“State of Denial” … the other white meat

Digby offers a key reminder to all of us: “In the midst of all the excitement over the GOP congress’s under-age cyberstalking, I hope that we don’t lose sight of the other white meat — Woodward’s astonishing revelations in his new book ‘State of Denial.'”

It’s an important point. At least as far as public relations is concerned, perhaps no one is more thrilled by the Mark Foley predator-gate scandal than the president and his top aides because the timing is unusually fortuitous — it’s stepping all over Bob Woodward’s devastating revelations.

For example, Iraq war commander Gen. John Abizaid told two retired generals in 2005, “We’ve got to get the [f***] out.” In March 2006, Abizaid visited Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and “indicated he wanted to speak frankly. According to Murtha, Abizaid raised his hand for emphasis, held his thumb and forefinger a quarter of an inch from each other and said, ‘We’re that far apart.'” That’s about the same Republicans and the rest of the far-right was smearing Murtha as a terrorist sympathizer for recommending a redeployment plan.

For that matter, the book characterizes Donald Rumsfeld, whom Bush has refused to fire, as “an arrogant, indecisive bumbler who won’t take responsibility for his mistakes — or even admit any.”

Slate’s John Dickerson put it:

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.

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…. As a policy matter, the book undermines Bush’s attempts to strengthen the national will for the long and drawn-out fight ahead…. [Woodward] 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.

Indeed, on 60 Minutes last night, Woodward all but called Bush a liar.

I’d encourage readers to check the video, but this small portion of the transcript helps highlight the problem.

WOODWARD: It is the oldest story in the coverage of government, the failure to tell the truth.

WALLACE: When you say the Bush administration has not told the truth about Iraq, what do you mean?

Mr. WOODWARD: I think probably the prominent, most prominent example is the level of violence.

(Footage of Iraqis fighting in the streets)

WALLACE: (Voiceover) Not just the growing sectarian violence, Sunnis against Shias that gets reported every day…but attacks on US, Iraqi and allied forces. Woodward says that’s the most important measure of violence in Iraq, and he unearthed this graph, classified secret, that shows those attacks have increased dramatically over the last three years.

Mr. WOODWARD: Getting to the point now where there are eight, 900 attacks a week. That’s more than 100 a day. Four attacks an hour, attacking our forces.

WALLACE: (Voiceover) Woodward says the government had kept this trend secret for years before finally declassifying the graph just three weeks ago. And Woodward accuses President Bush and the Pentagon of making false claims of progress in Iraq, claims contradicted by facts that are being kept secret. For example, Woodward says an intelligence report classified secret from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concluded that “The Sunni Arab insurgency is gaining strength and increasing capacity despite political progress.” And “Insurgents retain the capabilities to increase the level of violence through next year.” But just two days later, a public Defense Department report said just the opposite: “violent action will begin to wane in early 2007.”

What are we supposed to make of that?

Mr. WOODWARD: The truth is that the assessment by the intelligence experts is that next year–now, next year’s 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.’ Now, there’s public and then there’s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one’s supposed to know. Why is that secret? The insurgents know what they’re doing. They know the level of violence and how effective they are. Who doesn’t know? The American public.

WALLACE: President Bush says over and over, as Iraqi forces stand up, US forces will stand down. The number of Iraqis in uniform today, I understand, is up to 300,000?

Mr. WOODWARD: And they’ve stood up from essentially zero to 300,000. This is the military and the police.

WALLACE: But US forces are not standing down. The attacks keep coming.

WALLACE: They’ve stood up and up and up and we haven’t stood down, and it’s worse.

And how did Woodward go from stenographer to reporter again? Kevin Drum makes the compelling case that he didn’t — his stenography simply reflects an establishment that is fed up with Bush’s dangerous incompetence.

Foley is a major scandal, but let’s not forget that revelations from “State of Denial” are too.

Where is that quote of Boy George II saying he’ll stick with his Iraq policy even if only Laura and Barney support him?

Seems he is down to only Barney now.

Woodward is more important for ginning up the Democratic base and the independents. Foley is more important for convincing THE BASE to stay home.

We need to work both issues between now and election day. Just keep reminding them Values Voters that they would be voting for the Gay Old Party.

  • To bad Woodward didn’t think to characterize the coversations between Rummy and Rice as “naughty”.

    Maybe his next investigative book could be into the still unsolved Anthrax letters that shut Congress down while they rushed to enact the USA PATRIOT Act. It’s got the makings for a great mystery. Sent to the Majority Leader and the Senate Judiciary Committee chair, my senator, Pat Leahy. Sent to the media, both TV and Print. Someone anonymously tried to frame a disgruntled “Arab” former employee of Ft. Detrick…..hmmmm sounds like good reading to me.

  • Wonder how long it’ll take reich-chancellor Bush to declare Woodward a threat (or menace) and have him secretly removed to one of our far flung gulags.

  • Sex scandals come and go, so to speak, but the cover up of the Foley affair(s) speaks to the same issue as Woodward’s book. That is the infrastructure of lies and corruption this Republican (from head to toe) nongoverning government is based on.

  • WALLACE: When you say the Bush administration has not told the truth about Iraq, what do you mean?

    Mr. WOODWARD: I think probably the prominent, most prominent example is the level of violence.

    I think the most prominent and the most consequential lies pertained to troop strength. Bush kept telling us that if the commanders asked for more troops he would send them. But we now know that some commanders and Bremmer were crying for more troops. The insurgency and the level of violence spiraled out of control very early on because the US did not have the troops to secure the country. All these other issues about the level of violence and intelligence reports addressing the degree of violence are secondary to this main issue — we did not have the number of troops needed and Bush and Rumsfeld denied and lied about it.

    So, Woodwood could have added a bit more to his main title — State of Denial and Deception. Too bad he didn’t highlight the earlier lies more in his first two books and it is somewhat disingenuous of him to say that he discovered most of them this year since some of them were quite evident before Nov. 2004.

  • perhaps no one is more thrilled by the Mark Foley predator-gate scandal than the president and his top aides because the timing is unusually fortuitous — it’s stepping all over Bob Woodward’s devastating revelations.

    my limited MSM exposure (“news” radio and CNBC) this morning was the exact opposite – much more about Woodward and barely anything about Foley. I couldn’t decide whether I should be annoyed or not. Will Woodward’s book make any dent among the “true believers”? Highly doubtful – he writes for the “librul” Washington Post – but Foley might actual induce some outrage among these people so I’d rather see that get more play.

  • Lance: “Seems he is down to only Barney now…”

    And the ever relieable Henry K….

    By the way…. NOW is it okay to compare Iraq to Vietnam?

  • I’ve got to go to the library this weekend and see if they have this book (I’d buy it, but I’m po).

    And as, as DDD pointed out (#6), this book is getting some play. Although, it seems as though it’s not gaining nearly as much traction in the general public — I was talking with my sister (who watches the news regularly and detests Bush) this weekend and, while she had heard of the book, she didn’t understand its true implications.

    And that’s the thing — everyone understands the Foley issue. It’s sensational and scandalous and people like that. But few truly understand how Woodward’s book points out the corruption, deceit and incompetence of our nation’s leaders.

    Either that, or they just don’t care that much.

  • And how did Woodward go from stenographer to reporter again?

    Mike Wallace didn’t ask, though he did suggest that Woodward’s turnabout is out of spite, because Bush refused to be interviewed for this book. Which makes me wonder: which came first? Did Woodward decide that his third book would be abou thow crummy Bush is, and Bush didn’t want to cooperate with that? Or was Woodward doing a third book about whatever, Bush wouldn’t talk, and so Woodward retaliates by aggregating all the negative poop he gathered?

  • Woodword did reveal this morning on NBC’s interview with Matt Lauer that he and the publisher did make a special effort to get this book out before the midterm election. This was in response to Lauer asking why he did not shout out more of this earlier from the rooftops if it were so important for people to know. The right is going to jump all over this answer — that this was deliberately planned to impact the fall election. The response to this is that pretty simple — if the government is not going to tell us the truth then the press has the right and the responsibility to the public to do it. So, to Woodword, “Thank you”. Better late than never.

  • I wouldn’t call Kevin Drum’s case to explain Woodward’s change of tone in this book compelling, but at this point it may be as good a theory as any other. Maybe Woodward spent too much time at the kool-aid punchbowl before, and all smacking around he got from the left sobered him up. Maybe he sensed a shift in the mood of the country and figured this approach would sell more books at this point in time. Yes, his work is largely dependent on those who will to talk to him, but that is not to say he doesn’t also choose who to seek out. And it is he who chooses how to color what his sources say by how he weaves their comments into a narrative. Whatever the reason for his turnabout, it’s overdue.

  • koreyel reminded me of another snipet from the book that alludes to Kissinger still trying to win Viet Nam by counselling Bush II to stay in Iraq. Of course, Bush II is still trying to win the war Bush I started and didn’t finish. What a crazy circle of mutual enabling for each to use a war to salvage each other’s egos.

  • actually, Racerz, I think Lance got it right. I should hope that progressives wouldn’t use “gay” as a derogatory term, even if the intent is to point out Rethug hypocrisy. Moreover, your formulation of GOP reinforces the harmful and erroneous link conservatives like to make between homsexuality and pedophelia.

    Back to the substance at hand: Snowjob got hammered by Viera on Today this morning and about all he could do was try to like likable and stammer “Well, Meredith, what you don’t understand is. . .” which is notably far from a denial of Woodward’s points.

  • “Woodword did reveal this morning on NBC’s interview with Matt Lauer that he and the publisher did make a special effort to get this book out before the midterm election. This was in response to Lauer asking why he did not shout out more of this earlier from the rooftops if it were so important for people to know.” – lou

    Woodword rushed the book out rather than just telling people because he’s in it for the money.

    “Mike Wallace didn’t ask, though he did suggest that Woodward’s turnabout is out of spite, because Bush refused to be interviewed for this book. Which makes me wonder: which came first? Did Woodward decide that his third book would be about how crummy Bush is, and Bush didn’t want to cooperate with that? Or was Woodward doing a third book about whatever, Bush wouldn’t talk, and so Woodward retaliates by aggregating all the negative poop he gathered?” – Grumpy

    Dan Bartlett, Presidential lawyer, suggested Sunday that he kept Woodward away from Bush when he preceived the book was going to go negative. Of course, what other direction is there for the book to have gone? Things aren’t great in Iraq. I think in this case Bush didn’t talk because they knew by then that the book would turn out negative.

    “Lance, you missed it by that much.

    Gay
    Old
    Predators” – RacerX

    “actually, Racerz, I think Lance got it right.” – Zeitgeist

    Well, actually -I- don’t think I have it right. I used the word Gay myself, and I certainly don’t want conflate homosexuality with child abuse or pedophilia.

    What I think is true is that Foley, able to raise outrageous sums of money for the NRCC and NRC, basically bought the right to troll among the House pages for his next email sex partners. I’m not the kind of liberal (or parent, for that matter) who thinks teenagers should suddenly have sex lives unleashed at the age of eighteen without even knowledge of the subject before then. So frankly I’m not as horrified at the thought of Foley and his sick little relationships he carefully created with responsive young men over the years as I imagine a Theocratic Reactionary would be. If these little Republican’t drones want to live the life of a closeted self-hating homosexual in the conservative world they’ve helped to create, the less power to them. The scandel here is that Hassert and Reynolds knew about this stuff and did nothing about it because Foley was the conduit for so much campaign cash.

    Which really makes me want to see his donor list.

    GOP – Gnarled Old Perverts

  • This is going to get totally ugly for the GOP in the coming weeks. And instead of “d’Nile” (to use a slight play-on-words), one should note that “the Nile” is a river in Egypt, and very far away. However, there’s always “d’Potomac,” and I cannot get the crazy image of a “literal herd of Republicans—flocking from the Capitol building like mindless little lemmings—and flinging themselves into the Potomac River.”

    As mentioned in another post, I think that the GOP is demonstrating the early symptoms of a mass extinction event—their own….

  • “thanks Lance – I missed that you had done that, too.” – Zeitgeist

    Just doing my bit to keep this a reality-based community 😉

  • Comments are closed.