Bob Woodward is a once-revered icon of the Washington journalism establishment. Back in the 1970s, he and Carl Bernstein helped to break the story of the involvement of the Nixon White House in the Watergate break-in. Earlier in the G.W. Bush presidency, Woodward had two very laudatory and insider-y books about the Bush administration, which portrayed Bush as a decisive, etc “great strategic thinker” (ha-ha-ha), though they did also reveal some pretty interesting details about how decisions were getting made inside the GWB White House.
Now the tide has turned on the Bush presidency. And if we need any more proof of this, it can lie in the fact that Woodward has been cutting his losses– i.e., saying “to heck with continuing to kiss butt in order to get good access, let’s tell some truth round here!” That, at least, seems to be the big message about his latest book, due out Monday.
However, the NYT’s David Sanger managed to buy an early copy and wrote about it in Friday’s paper, with a follow-up piece in Saturday’s paper.
In addition, Woodward has taped an interview for CBS’s program “60 Minutes”, and some excerpts of that were made available today.
Highlights from what Sanger wrote in today’s NYT:
- The White House ignored an urgent warning in September 2003 from a top Iraq adviser [Robert Blackwill] who said that thousands of additional American troops were desperately needed to quell the insurgency there, according to a new book by Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter and author. The book describes a White House riven by dysfunction and division over the war. [Gosh, sounds a lot like Israel today, don’t you think? ~HC]
… Robert D. Blackwill, then the top Iraq adviser on the National Security Council, is said to have issued his warning about the need for more troops in a lengthy memorandum sent to Ms. Rice. The book says Mr. Blackwill’s memorandum concluded that more ground troops, perhaps as many as 40,000, were desperately needed.
It says that Mr. Blackwill and L. Paul Bremer III, then the top American official in Iraq, later briefed Ms. Rice and Stephen J. Hadley, her deputy, about the pressing need for more troops during a secure teleconference from Iraq. It says the White House did nothing in response.
The book describes a deep fissure between Colin L. Powell, Mr. Bush’s first secretary of state, and Mr. Rumsfeld: When Mr. Powell was eased out after the 2004 elections, he told Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, that “if I go, Don should go,” referring to Mr. Rumsfeld.
Mr. Card then made a concerted effort to oust Mr. Rumsfeld at the end of 2005, according to the book, but was overruled by President Bush, who feared that it would disrupt the coming Iraqi elections and operations at the Pentagon.
… Mr. Woodward writes that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Mr. Rumsfeld questioned the electronic signals from terrorism suspects that the National Security Agency had been intercepting, wondering whether they might be part of an elaborate deception plan by Al Qaeda.
On July 10, 2001, the book says, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice at the White House to impress upon her the seriousness of the intelligence the agency was collecting about an impending attack. But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously.
In the weeks before the Iraq war began, President Bush’s parents did not share his confidence that the invasion of Iraq was the right step, the book recounts. Mr. Woodward writes about a private exchange in January 2003 between Mr. Bush’s mother, Barbara Bush, the former first lady, and David L. Boren, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a Bush family friend.
The book says Mrs. Bush asked Mr. Boren whether it was right to be worried about a possible invasion of Iraq, and then to have confided that the president’s father, former President George H. W. Bush, “is certainly worried and is losing sleep over it; he’s up at night worried.”
The book describes an exchange in early 2003 between Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, the retired officer Mr. Bush appointed to administer postwar Iraq, and President Bush and others in the White House situation room. It describes senior war planners as having been thoroughly uninterested in the details of the postwar mission.
After General Garner finished his PowerPoint presentation — which included his plan to use up to 300,000 troops of the Iraqi Army to help secure postwar Iraq, the book says — there were no questions from anyone in the situation room, and the president gave him a rousing sendoff.
In Saturday’s paper Sanger writes that White House spokesman Tony Snow tried to rebut some of the book’s main findings. But Sanger notes that Snow did not explain,
- why Mr. Bush’s upbeat assessments of a “Plan for Victory” in Iraq, laid out in a series of speeches late last year, contrasted so sharply with the contents of classified memorandums written by officials who warned that failure was also a significant possibility.
Some of those memorandums were written by Philip D. Zelikow, a counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, including one in early 2005 in which Mr. Zelikow characterized Iraq as “a failed state” two years after the invasion, and another in September 2005, in which he said there was a 70 percent chance of success in achieving a stable, democratic state. That meant, Mr. Zelikow said, that there was a 30 percent chance of failure, including what he called a “significant risk” of “catastrophic failure,” meaning a collapse of the state Mr. Bush has tried to create.
In the CBS News interview, Woodward told interviewer Mike Wallace that,
- the president and vice president often meet with Henry Kissinger, who was President Richard Nixon’s secretary of state, as an adviser. [Kissinger???? See here. ~HC] Says Woodward, “Now what’s Kissinger’s advice? In Iraq, he declared very simply, ‘Victory is the only meaningful exit strategy.'” Woodward adds. “This is so fascinating. Kissinger’s fighting the Vietnam War again because, in his view, the problem in Vietnam was we lost our will.”
President Bush is absolutely certain that he has the U.S. and Iraq on the right course, says Woodward. So certain is the president on this matter, Woodward says, that when Mr. Bush had key Republicans to the White House to discuss Iraq, he told them, “I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney [his dog] are the only ones supporting me.”
That, though, as Woodward also told Wallace,
- insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. “It’s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That’s more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces,” says Woodward.
The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. “The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], ‘Oh, no, things are going to get better,'”
I am really glad this book is coming out in the run-up to the elections. In conjunction with the still-unfolding news about the involvement of sleazeball lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s many contacts with the White House and today’s abrupt resignation of Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley after revelations that he’d sent some highly improper instant messages to male teenagers working as “pages” in Congress, it’s been a bad news day all round for the Republicans.
(Even sleazier: Foley was chair of something called the Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus and had recently introduced legislation to protect children from exploitation by adults over the Internet. He was also a deputy whip for the GOP. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.)
Who is Robert D. Blackwill?
“Blackwill is one of the White House’s most trusted architects of the Iraq reconstruction policy.”
Zeeeeeeeeeeeit, hahahahaaha which reconstruction policy!!!
Tasked with creating the National Security Council’s Iraq Stabilization Group (ISG)
That’s why Iraq is very stabilised…..
Blackwill is the kind of guy who gets things done, and done right.
It’s very clear and right he done a great job in Iraq without this guy we lost Iraq and ME…..
But Blackwill is also infamous for being awkwardly eccentric,
Colin L. Powell told her that Blackwill appeared to have verbally abused and physically hurt a female embassy staffer during a visit to Kuwait in September, administration officials said.
Blackwill was instrumental in getting the United Nations to return to Iraq this spring.,
Yes he did very bravery work that UN working very fine in Iraq due to his instrumental strategy plane
Blackwill has already succeeded in asserting greater White House control over Iraq reconstruction
Yah, well done he arranged of the looting billions of dollars donated and reserved for over Iraq reconstruction, exactly as his friend Paul Bremer he loots US$9.0 Billions of the Iraq money and more we don’t know who care and counted after them
Tell me is it these all skills lined for this guy telling us the truth about him? How many Americans like him who is in the administration and doing great job?
Do you see one of the above skills he had really demonstrated in Iraq?
Take your rubbish after leaving Iraq please…..
“I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney [his dog] are the only ones supporting me.”
He’d “withdraw” – get his sorry ass out of there – if he was actually there. You could call it the Air National Guard manoeuvre.
Forget the debacle of the “departure” from Vietnam, we’ll be lucky if the little prat doesn’t serve us up a Custer’s Last Stand for our times.
Impunity. And money. They’re the keys to the Kingdom of Barbarism.
What is power? The ability to make people do things they don’t want to do. If you can make them do things (or do things to them) that are completely pointless, destructive and wasteful, that’s REAL power.
How do you establish and maintain power? By exercising it, especially when you can exercise it in a deliberately ruthless way that shows complete disregard for criticism and consequences.
Why would a president with low public approval remain 100% committed to a disastrous war, and make legalizing torture his No. 1 legislative priority? Power.
Power…
you may be right, Bush steams ahead on blind power. But there are already too many cracks in that vessel, and it is bound to sink unless someone adjusts the rudder.
For opponents of the war who get accused of “cutting and running” for advocating a troop withdrawal, I say it is about time the opposition stands up and says:
“Damn right, we are going to CUT off this blind Bush administration’s access to power, and RUN a long list of candidates commited to serving the nation’s interest and take back the Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008!”
Helena, I think you describe Woodward’s bookcraft exactly right. I remember a student in class two years ago who read an assignment of “Plan of Attack” and doubted my description of it as an insider’s account of the Bush White House. “How can the man who exposed Watergate be considered an establishment insider?” How indeed.
It is a sad commentary on the performance of our press corps during the last five years. Woodward is slow to come to reality.
Video: Closing Arguments
John C.
Why would a president with low public approval remain 100% committed to a disastrous war, and make legalizing torture his No. 1 legislative priority? Power.
The Answer is:
“Buried deep within the torture bill is this:”
“In Plain English: Any war crime committed by the Bush administration since 9/11 cannot be prosecuted.
Nice job US congress. ”
I have never read Woodward’s books but he seems obsessed with personalities. How significant is it whether person A gets along with person B? What interests me more is finding out the real agenda of Bush & Co. and what sleezy shenanigans they are up to. They seem to do exactly the opposite of what they claim publicly.