« Doug Wead and His Obvious Lies | Main | Calling A Spade a Spade...Outing Islam and that Madman Muhammed »
February 22, 2005
More Evidence that Doug Wead is Full of It
Further evidence that Doug Wead is a weasel and an embarassment to historians and authors (and humans) everywhere...
from newsmax.com:
Monday, Feb. 21, 2005 1:33 p.m. EST
Wead: Unreleased Tapes a 'Betrayal'
Audiotapes released Sunday of President Bush speaking in a private, off-the-record conversation may not be as damaging as critics had hoped, with Bush winning raves in some cases for sounding the same in unguarded moments as he does in public.
But presidential historian and former first family friend Doug Wead, who secretly recorded Bush, is hinting that the full nine hours of audio he has could be a different matter.
Asked whether the president would view his release of the audio as an act of treachery from a trusted friend, Wead told the Washington Post on Monday, "It depends on what else is on the tapes."
Then Wead implied that the unreleased material could be embarrassing, explaining, "Ninety percent of the tapes have not been heard. He can see that my motive was not to try to hurt him."
How could Bush see that, unless Wead was holding back damaging clips?
"If I released all the tapes, it would be an act of betrayal," the author told the Post, further indicating he has some explosive material.
But in the next breath Wead promised: "Most of them have never seen the light of day and never will."
That's not, however, what he told the New York Times for its front page story on Sunday, explaining that he wanted to release them when he died in order to leave the nation a unique record of Mr. Bush.
Other aspects of Wead's story are also raising concerns. He told the Times, for instance, that his motive in releasing some of his tapes had nothing to do with the fact that he has a new book to publicize.
However, the Post reports that Wead's publisher was deeply involved in making the tapes public.
"He said that he had never intended the tapes to become public, but that his publisher, Simon & Schuster, asked to hear them for libel reasons," reports the Post.
The Post continued, "He said after he played them for his editors, he was contacted by the Times and agreed to play portions for a reporter."
Why was the Times alerted? And why did Wead agree to help the paper if he never intended to make the tapes public?
At this point, there's only one logical answer: Mr. Wead's earlier plan to hide his tapes forever changed radically once his publisher began to see dollar signs.
Posted by Josh at February 22, 2005 09:59 PM