Given the “EXTRA! EXTRA!” coverage the American media have devoted to the launch of Bob Woodward’s pre-ordained bestseller State of Denial, one could be forgiven the impression that his book contains devastating new revelations about President George W. Bush’s intentional misrepresentations concerning the state of affairs in Iraq.
For example, the tease for Woodward’s promotional appearance tomorrow on CBS’s 60 Minutes implies that he finally exposes a Bush Administration scheme to mislead the American people about the level of violence in Iraq. And I have no doubt that Woodward would like to impute a pattern in this regard that began when the Administration allegedly misled the American people about the presence of WMDs in Iraq.
But this implication ignores the reality that most Americans do not rely on the Administration for their information about Iraq. Moreover, it denies daily (body-count) stories in Woodward’s own newspaper, The Washington Post (never mind 24-times daily reports on every cable news channel) about the escalating violence over there.
Indeed, it seems ironic at best for Woodward to charge the Bush Administration with a cover up, when the plaintive woe of all who support this war has long been that the media are reporting too much on its quagmire of violence and not enough on the rosy scenario depicted in the cartoon above. But even more ironic is the fact that just as Woodward accuses Bush’s aides of being so in awe of his political power that they are afraid to disabuse him of his delusions about Iraq; so too, it seems, Woodward’s fellow reporters are so in awe of his journalistic reputation that they are afraid to disabuse him of his delusions about the significance of this book.
After all, I became so disillusioned by such media reports that I felt compelled to write my own series of articles (dating back to May 2005) ridiculing Bush’s representations about the state of affairs in Iraq, including this one here entitled “BREAKING NEWS: President Bush is pleased with the progress of the war in Iraq…Puleeese!” and here entitled “Groundhog days in Iraq…and in President Bush’s head!”
Clearly, the titles of my articles alone preempted not only the recently declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE – highlighted by the fact that US troops are being attacked hundreds of times a day), but also any purported revelation in Woodward’s book about the true state of affairs in Iraq.
(Incidentally, another declassified NIE highlight being reported as vindication of Woodward’s reporting is the reference to the war in Iraq becoming a “cause celebre” for jihadists all over the world. Yet I lamented this fact over a year ago here in an article entitled “BREAKING NEWS: Victory is at hand…Osama’s man in Iraq has been wounded! (We think…)”, and here in one entitled “Please, spare us the al-Qaeda obituaries”.)
Alas, this begs the question:
Why all of hype surrounding this book as if Woodward has finally broken another Watergate?
NOTE: Even Woodward’s scoops on turf battles within the Bush White House are old news. For example, he makes a big deal about Henry Kissinger’s backdoor channel to Bush’s inner sanctum to discuss war strategy. Yet Charlie Rose elicited this fact from Kissinger in a TV interview many months ago. He also reports on insider efforts (lead by former White House chief of staff Andrew Card) to get Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Yet aides loyal to former Secretary of State Colin Powell revealed this internecine political intrigue years ago.
ENDNOTE: I have tremendous respect for Woodward’s journalistic accomplishments and would not begrudge him relying on his laurels to sell a few books; notwithstanding this previous article here – from November 2005 – entitled “EXTRA: Bob Woodward traded his journalistic principles for access to power (and a string of political bestsellers)”, which, given his effort in this book, now seems rather prescient….No?
I find it utterly inexcusable, however, that so many respected journalists (like Mike Wallace of CBS and Wolf Blitzer of CNN) would present his recycled blurbs as breaking news….
Bob Woodward, State of Denial
K T Cat says
You write like we have a choice of whether or not to fight. We are involunarily at war with an enemy who wants to destroy us. They’ve shown the will and ability to bring the fight to you. The front lines will be the point where you stop running. That can be Iraq or Kansas City. Wars aren’t won by defense.
I can’t tell if you don’t think that we are at war or you’re just upset that war is so violent.
ALH ipinions says
KT Cat
I appreciate the comment, but your point escapes me. My article addresses the irresponsible and disingenuous media fawning over Woodward’s new book. But your comment seems entirely unrelated.
Nonetheless, apropos your apparent confusion, I have written numerous articles decrying the folly of launching the war in Iraq. Further, that having chosen this fight, Bush owed it to the military and the American people to prosecute it far more proficiently (not least by executing the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force, which would have prevented the insurgency that has bedeviled coalition forces for the past 3 years).
Searching “Iraq” in my weblog should provide ample food for thought in this regard.
(Incidentally, I trust you agree with me that it’s an oxymoronic notion for anyone to be “upset that war is so violent”….)