 27, 1991, Michael Massing, review of The Commanders, p. 6; September 19, 1996, Joan Didion, review of The Choice, p. 14.

New York Times, June 2, 1984, Anatole Broyard, review of Wired, p. 15; June 28, 1996, Michiko Kakutani, review of The Choice, p. B15; September 30, 2006, "A Portrait of the President as the Victim of His Own Certitude," p. 7.

New York Times Book Review, October 18, 1987, David C. Martin, "Mighty Casey"; July 3, 1994, Andrew Sullivan, review of The Agenda, p. 2; July 28, 1996, Michael Lewis, review of The Choice; July 11, 1999, Michael Lind, "All the Presidents' Messes"; July 24, 2005, Christopher Hitchens, "The Insider," p. 8; November 12, 2006, Franklin Foer, "Now What?," p. 9.

New York Times Magazine, August 15, 1999, Frank Rich, "All the Presidents Stink," p. 42.

People, November 9, 1987, Ken Gross, review of Veil, p. 24; May 3, 2004, Michelle Green and Macon Morehouse, "D.C. Sleuth," p. 81; July 18, 2005, Alicia Shepard, review of The Secret Man, p. 50.

Political Science Quarterly, spring, 1993, Robert M. Guttman, review of The Man Who Would Be President.

Progressive, June, 2004, Matthew Rothschild, review of Plan of Attack, p. 45.

Publishers Weekly, October 31, 1980, review of The Brethren, p. 84; June 7, 2004, review of Plan of Attack, p. 21; April 20, 1992, review of The Man Who Would Be President, p. 47.

Spectator, November 4, 2006, Jonathan Sumption, "Versailles by the Potomac."

Tikkun, September, 1999, David M. Stone, "Still in Watergate's Shadow," p. 77.

Time, December 25, 2000, Daniel Kadlec, "Summing up Greenspan: In Two Looks at the Fed Chairman, Too Little Insight," p. 160.

Times Literary Supplement, January 22, 1988, Ernest May, review of Veil; September 20, 1996, James Bowman, "The Choice."

USA Today, July 1, 2005, "Book Provides Missing Pieces of the ‘Deep Throat’ Puzzle," p. 4; July 5, 2005, "Woodward's ‘Secret’ Goes Wide but Not Deep," p. 4; October 4, 2006, "Denial, Arrogance Led U.S. into Iraq Trap," p. 10.

U.S. News and World Report, May 3, 2004, John Leo, "George W. Bush, by the Book," p. 13.

Washington Monthly, December 1, 1987, Gregg Easterbrook, review of Veil, p. 56; September 1, 1996, Matthew Cooper, review of The Choice, p. 38; October, 1999, Art Levine, a review of Shadow, p. 32; January, 2001, Noam Scheiber, "Maestro: Greenspan's Fed and the American Boom," p. 60.

Washington Post Book World, April 11, 1976, John K. Galbraith, review of The Final Days; May 27 1984, Ross Thomas, review of Wired, p. 1; June 5, 1994, Kevin Phillips, review of The Agenda, p. 1; June 30, 1996, David J. Garrow, review of The Choice, p. 1.

Weekly Standard, August 29, 2005, "The FBI Informant: Bob Woodward Cashes in on Watergate—Again," p. 42.

ONLINE

All Things Considered,http://www.npr.org/ (September 27, 2007), "Interview: David Gergen Discusses People's General Willingness to Be Interviewed by Bob Woodward," "White House Steps up Rhetoric, Denies Charges," "Woodward's Tone Changes in New Bush Chronicle;" "Analysis: In Search of Deep Throat's Parking Garage."

Bob Woodward Home Page,http://www.bobwoodward.com (September 27, 2007).

Day to Day,http://www.npr.org/ (September 27, 2007), "Analysis: How Bob Woodward Has Been Able to Get Access to the Bush Administration While Other Reporters Cannot," "Is Bush White House in ‘State of Denial’?"

Newsweek online,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ (September 27, 2007), Chris Kleponis, "The Essence of Tragedy"; Jon Meacham, interview with Bob Woodward.