Any of you who know me know I'm a bit of a Nixon buff. I didn't respect or like him or anything. I was just amazed at the amount of sleaze and lust for unfettered power that the man was able to exude, yet he still manged do do a few good things (form the EPA, detente with China, etc.), unlike our current White House occuppant, who's hundreds of times more sleazy and power hungry, and hasn't done anything positive for the country as far as I can tell. He was the Big Bad Wolf of the late 60's. So, of course, Bob Woodward was a bit of a hero to me, with him and Carl Bernstein setting the course in motion that would bring down Nixon.
So of course, I was quite upset at his about-face ass-kissing of Bush in his 2002 'Bush at War' and 2004's 'Plan of Attack', as well as the subsequent gushing on his television appearances. Sell-out. Arrogant. Whatever, you know the words that popped into my head. I was wondering what could have possibly motivated this once important journalistic giant to cave in to Bush Kool-Aid madness. Now, all of a sudden, before Foleygate broke, Woodward's new book 'State of Denial' was getting the attention for being a big hit piece on the well-duh! notion that Bush hasn't been upfront with us about violence in Iraq, and that more dire warnings were given to and ignored by BushCo. before 9-11.
Although I haven't read the book, from what I've read from reviews and such, it doesn't seem to be anything that many of us haven't already known. I'm more intrigued by the about-face by Woodward. Sudden bout of conscience after a 6 year alternate-reality bender? Worried about tarnishing that legacy? Don't know, but part of me suspects the latter.
I'm not too much a fan of Repubs-turned-lefties. In some ways to me they're only slightly more credible than born-again Christians. But former darkside member Arianna Huffington nails it good on Woodward, in her 'Woodward as Journalistic Hero: The Real State of Denial':
"Without some accounting in the new book about how Woodward himself could have been in a state of denial for the first five years of the Bush presidency, it's hard not to reach the "damning conclusion" that Woodward didn't write "State of Denial" because he suddenly realized Iraq was going to hell. He wrote it because he realized his reputation was going to hell.Woodward, the classic Washington weathervane, knows, with his unerring weathervane instinct, that it's now okay to criticize Bush -- and that, indeed, anyone who wants a seat at the Big Persons' table after Bush leaves has to now admit Iraq has been a disaster. And Woodward definitely doesn't want to give up his special seat at the Big Persons' table."
The thing on my mind is the credibility factor. Sure, I believe Woodward circa 1974. He was a different guy in a different world with different journalism. But considering how much he fell in the last six years, can we still believe him, even if we really want to believe him? If it weren't for the fact that what he's now reporting pretty much fits into what we already know, I'd have to say I'm not too sure. Let's see what he doesn't for the next two years, because he's got a long way to go to redeem himself.
2 comments:
My personal opinion of Woodward is that he is a scumbag. I have heard some sources say he is Naval Intelligence operative and the one who leaked Valerie Plame's identity. I've read that he's linked to a lot of other dirty stuff.
"A Yalie and a Secret Society Member
The staunchly conservative Bob Woodward grew up in Wheaton, Illinois. A good student at Yale, he was ultimately one of fifteen seniors "tapped" for one of that university's secret societies, Book and Snake, a cut below the more infamous Skull and Bones, but the top of the second-tier fraternities. Woodward had his first journalistic experience working for the Banner, a Yale publication. In his 1965 yearbook he was referred to as a "Banner mogul." Havill writes,
Certainly, with the CIA encouraged to recruit on the Yale campus, particularly among history majors and secret societies, it is more than reasonable to assume Bob may have been one of those approached by the agency, or by a military intelligence unit, especially after four years of naval ROTC training. Although it would answer a lot of questions that have been raised about Bob Woodward, at this point one can only speculate as to whether he was offered the chance to become a "double-wallet guy," as CIA agents who have two identities are dubbed. It would certainly be understandable if he decided not to adhere to the straight and accepted the submerged patriotic glamour and extra funds that such a relationship would provide. It would also explain the comments of Pulitzer Prize-winning author J. Anthony Lukas, when he wrote in 1989 that Bob Woodward was "temperamentally secretive, loathe to volunteer information about himself," or the Washingtonian's remarks in 1987: "He is secretive about everything." As Esquire magazine put it, summing up in its 1992 article on Bob, "What is he hiding?"
Well, he certainly was in the Navy during Vietnam, and by his accounting came to oppose the war's prosecution (if not the war itself, not 100% sure about that one). I would add that just because someone's covert by nature and has an establishment/military background, that doesn't necessarily make them a spy.
...To John's point about Woodward seeming to join the Bush-bashing party conspicuously late in the evening, it does seem that he's got some "what the f@%k was I thinking?" penance to do for his two previous flattering Bush books (Note: I haven't read 'em, just going by what I hear on NPR, etc.).
Aside from that, I think there's some value in a journalist of Woodward's would-be stature and gravitas coming out and confirming what the rest of us Five Before Chaos readers already know. I have to believe that there are mainstream people out there who tend to buy whatever crap the administration sells 'em, and having someone as renown as Bob Woodward come out and tell it like it is --even if he's just doing it to make a buck and keep a seat at the "Big Persons' table"-- makes it easier for them to accept the truth. To that extent, his efforts are most welcome.
Post a Comment