Cognitive Dissonance at the Washington Post
when a lie just isn't enough
By streiff Posted in 2006 — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Bob Woodward’s new book has been launched with predictable controversy. The new book is the antithesis of his previous two books on the Bush administration leaving one to wonder which administration, and more importantly which Rumsfeld, exists.
Several comments in particular have drawn particular attention in regards to their accuracy. Andy Card has tried to walk back his comments. Brent Scowcroft has flatly disavowed them.
Politicians putting the bad-mouth on each other is hardly news. Nothing is more common in political circles than portraying your boss as an utter poltroon while pointing out how it is really you who have repeatedly saved his bacon, did his job, and made the world generally safe for democracy.
The comment that caught my eye, however, was that attributed to USMC General James Jones in a conversation he allegedly had with USMC General Peter Pace.
Read on.
I’m always skeptical of Woodward dialog and have been ever sense he interviewed a comatose Bill Casey on his deathbed in Bethesda Naval Hospital for his book Veil. (I’m not alone here.)
In Woodward’s book he alleges the following conversation took place:
In the summer of 2005, Marine Corps Gen. James L. Jones, the NATO commander, paid a call on his old friend Gen. Peter Pace, then the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It was virtually certain that Pace was going to move up to replace Myers as chairman, the top position in the U.S. military.
Jones expressed concern that Pace would even want to be chairman. "You're going to face a debacle and be part of the debacle in Iraq," he said. U.S. prestige was at a 50- or 75-year low in the world. He said he was so worried about Iraq and the way Rumsfeld ran things that he wondered if he himself should not resign in protest. "How do you have the stomach for eight years in the Pentagon?" he finally asked.
Pace said that someone had to be chairman. Who else would do it?
Jones did not have an answer. "Military advice is being influenced on a political level," he said. The Joint Chiefs had improperly "surrendered" to Rumsfeld. "You should not be the parrot on the secretary's shoulder."
Pace became chairman, and later flatly denied Jones had told him that Iraq was a debacle. "He's a good friend. He was in my wedding," Pace said, noting they had known each other for 36 years. "If Jim felt that way, he would tell me."
I called Jones at NATO headquarters in Belgium. He said that he had made all those comments to Pace in their meeting in 2005. "That's what I told him," he said.
So Pace says that conversation never happened and Woodward claims Jones confirmed the interview.
The story was seemingly settled today in a story in the Washington Post story headlined U.S. European Commander Confirms Quotes in Book.
In the article the reporter, the completely unreliable Thomas Ricks, claims:
Jones's confirmation of Woodward's account is especially noteworthy because in the book, Pace denies that Jones made such remarks to him.
But when one reads farther one finds:
Speaking at a Washington meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations, Jones said he had a long discussion with Pace in Stuttgart, Germany, in September 2005, and then met with Woodward in Brussels that December. He characterized both Pace and Woodward as old friends. Speaking of the book's account of the September conversation, he said, "I don't challenge Bob's characterization of it, except that had I seen [the book], I probably would have suggested that the tone was more critical than I intended it to be."
Jones, who plans to retire in a few months, repeatedly declined to discuss the specific wording of his comments to Woodward about Iraq. "I'm not going to get into recollections of adjectives," he said. "I did talk about Iraq with a concern that Iraq deserves."
"I don't think that Iraq is a debacle," Jones told reporters after the meeting. "Iraq is a big problem."
So when we examine the key element of the disagreement over the conversation Woodward recounts between Jones and Pace we find that both men agree that Jones did not refer to Iraq as a “debacle.” Only Woodward and Ricks and a copy editor for the Washington Post stand by Woodward’s account.
So how do we get a headline and reportage which baldly contradict the statements in the article?
As the trilogy of books produced by Washington Post writers in the past couple of months demonstrate the Post is actively seeking to influence the mid-term elections. They have gone so far as to refuse to print an extensive rebuttal to Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s account of the Iraq reconstruction effort by one of the men libeled by Chandrasekaran. Our own Pat Cleary has written about this.
The Post seems to have decided that no lie or mischaracterization is too trivial to be published on their pages and they simply will not brook the idea of admitting error if that interferes with their political agenda.
About the time of the assassination of Beningo Aquino’s at the hands of Ferdinand Marcos’ thugs a political joke made the rounds in the Philippines. How were George Washington, Richard Nixon, and Ferdinand Marcos alike? The first couldn’t tell a lie, the second couldn’t tell the truth, and the third couldn’t tell the difference. Right now the question for us is the Washington Post more like Nixon or Marcos?
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | The Bright Side of Being in the Minority — Comments (38) »
Cognitive Dissonance at the Washington Post 24 Comments (0 topical, 24 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"to be honest I'm not even sure who Jones and Pace are"
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Pace) and Commander of NATO forces (Jones). To quote Ron Burgundy, they're "kind of a big deal."
And "I mean, so Pace called it a debacle. So what?" Wrong guy. There are two (three if you count Woodward) in this story; are they really so easily confused?
Don't bother him with such trivial details as who these people are or what they actually said, Jeff.
He's busy pimping a narrative and doesn't have time for such trifles.
what narrative am I pimping? I await your eloquent discourse.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
look, a few weeks back there was a whole parade of joint chiefs coming out and saying they disagreed and stuff with policy and whatnot. Wes Clark was a NATO commander too and he's hardly been silent about his critiques.
I think Colin Powell is the most relevant person when it comes to critiques of the Administration's policies from a military perspective. The rest of these people are retired or irrelevant.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
I think Colin Powell is the most relevant person when it comes to critiques of the Administration's policies from a military perspective. The rest of these people are retired or irrelevant.
Um azizhp, Colin Powell's retired too.
And neither Pace nor Jones is. The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (the highest-ranking military man in the nation) is (a) not retired, and (b) only irrelevant if making him so doesn't further your cause, apparently.
then maybe my thesis is flawed. It may simply be star power. In any case, there was a parade of former Joint Chiefs critiquing the war, and their retirement status is not an automatic filter on whether they are relevant.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
Colin Powell is King.
Powell's whole thesis on use of military force was developed and fostered as a result of Vietnam and is predicated on armies fighting in the field. Hate to tell ya Colin, that's not how wars are going to be fought in the future.
I'm not going to get into the transformation debate or the fact that no army on earth can stand up to the US military on a battlefield, even if we are significantly outnumbered.
Bottom line, Colin Powell is irrelevent, he's miffed at Bush and he's looking for ways to get even. I think he went to the John McCain school of media manipulation. It's too bad to see a once honorable soldier digress into being a bitter old man.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I meant Jones, not Pace - that was a typo. I thinnk its clear from my subsequent comments - about how the Jones quote does not really contradict Woodward - that I did ascribe the right comments to the right people.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
the links in the second paragraph I think who Jones and Pace are and why they are important should become obvious.
but i still dont see how Jones' statement to reporters is a denial of his quote to woodward.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
Good point aziz. What this shows us is not so much that Woodard is intentionally misquoting people as that he is zeroing in on certain words to create a narrative, without giving adequate attention to interpreting what the speakers meant by those words and what the hearers understood by those words. If Jones did say 'debacle' he did not mean by it what Woodward has implied and neither did Pace understand it that way.
So I don't generalize from this specific case to the notion that Woodward and the Post are liars for their agenda. Rather I think that their agenda has resulted in a misinterpretation of the words they heard; so they have created a narrative that supports their agenda. They have put a spin on things. But it is not right to say that the principles like Card and Pace are now spinning things differently. They had an actual intension of their words at the time which Woodward has failed to grasp. They are the authoritative interpreters and Woodward is evidently usurping their role, something a 'reporter' should not do. Consequently, his narrative is the fabrication.
John E.
Streiff, you claim that "we find that both men agree that Jones did not refer to Iraq as a 'debacle.'" But the quotes you give don't support that. According to the quote, Jones "repeatedly declined to discuss the specific wording of his comments to Woodward about Iraq. 'I'm not going to get into recollections of adjectives,' he said." Jones told reporters that he didn't think Iraq was a debacle. But he refused to say what adjective he used when talking to Pace.
So we have is Woodward saying one thing, Pace saying it didn't happen, and Jones refusing to say one way or the other. Personally, I think Woodward probably, repeat probably, has it right. We just don't know.
"I don't think that Iraq is a debacle," Jones told reporters after the meeting. "Iraq is a big problem."
So actually my quotes very much support my case and there is nothing in the article that supports either Woodward or Ricks.
Now you might want to make the case that he doesn't think Iraq is a debacle but told his fellow 4-star that it was a debacle. Personally I think that beggars the imagination.
And debacle in not an adjective, it is a noun. Of course, the guy is a Marine and since you are willing to assume that he told Pace one thing and later denied it you might as well assume that he's too dumb to tell an adjective from a noun.
One more point: it's quite possible Jones didn't use the word "debacle" when he talked to Pace, but did use the word when he was recounting the conversation to Woodward. I'm not suggesting anything nefarious. People don't have perfect memories.
Streiff, your claim was "we find that both men agree that Jones did not refer to Iraq as a 'debacle.'" No support for that in the article. Jones refused to say what word he used when talking with Woodward.
You didn't read the article carefully enough. Why won't you brook the possibility of admitting error? Everybody gets a bit sloppy now and again. I certainly do -- like not picking up on Jones's error in calling "debacle" an adjective.
look, Jones says he didn't use the word, Pace says Jones didn't use the word.
The fact that you can't read and are apparently unacquainted with the different parts of speech doesn't mean that I've made a mistake. To the contrary, you have to, as I've pointed out, assume that Jones told Pace Iraq was a "debacle" when he says here he does not think it is to believe what you are flogging here as an explanation.
If you are running an experiment here to find out how many more times you can post this same statement I can save you the trouble. Zero.
"look, Jones says he didn't use the word"
no, he says he wouldnt use the word, but he never denied saying it.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
That narrative you were asking about earlier? The one you implied you weren't pimping?
Pretty much summed up by this comment.
Hint: fake but accurate
When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
— Thomas Paine
I'm not going to get into whether Woodward is right or not because I don't really care.
But Jones didn't deny saying the word. He said he doesn't think it is a debacle. The tense is wrong. One point is a recollection. The other is a current opinion.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
to be honest I'm not even sure who Jones and Pace are. Or the relevance of these comments. From the way it reads it soundslike even if Woodward is 100% accurate here, its not exactly impeachment fodder. I mean, so Pace called it a debacle. So what?
But my lack of perspective aside, the following:
does not contradict the claim that Jones referred to Iraq as a debacle in the book. Jones is speaking to reporters in the quote above, in Washington, afterbeing asked about eth quotes ine thbook. He isnt denying the quote (at least, not in the text you quote).
Pace seems on record as denying tha he called Iraq a debacle, but Jones hasnt denied it yet based on the evidence you've presented. He does seem to be trying to walk back his comments a la Andy Card, however.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism