Woodward at war

Someday when folks reflect on the Bush administration Bob Woodward's name will come up, just like it does with Nixon. No other journalist has had the access Woodward has, an access that's now allowed him the opportunity to bash the administration with unparalleled impunity.

The conclusions he presents in the book seem obvious. Sure, things are going bad over there, which is hardly what anyone wants (except for a few shameless democrats), but it's not likely ANY administration would hold daily press conferences announcing that "heh, we're losing!". Any hint or suggestion of failure not only gets pounced on by political enemies, but by the real enemies.

As to Woodward's sources, he touched on them in his 60 Minutes interview, noting they were all high level (whom he had taped while interviewing). The New York Times review of the book (perhaps the worst Bush-trash since Hugo Chavez left town) also gives us a clue about Woodward's likely sources:

In some cases he recreates conversations seemingly based on interviews with only one of the participants. The former Saudi Arabian ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Mr. Card, Mr. Tenet, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser (to Bush senior), appear to be among the author’s primary sources.

This clearly to points to an animous felt by many former administration members towards Bush, which is not a real good sign for a sitting president. His Christmas card list must be getting smaller.

Wallace didn't get into his involvement in the Plame mess, but it's possible Woodward was laying low to protect his main source Armitage, who would later be helping him smack the White House. Ironically his book should be the final coffin nail for Wilson's faux scandal since if anything was there Woodward would have certainly pounced.

The only semi-tough question a nodding Wallace did ask was whether the book was punishment for Bush's refusal to grant more access for the third book. Negative was the reply, rather matter of factly, since all the questions had been forwarded to WH and they refused to respond because they had no denial. Of course CBS didn't bother to interview any administration figures to refute these allegations, something they've taken pride in over the years.

Just a theory here, but it's possible Woodward is trying to pull off one of the biggest political stings in history. "Bush at War" and "Plan of Attack" were not love stories but they treated Bush fairly well. The DC establishment must have been aghast since neither contained the critical commentary one might expect from a guy with Woodward's resume, yet that set him up as a reasonable voice and allowed a bit of credibility from the right.

But speaking of right, when the time was right (a month before the mid term elections) he struck. State of Denial is probably meant to repair the broken space-time continuum produced by the previous books.

Finally, for those believing Woodward was somehow a black ops member of the Bush team this book should provide an daunting challenge. More likely the administration was using his prestige as a conduit for passing information whether he realized it or not. Now he's turning the tables, but that doesn't automatically cancel the earlier information conveyed in the first two books, does it?

MORE 10/2/06

It's amazing the level of detail Woodward provides after having been denied full access for this book. In today's WaPo he reminisced about conversations Card had with Laura Bush, using those anecdotal references as a political club. A good reporter can make a conversation about yard moles sound sinister, which forced Card to throw some cold water on the story, not something normally done by disgruntled employees.

The dialog about Baker taking Rummy's job is interesting and probably truthful, though. Baker is now tasked with leading an independent bi-partisan Iraq Study Group, which could be seen as an end-run around the DoD.

HARD TO BELIEVE 10/2/06

Here's the New York Times on Sunday, and here they are on Monday. It's hard to believe Woodward could be so sloppy as to sensationalize an encounter he knew might be refuted by those at the meeting. In his last book he sensationalized Tenet's "slam dunk" comment, which is publicly credited with sealing the deal on the Iraq war. Now he appears to be throwing Tenet a rope, while Tom McGuire thinks he's throwing Condi a rope, allowing her to explain away some democrat criticism.

Today he announced that yes, he was purposely holding the book back until before the elections. Tuesday he will appear on "The O'Reilly Factor". Assuming he's not just a narcissistic publicity hound, just what the heck is he up to here?

PS, there was a noticeable increase in security within the aviation industry in the months prior to 9/11, which seems to back up Condi's assertion that she briefed the agencies.

MORE 10/3/06

Mick over at Fishkite suggests the reported meeting between Tenet and Rice destroys this utterance from Clinton on Fox News Sunday:

All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much — same people.

After some hem-hawing the White House now admits the meeting. Rice said there were 'many such meetings'. Several present denied Woodward's decription of a "brush off". Clarke has apparently dummied up.

Here's what we know. Rice briefed the federal agencies during that time about impending threats, confirmed by the 9/11 Commission and anecdotal sources. On Sunday two democrat members of the 9/11 Commission erupted into indignation about not being briefed on the meeting only to walk back their cats Monday after discovering it was included in their report. Obvisouly their faulty memories support Rice and strongly suggest there was nothing out of the ordinary about it.

Taken together it backs up Mick's point--Clinton was once again bending the truth. It also suggests Woodward has either lost his edge, is a charlatan, or a double agent.