Is this the real Queen of Denial?
Bob Woodward takes a good long look in the mirror
By AcademicElephant Posted in Featured Stories | Liberals — Comments (53) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Venerable Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward has a sensational book set to appear today. State of Denial purports to expose a White House that is deliberately hiding the true state of affairs in Iraq, and indeed in its own administration. From the tid-bits that have been selectively released, we get a picture of a stubborn President divorced from reality who cares more about pursuing his current strategy in Iraq than he does the state of the nation he was elected to lead. "Secret" but unsubstantiated documents are cited. Explosive quotes from main players are reported but not cooberated. Conclusions based on this evidence are reached, but based on its rather shakey and shadey sourcing, I have to wonder what of substance we can glean from Mr. Woodward's new book?
Read on...
In the end, I suspect that what we will learn from the State of Denial is a great deal about Bob Woodward. But maybe not so much about the Bush administration over the last few years. One thing that has become painfully apparent in academia over the past two decades is the perils of forcing the facts to fit your theory--a methodology that has imperiled the social sciences as any number of historical objects, events and texts have been appropriated to fit modern criteria. I wonder if this is what happened with State of Denial. Mr. Woodward started last year from what was for him a clear understanding of what was happening--and indeed what would happen--in Iraq. He then went back three years and looked for something--anything--to confirm what he already knew to be the truth about Iraq, and the Bush administration. But, as I have noted before, facts can be tricky, even for a reporter of Mr. Woodward's experience. Especially when you use them as illustrations of a pre-ordained truth rather than as emperical evidence.
To wit: most of the buzz surrounding Mr. Woodward's most recent effort focuses on the job security of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, what Mr. Woodward called "The Rumsfeld Problem" in his 60 Minutes interview last night. I suppose it would be unkind to insinuate that Mr. Woodward was just taking the easy way to book sales and following in the footsteps of such luminaries as Anthony Zinni by boldy attacking the Secretary (albeit from the safety of his word processor). After all, he does have a series of sensational new allegations: that former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card tried to get Mr. Rumsfeld fired two years ago. That the First Lady backed him up. That the Secretary of Defense was dismissive of (then) National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to the point that he wouldn't return her phone calls until the President personally ordered him to do so. That the head of CENTCOM, General John Abizaid, said that Mr. Rumsfeld had lost all "credibility," and that he was closer to Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) on Iraq policy than to his civilian boss at the Pentagon.
And so in this most recent bombshell-laden tome, the oracular Mr. Woodward (who uncovered the Watergate scandal, by the way) tells us that not only is Mr. Rumsfeld loathed by well-known nice women such as Mrs. Bush and Dr. Rice, but that he has lost the military as well. No wonder there's buzz. You might wonder that the list of replacements for the Secretary of Defense isn't on the President's desk--and that Mr. Murtha isn't at the top.
But there's a problem with all Mr. Woodward's exciting "scoop" that so tantalizingly appears on first reading to confirm the worst fears of those who have been calling for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster for some years now. The problem is that there is no proof, and all of his claimed sources, to a man (and woman), are repudiating his claims. In order for him to gain traction, he needs them to at least stay quiet. But, according to the White House (which would probably know), the First Lady's office has stoutly denied any such shenanigans. General Abizaid has also issued a denial. Sunday morning, Mr. Murtha expressed some confusion about the conversation with General Abizaid reported as fact in State of Denial. And not only would I not give anyone in the Bush administration a particularly long expiration date if they were on the wrong side of Dr. Rice, but both the State Department spokesman and Mr. Rumsfeld himself maintain that contrary to what Mr. Woodward says in the book, the Secretary of Defense has spoken to NSA/Secretary of State Rice every day that they have both been in Washington during the term of this administration.
Perhaps most interesting is the response of Andrew Card. Mr. Card agrees with Mr. Woodward that he discussed replacements for Mr. Rumsfeld after the 2004 election with Mr. Bush. Apparently, and to me not surprisingly, they contemplated a series of different personnel scenarios ranging from changing the entire cabinet to changing no one. Based on this evidence, Mr. Woodward surmises a clandestine campaign to fire Mr. Rumsfeld. Yet Mr. Card--and Mr. Rumsfeld who once held the same job--says there was no such thing. He was just doing due diligence as Chief of Staff and giving his boss all his options. Seems reasonable to me, especially since after all those options were weighed, it was not Mr. Rumsfeld who got the call from Mr. Card.
I have to wonder, where's Mr. Woodward's beef here?
Look, I don't know what went through Bob Woodward's head as he wrote this book. Based on his methodology, it's tempting to take a page from State of Denial and start wondering if it is a coincidence that three of the men most reviled in its pages--Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Henry Kissinger--were all part of the Nixon White House, which Mr. Woodward launched his career by helping to destroy. If Mr. Woodward wants to conclude his career by being the same Republican "giant killer" that he was in Watergate. If he's so convinced that Iraq-is-Vietnam that he sees sinister conspiracies by Nixon's (shouldn't they really be LBJ's? But I digress) old cabinet members behind every closed door he couldn't get through and in every classified report that he hasn't read. If he's worried that his MSM "cred" has been compromised by his writing a book that portrays George Bush and those who work for him as something other than ignorant, ill mannered and venal monsters and wanted to burnish his independent maverick image.
No, I don't know if any of these conjectures are true. Maybe they're just my imaginings based on my composite impression of Mr. Woodward. But based on what we've seen so far from those Mr. Woodward claims as sources, I suspect that should you choose to purchase and read his book, you will learn much more about these "ifs" than you will about the last three years of the Bush administration. After all, Mr. Woodward prides himself on his inside access. Yet the subject of this book, President Bush, declined to be interviewed for it. So how much of State of Denial is an inside look into Mr. Bush's psyche--and how much a good long look in Mr. Woodward's narcissistic mirror?
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | RS Radio: The Fight Over Marriage in Colorado — Comments (37) »
Is this the real Queen of Denial? 53 Comments (0 topical, 53 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
We might owe Elizabeth Taylor an apology for this.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
Look, I don't know what went through Bob Woodward's head as he wrote this book.
Far be it from me to hold myself out as some sort of luminary, but I think I know precisely what was going through Woody's mind as he wrote this book:
1) $, or make that $$$$$$$
2) The potential for lots and lots of airtime to provide appropriate care and feeding of his tremendous ego
3) Oh, and the opportunity to take some cheap shots at a Republican Administration on the eve of an election where they are likey to, at least, not do well.
Have I possibly missed anything?
But other than that, what Erick said.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
4) Atone for being perceived as too tolerant and even apologetic and a cheerleader for the Bush administration by his loyal fans. My take is that Woodward has been hedging his bets in the past few years, and now that it looks to so many on the Left that the Bush Administration is spiraling down the toilet, he wants to make sure his hand is depicted by history on the lever, giving it the final flush.
First he got scooped by his own Deep Throat in VANITY FAIR. Embarassing. Then he was taken to the woodshed over his non-role in the non-scandal of Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage. Worse, because he appeared to be at odds with the hysterical screeching of his own paper and the rest of the MSM.
It's hard not to conclude that he wanted to get back into the headlines on his own terms. And as others have observed, the easiest way to do that these days is to get on the Bash Bush / Iraq-is-Vietnam train.
Welcome back to the reflexive, unthinking establishment, Bob. All is forgiven.
I want Rumsfeld gone. He's a liablity to this administration. I'm sick of this "who's-going-to-replace-him-crap" mentality. We can find someone better.
Why replace him??? Authority is like soap, the more you use it the less you have. He's used his authority so much he doesn't have any left.
Okay, where's your list?
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
Whenever the President fires someone, for good reason or bad, he needs to think about how to replace that person.
If the analysis shows that someone is less than ideal, the next question should be 'is there someone better?'. Actually, you need more than person, as AE suggests, you need a list. The first person may say no, or have flaws you didn't know about.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
But he feels strongly! Isn't that enough?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
So...just "someone better." I see. Yes, that makes me agree that Mr. Rumsfeld deserves to be summarily replaced.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
...that everyone in every job should be replaced by "someone better". But my bleeding liberal heart tells me that my union boss won't support such a belief.
"Your audience, which will clap at apparently anything, is frivolous." - Hitchens to Maher
I want Rumsfeld gone. ...I'm sick of this "who's-going-to-replace-him-crap" mentality. We can find someone better.
Kidding? The "who's-going-to-replace-him-crap" that you so eloquently refer to is just a bit necessary if you're going to call for a person to be removed from a pretty darn important position...or are you suggesting (a) anybody would be better than DR, or (b) that Bush just boot him and play it by ear, appointing somebody when he feels like it, but nobody specific, and in no hurry?
And, "Okay...I don't know...How about James Baker III."? That's all ya got -- especially after all that prodding? Come on, Tycoon, you have to be smarter than this...
want to replace Donald Rumsfeld with James Baker? In what alternate universe does this make sense? What skills does Baker bring to this job that are lacking in Rumsfled and (this is important, pay attention) are more important than the skill set already demonstrated by Rumsfeld? (And being a loyal Republican does not count.)
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
2008 Cheney returns as SecDef and Rumsfeld is VP.
There would be a wholelotta heads exploding!
________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
think that the "shot heard 'round the world" happened at Concord! You'd be able to hear the lefties heads exploding from Pluto.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
No, authority comes from the people according to the Constitution, and since Bush's has been granted and re-upped, so as Rumsfeld's.
Anyone who can't handle the civilian control of the military can retire and write books for leftists.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I didn't state where authority is granted; I stated what happens when you use authority too much.
Have you ever had a boss who used their authority over you to excess? After awhile, you become numb to his/her authority. The next thing you know, people are doing their best to undercut your authority. I think we're seeing that now.
By "people" you mean Bob Woodward, John Batiste and Harry Reid? As far as I'm concerned, they can go ahead and do their worst, as can those who consider them authorities on anything.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
>>As far as I'm concerned, they can go ahead and do their worst, as can those who consider them authorities on anything.
That my point. We don't need someone in the position of Secretary of Defense where people ARE going to bring their worst; we need them to bring their best.
1). You seriously misunderstood what AE was saying.
2). You think that the minimum approval rating for a SecDef should be 100%.
I'd make a suggestion about which take would reflect worse on your judgment, but frankly, it's a puzzler.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
1). You seriously misunderstood what AE was saying.
Enlighten me.
2). You think that the minimum approval rating for a SecDef should be 100%.
Where I work, we are held accountable. No person is above reproach. If we do poorly, a performance plan is initiated. It's based on what we do during the current year. If we don't meet expectations the next few quarters, we're let go. Performance is all that matters. This is just my opinion, but the performance at Tora-Bora should have merited a warning. The performance plan should have started when lawlessness started after the fall of Baghdad. The troop levels were too low to stop the lawlessness.
You picked 2. By the by - and sorry for the non sequitur - what's your opinion on depleted uranium?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
We're still tripping up over your "people"--unless you think "people" like Peter Pace, Ed Giambastiani, Peter Schoomaker, George Casey, John Abizaid, Bantz Craddock, James Staviridis--and that's just off the top of my head--are not bringing their "best" game for this SECDEF. If that's what you think, it is indeed a serious allegation and I look forward to reading your documentation and considering your viewpoint. But if you think, as Moe notes, the criterion for a SECDEF is to have Bob Woodward think he (or she) is neat, well, then I'm very pleased you're not making that decision.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
By no means am I stating the Generals are not doing a top notch job. They are. I do not question their contributions to this country. If you inferred that I thought the Generals were doing a bad job, then I'm sorry. I beleive they are the true patriots.
Do I think Rumsfeld is hindering them? My answer to that is yes.
Rumsfeld is hindering them? He personally recruited and promoted each and every man on that list into their current positions. So if they're doing such an unquestionably great and patriotic job (which I, by the way, agree that they are), it's because of Rumsfeld, not despite him. Unless you think this sort of thing happens by accident? Or perhaps we don't mean the same thing by "hinder?"
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
would only get credit if he and every senior officer in the US military was criticizing and undermining Bush. Then and only then would Rumsfeld be demonstrating any talent whatsoever --- sort of like a certain former General/Cabinet Secretary who shall remain nameless but is greatly admired by the left.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
If Rumsfeld would have listened to General Shinseki, I honestly believe things might have turned out better. General Shinseki estimate of troops levels was right. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz just wouldn't listen.
Senate Armed Services Committee
February 25, 2003
GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.
...time and again that he isn't worth listening to -- did he just happen to find a nut, now that we've got our correct-to-20/20 hindsight glasses on?
Leaving Shinseki aside for the moment, do you think he was right and all those brave patriots on the above list have been wrong? Are you so very sure 400,000 troops poured into Iraq in 2003 would ultimately put us in a better position in, say 2008?
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
I don't have a list of all the people who agreed/disagreed with Shinseki's troop levels.
>>Are you so very sure 400,000 troops poured into Iraq in 2003 would ultimately put us in a better position in, say 2008?
I don't have an answer to that. To me, General Shinseki had a clear idea of what we were headed for. It's not just the troops levels, but of the ethnic tensions and post-conflict issues. I just keep wondering what would have happened if Rumsfeld would have listened to him.
There are many answers to that "what if"--many of them even less rosy than what we have now. Crystal balls can be tricky that way.
And I'm not asking you for an exhaustive list, just wondering if you think Shinseki represents a silent majority of the top Pentagon brass--in which case I don't think they're very brassy--or if he was part of a minority whose opinion was considered and rejected?
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
for every officer that agree(d) with Shinseki there are several that disagree(d). In your opinion Shinseki appears to have been "correct" but we will never know what would have happened in country had we dropped in an additional 200,000 troops.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
And if by Friday I can find out what next Saturday's lottery numbers will be it'll be adios from me ...
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
is going swimmingly. It's Clinton's fault Iraq hasn't been tamed yet, don't you know?
Don Rumsfeld for President 08!
in a government is going to be hated. This is especially true if that person does something in a Republican administration. No Republican president has ever put more than a thin veneer of appointees on a very Democrat federal government. WJC had two full terms in which to vett everyone who rose to appointee and sub-appointee level in the federal government; that includes a whole bunch of general officers who were willing to see a Democrat vision of the military.
Rumsfeld has run DOD the only way a Republican can run any government agency: as an autocrat. If a Republican appointee comes in and does all that "involve the stakeholders" and "achieve a consensus" crap, the bureaucracy turns him into at best ineffective and at worst a Democrat in a Republican administration.
A Republican appointee is to be judged by the quality of his enemies. I quite pleased with the crop of enemies that Rumsfeld has raised.
In Vino Veritas
Few things speak louder than the fact that Rumsfeld still has his job and Card doesn't.
Also, has Woodward cited any evidence that George W. Bush wants Rumsfeld sacked? Which is the only thing that matters.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Of course, after all those meetings at Camp David, Andrew Card did fire someone. It just wasn't Don Rumsfeld.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
Also, has Woodward cited any evidence that George W. Bush wants Rumsfeld sacked? Which is the only thing that matters.
Well, paraphrasing the now immortal words of Lloyd Bentsen, I've met George Bush and he's no Bob Woodward --- thankfully.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
Or, for that matter, "I've met Bob Woodward and he's no George Bush."
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
De Opresso Liber
about criticizing the efficacy of a reporter/writer who once succeeded in coaxing comments from a deceased, buried former Director of the CIA.
I guess now that he isn't praising them he's yellow and making it up, right?
re: 2004's Woodward's Plan of Attack
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: He is terrific. He’s a great journalist, and I look forward to reading it. He’s talking about a pretty complex set of discussions about military issues and diplomatic issues, and I’m sure it will be — be fantastic. [CNN, 4/25/04]
DAN BARTLETT: I think Bob Woodward has done a pretty — particularly good job of describing how complicated of a process it is for a commander in chief to do two real important but sometimes conflicting responsibilities. [CNN, 4/25/04]
BARTLETT: We’re urging people to buy the book. What this book does is show a president who was asking the right questions and showing prudence as well as resolve during very difficult times. This book undermines a lot of the critics’ charges. [Washington Post, 4/21/04]
JOHN KING, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: But what is most striking is that, here at the White House, they say read the book. They believe it shows — it paints the picture of a president who asks the right questions, the tough questions, before going to war and then decided that he was right in launching that war. [CNN, 4/19/04]
"Bushies?" Are you so stupid that you cannot distinguish one human being or another?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
. . .to find Woodward's sources for this one--look for disgruntled Republicans currently in a coma.
"If the cultivation of understanding consists in one thing more than another, it is surely in learning the grounds of one's own opinions."- Mill
that the Bush Admin actually Fired Colin Powell. He's a total wacko. Just got in Rummy's way.
Rumsfeld for President. 08!
Excellent points on Woodward and I hope that graphic is picked up by many. Not that I had anything to do with it. ;)