PressEthic

In reading several of the articles about the conflict of the new Bob Woodard book and the Bush administration I am confused as to why the Bush administration would immediately refute the claims in the book. They have come back in recent days to say yes, certain meetings did occurr but this wasn't said or this exact part didn't happen. It almost sounds as though they wanted to be the first to say it didn't happen with the things in the book are not very flattering of the Bush adminstration. Who knows who is telling the complete truth- would anybody really admit it if they weren't? i think it is very interesting that once again this evidence is being presented and that as usual the White House is taking the stance that they are not at all at fault for doing more to stop the Sept. 11 attacks. What does Bob Woodard really have to gain from this book other than a little notriety? What does the Bush administration have to lose? A lot...