Slate's Bizbox
politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

Bush vs. WoodwardOnly one reputation can survive.

By John Dickerson
Posted Friday, Sept. 29, 2006, at 6:39 PM ET

Listen to John Dickerson's weekly Political Gabfest program here, or sign up for Slate's free daily podcast on iTunes.

Bob Woodward. Click image to expand.

Bob Woodward's 2002 book Bush at War portrayed the president in such a heroic light that the Republican National Committee promoted it on their Web site. But Woodward's third Bush book, State of Denial, should probably be for sale on the DNC's Web site. Or perhaps Democrats will just hand it out at campaign rallies.

The book doesn't officially come out until Monday, but the storm that attends any Woodward publication is already upon us. An excerpt from Woodward's 60 Minutes interview has been released. The New York Times did a speed-read of a copy they were nimble enough to get early, and the Washington Post started its multiday coverage. (By the end of Friday, State of Denial was No. 1 on Amazon.)

The disclosures so far have been devastating. The book paints the administration as clueless, dishonest, and dysfunctional. The behind-the-scenes anecdotes are irresistible. Laura Bush telling her husband he should fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Vice President Cheney pushing aides to call the chief weapons inspector in the middle of the night with coordinates for a site in Syria that might have those elusive weapons. Secret White House visits by Henry Kissinger. Bush having to tell Rumsfeld to return Condoleezza Rice's calls. Memos describing Rumsfeld's "rubber glove syndrome"—he didn't want to leave fingerprints on decisions.

In the renewed battle between the Bush and Clinton dynasties over who did more to kill Osama Bin Laden, the book offers a damaging account of a meeting between Condi Rice and then-CIA director George Tenet. In July 2001, Tenet rushed over to the White House to make his case in person about the rising threat, but Rice blew him off. Administration officials from Cheney to Rice have been throwing Tenet under a bus recently, blaming him for the faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They recite his line from Woodward's second Bush book, in which he said the case for weapons was a "slam dunk." Presumably, Tenet or his allies are using the third book as payback.

State of Denial is a significant blow to the president both politically and strategically. Politically it comes after the 9/11 anniversary restored some of Bush's popularity and improved voters' feelings about his administration's competency. Democrats jumped on the new revelations, holding a press conference Friday on Capitol Hill to talk about the book before it had even come out, proving that press conferences—like many book reviews—do not require actually reading the book.

As a policy matter, the book undermines Bush's attempts to strengthen the national will for the long and drawn-out fight ahead. For the last year, the administration has been unsuccessfully trying to get the mix in the president's public statements right: enough candor to show people Bush is aware of what's really going on in Iraq but enough optimism to keep Americans behind the fight. "There is a clear distinction between having confidence in your strategy and that ultimate success is achievable while also recognizing it will be extremely difficult to get there," says a senior White House official. "The president's speeches during the last year have struck that balance. What was Churchill saying during the middle of the blitz—'have no fear, we're losing and things won't get better?' Hell no; he was honest about the predicament, but confident that they would succeed. By no means am I saying the president is Churchillian, but there is a long history of war-time leaders being optimistic even during the darkest days."

Woodward's book undermines the effort to make this pitch. He charges the president has not been straight with the American people about how bad things are in Iraq and how much worse it's going to get. But his most damning claim—screaming at you right there in the title—is not that Bush is deceitful; it's that he's clueless. People may not care if Bush admits reality to the public, but they hope he's admitting reality to himself.

Gen. John Abizaid, the top military officer in Iraq, has said no troops will come home before next spring at the earliest. Will Americans continue to support that level of engagement or greater if they feel that the strategy behind it is the product of the incompetence outlined in the Woodward book? At some point, the American public's sense of courage and determination will be outweighed by its outrage at ineptitude. In the book, the president reportedly says about Iraq: "I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." After State of Denial is published, the president may be closer to that moment.

What makes the Woodward book different from the many other books critical of the Bush war effort is not only the piquancy of his anecdotes but the tonnage of the publicity behind it. The Bob Woodward/Simon & Schuster machine is vast and it's not going to let you sit there and think this is just any other book critical of Bush. First printing was 750,000 copies, and they've already gone back for another 75,000. After the Mike Wallace interview on 60 Minutes, Newsweek and the Washington Post will run excerpts, and then the television daisy chain will begin: the Today show on Monday (the first of two parts), followed by NBC Nightly News with Andrea Mitchell, Larry King Live, ABC World News Tonight with Stephanopolous, Charlie Rose, and NPR. Woodward could very well show up on the BBQ network by the time this is all over.

To battle back, the administration might be inclined to shoot the messenger. But the White House has cooperated with Woodward for his first two books. He provided a kind of cover for the Bush team during the Valerie Plame saga as well. He, like Robert Novak, learned that Plame worked at the CIA from Richard Armitage, but Woodward never wrote about it. He went on to describe the investigation into the leaker as an assault on First Amendment protections of the press. It will be hard to paint him as a partisan hack.

To the extent administration officials are trying to undermine his findings, it is to suggest that he had to "come hard from the outset," as one put it to me. Because he received so much criticism from the left for his first books, the officials suggest, Woodward is trying extra hard to attack the president this time. But the problem the Woodward book presents for the Bush administration is not that his anecdotes of mismanagement seem shocking or unexpected, but that they don't. Woodward isn't going to change minds, but he'll do something more dangerous: He will confirm the doubts about Bush that a majority of Americans already have.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of On Her Trail. He can be reached at .
Photograph of Bob Woodward by Diane L. Cohen/Gamma Presse.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

Woodward indeed made general statements to the effect that Plamegate was, in his opinion, much ado about nothing. He merely left out that he knew without a doubt that it was not a Cheney-Rovian consiracy to punish the Wilson's, that he had received such a leak well before even the Novak article, and yet let this matter simmer and stew and cause damage to many when he could have easily and honestly done much put the brakes on it. He need not to even have named Armitage to have done so, but, his revealing that he had heard of the Plame-CIA link and leak early would have thrown greater suspicion on historical Woodward sources in the State Department and Colin Powell wing of the early Bush administration, such as - Armitage. To claim that this gave cover to the Bush administration, when Woodward consciously allowed years of false accusations against that administration and criminal investigations to proceed when he could have rightly and probably stopped it early on, is mindboggling!

Of course, had Woodward been forthright and honest and sought with openness to stop the witch hunting, it may have compromised his standing with anti-Bush members of that administration that were feeding him stories.

When Dickerson writes of Woodward and Armitage saying "but Woodward never wrote about it" as though that was beneficial to that administration it is at the least disingenious spin.

--Denis

(To reply, click here.)

The truth about the inner workings of the Bush administration has been there right from the start, evident in detailed insider accounts like those from former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, former counter-terrorism specialist Richard Clarke, and others. The picture has always been the same, of a policy process that was dominated by politics, where facts were retro-fitted to preconceived ideological decisions, where those who tried to offer dissenting opinions were excluded from the decision-making process, where cronies and hacks were put in charge of critical functions with often disastrous consequences.

Where was Woodward up until now? It's not like the administration suddenly became worse than they had been. Rather, it seems to be Woodward whose tune has changed. With a new paradigm being cemented in place, that Bush and his advisors are largely dishonest and incompetent, perhaps Woodward has finally calculated that it's time to make a conspicuous break to save what's left of his own reputation. [...]

I know it's unfair to expect journalists to be heroes or leaders. But they should at least be brave enough to challenge B.S. when it may be politically unpopular to do so. The Bush administration was allowed to feed its propaganda to the press corps with a shovel, and the press obligingly turned around and fed it to the American people while it was still warm. Precious few—certainly not Bob Woodward—complained. So now that the whole flimsy, stinking mess is crumbling, it's hard not to be a bit cynical and see more than a little self-preservation in the sudden and dramatic conversion. The Democrats are coming, and boy are they pissed.

--Fingerpuppet

(To reply, click here.)

I only have one problem with the Dickerson article, "Bush vs. Woodward: Only One Reputation Will Survive." The title is incorrect. I think all historians will agree that both men's reputations will survive.

Woodward will always be known as one half of the investigative team of Washington Post reporters who broke Watergate, and led to the first and only resignation of an American President.

And Bush's reputation will go down in history as the President who stole the Presidential election twice, and who over two disastrous terms was the worst American President ever.

--miz_perfect

(To reply, click here.)

(9/30)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Topic A: Obama's Speech
| Pundits and diplomats respond.
Robinson: Sunshine in BerlinToles: Obama the UniterTelnaes: Meanwhile, McCain
PLUS » Stumped: Bring Back Bill Clinton