Woodward on Bush’s ‘State of Denial’

The WaPo’s Bob Woodward’s last two books were, to put it mildly, disappointing. Woodward received tremendous access, including personal time with Bush and Cheney, led to texts which presented the president in the best possible light — competent, driven, and in charge.

The book that comes out on Monday, “State of Denial,” will apparently not be nearly as complementary.

The book says President Bush’s top advisers were often at odds among themselves, and sometimes were barely on speaking terms, but shared a tendency to dismiss as too pessimistic assessments from American commanders and others about the situation in Iraq. […]

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is described as disengaged from the nuts-and-bolts of occupying and reconstructing Iraq — a task that was initially supposed to be under the direction of the Pentagon — and so hostile toward Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, that President Bush had to tell him to return her phone calls. The American commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, is reported to have told visitors to his headquarters in Qatar in the fall of 2005 that “Rumsfeld doesn’t have any credibility anymore” to make a public case for the American strategy for victory in Iraq. […]

[In September 2003,] 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…. The White House did nothing in response.

Kevin Drum’s summary captures the narrative nicely: “Powell didn’t get along with Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld didn’t get along with Rice, Cheney didn’t get along with anyone, the war was going to hell the entire time, and Bush was sleeping through the whole thing.”

The details, meanwhile, are sometimes startling.

In a scene reminiscent of LBJ and Vietnam, Dick Cheney is “described as a man so determined to find proof that his claim about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was accurate that, in the summer of 2003, his aides were calling the chief weapons inspector, David Kay, with specific satellite coordinates as the sites of possible caches.”

As Kay began to understand that Saddam’s regime didn’t actually produce WMD, John McLaughlin, the C.I.A.’s deputy director, told Kay, “Don’t tell anyone this. This could be upsetting.” Apparently, the Bush gang is a little touchy about reality permeating the bubble.

Better yet, the book also reports that the CIA’s top counterterrorism officials felt they could have killed Osama Bin Laden in the months before 9/11, but got the “brushoff” when they went to the Bush White House seeking the money and authorization.

CIA Director George Tenet and his counterterrorism head Cofer Black sought an urgent meeting with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001, writes Bob Woodward in his new book “State of Denial.”

They went over top-secret intelligence pointing to an impending attack and “sounded the loudest warning” to the White House of a likely attack on the U.S. by Bin Laden.

Woodward writes that Rice was polite, but, “They felt the brushoff.”

Moreover, former White House chief of staff Andrew Card apparently tried, twice, to get Bush to fire Rumsfeld, and the president reportedly considered it — until Cheney and Rove talked Bush out of it. Forcing Rumsfeld out “would be seen as an expression of doubt about the course of the war and would expose Bush himself to criticism,” the Post noted today.

Some of this we’ve heard bits and pieces of before, some of it not, but the bottom line remains the same: the president and his team have been nothing short of deaf, dumb, and blind on practically every national security decision it’s confronted since taking office.

An aside:

Woodward should be our new national flag…
Run him up the pole every now and then to see which way the wind is blowing…

Another aside:

This dysfunctional White House is nothing any of us didn’t know. For those of you from the early Bilmon years (when he had the best comment section on planet Internet) do you remember the phrase: “We’re fucked” ?

  • Does State of Denial refer to the White House and its handling of the Iraq War, or to Bob Woodward’s first two books?

  • Another another aside:

    Can someone explain to me how the most glaringly incompetent and brute-dumb president in our history is being granted the most glaringly unAmerican power in our history?

    How in Trent Lott’s name can that be?

    The only thing that makes sense to me is just this:

    THE REPUBS DO NOT BELIEVE THEY WILL EVER HAVE TO ANSWER TO THE WHIMS OF A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT EVER AGAIN.

    Think about that for a second…
    Then sniff the air…
    It that sulfur?

  • Woodward lost some credibility with me after those last two gems, so unless he had a unannounced personality transplant, I’m going to hold off judgement. That said it’s great to hear reporters asking the administration questions that should have been asked a couple years ago.

  • The reason for all this infighting and incompetence is that the our leaders have been trying to placate a petulant brat for six years. As Ross Perot would say, “It’s just that simple.”

  • as koreyel implies, the important thing about this book is that a beltway insider who has been totally in the bush administration’s pocket has now exited same.

    that’s progress, even if woodward’s reputation is long-ruined.

  • In light of Woodwards earlier books nearly sainting Bush Cheney I would say this one will be harder to refute. How unfortunate is it that 40 days from the election we find out “Better yet, the book also reports that the CIA’s top counterterrorism officials felt they could have killed Osama Bin Laden in the months before 9/11, but got the “brushoff” when they went to the Bush White House seeking the money and authorization.”

    Ned Lamont! Ned Lamont! Get Woodward on the horn and work this book into your campaign! Hey hey, ho ho, Joe-mentum’s got to go!

  • Gee, if Bob had any remorse, repentance, or even conscience he might have gotten on TV with some of this oh, i don’t know, maybe in the days right before the prop-u-drama Path to 9/11 aired?

  • I guess the SNL skit about people taking turns running Bush’s brain wasn’t so far off the mark.

    Can we impeach Cheney yet?

    Woodward, thanks for the book. Welcome back to the reality based community, but you’re still on probation.

  • Talk about the blind leading the blind: We’re ruled by delusional ideologues, and their followers are even worse. If you’re that far out of touch with reality, you need extraordinary powers just to keep one step ahead of the law. Their congressional enablers — a Roll Call Hall of Shame — were quick to oblige.

    Still, Woodward’s book may mark a turning point. You know things are bad when the court stenographer starts to bite the hand that has been feeding him.

  • My favorite part, from today’s NYTimes, is Cheney as LBJ, not directing bombing but directing weapons inspectors.

    Vice President Cheney is described as a man so determined to find proof that his claim about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was accurate that, in the summer of 2003, his aides were calling the chief weapons inspector, David Kay, with specific satellite coordinates as the sites of possible caches. None resulted in any finds.[…]
    Mr. Cheney was involved in the details of the hunt for illicit weapons, the book says. One night, Mr. Woodward wrote, Mr. Kay was awakened at 3 a.m. by an aide who told him Mr. Cheney’s office was on the phone. It says Mr. Kay was told that Mr. Cheney wanted to make sure he had read a highly classified communications intercept picked up from Syria indicating a possible location for chemical weapons.

    My second favorite part is this bit.

    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.”

  • Dan Rather tried to get him, but he failed. Woodword is just two years too late. Maybe the CIA get get him under the new unlawful enemy combatant act.

    It is a shame that the MSM didn’t bring out all this before Nov. 2004. And Bob W., why do you have to capitalize on this via your books instead of reporting it in the WAPO?

  • And yet they won re-election, they’ve garnered unprecedented power under color of law, and may yet prevail in the coming election. The Dems are as incompetent in opposition as the GOP is in governance.

  • Haven’t we gotten ourselves all spun up about Woodward’s books before only to have them turn out to be mostly admiring hagiography?

  • I see this Woodward book as an interesting look at the Zeitgeist, circa Fall 2006. Woodward doesn’t impress me as someone who is doing meticulous investigative journalism so much as one who is very cozy with people in power and reports what he hears after the third martini has taken effect. Apparently all those people who are cozy with Woodward who once sang Hail to the Chief are now singing a different tune. It’s a sign of the utter disarray of the Republicans.

  • Still, Woodward’s book may mark a turning point. You know things are bad when the court stenographer starts to bite the hand that has been feeding him.

    I don’t think that this is correct, though it is a good measure of the zeitgeist. I think that it’s been pretty clear for a while now that Woodward’s primary sources are people that are close to Colin Powell. In his last two books, Bush may have come in for praise, but Powell’s bureaucratic rivals took hits.

    What has changed isn’t that Bob Woodward is biting the hand that feeds him; I dont think he’s capable of that. What has happened is that the Powell camp has decided to level the boom at the whole administration rather than just parts of it. We’ve seen the start of this. I don’t remember his name, but one of Powell’s main aides started saying nasty things in public about a year ago which, coincidentally I’m sure, would be right about when Woodward started writing this book.

  • Since I have not read the other two books, would someone please explain something to me? Doesn’t this book contradict what Woodward wrote earlier? How can the other two books give glowing reports of the Administration and this one trashes it? Did the Administration just suddenly become dysfunctional? I’ve seen the BS for 6 years, how did Woodward only see it recently?

  • WOW. Interesting over there. I am writing for Freiburg, Germany. Used to live in Indianapolis, IN. I always knew the US didn’t have democracy, but things have even become worse, I guess. Good luck stopping Bush mass murder actions around the world.

    Over here, 90% of the population actually were and still are against that war. It was so obvious it was a mistake and pretty dumb to start it (unless you wanna help terrorism grow), but power and money give those people the right to do what they feel like for their own personal purpose. And right does not count any more in this world, because of one dumb boy and his administration…

  • Comments are closed.