UPDATE: In some respects, I think the following post may be too unfair to Woodward. Rethinking here… although not about the general concept of ascribing “thoughts” to others in journalism.
Bob Woodward embodies the kind of vieux media self-importance that now seems to come from a distant era. His style of writing – which combines novelistic flourishes of a second-rate sort with a journalistic voice that fairly screams “I am Woodward – this is history!” – is as fake as it is fusty. A good example of this faux Flaubert (or perhaps more accurately Jacqueline Suzanne) technique is his frequent attempt to inform us of what people are thinking. Never mind the obvious that these “thoughts” are often a direct conduit for someone who is leaking unsubstantiated information – in situations of crisis, few of us really know what we are thinking anway, even assuming we could remember. Our thoughts are a confused jumble of the rational and the emotional, with a heavy emphasis on the latter. Anyone reporting in hindsight what someone “thought” is only taking a wild guess or serving somebody or a point of view.
But this doesn’t stop Bob. From Bloomberg’s Carlos Torres:
George Tenet, then director of the Central Intelligence Agency, warned Condoleezza Rice of a mounting threat by al-Qaeda two months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to Bob Woodward’s new book.
In a July 10, 2001, meeting with then national security adviser Rice and J. Cofer Black, the State Department’s coordinator for counterterrorism, Tenet warned that intercepted messages among al-Qaeda operatives and a mass of other intelligence pointed to an imminent threat, according to the book. Tenet and Black hoped Rice would convey the urgency of the situation to President George W. Bush.
“Rice could have gotten through to Bush on the threat, Tenet thought, but she just didn’t get it in time,” says the book, titled “State of Denial,” which went on sale yesterday. “He felt she was not organized and did not push people, as he tried to do at the CIA.”
Woodward has become a form of business institution that goes beyond the brand name status that most authors seek. He is The Authority. He has become a repository for a first draft of history (leaked to him exclusively) that is then ratified by Larry King for the public. But is it even faintly reliable? Who knows? This reminds me of the childhood game in which one kid in a line whispers a word like “alligator” in the next one’s ear and it comes out “Alabama” on the far end. I don’t know about the rest of you, but, when it comes to living history, I find it spooky tht one man’s version is so easily accepted.
Sheryl and I are up here in the Seattle area where we have bought some property. This news, via Breitbart, reminds us why.
I had the fascinating experience of doing a video interview with Senator Joe Lieberman late Wednesday afternoon. I confess to some nervousness beforehand because this was a big opportunity for our fledgling Pajamas Media. With the one-time Democratic Party vice-presidential candidate now fighting for his political life as an independent, there is little doubt that the Lieberman – Lamont race is the most interesting, certainly the most dramatic, of the 2006 election.
Some details: Producer Andrew Marcus and I met the Senator’s staff at his office in the Hart Office Building. But since election laws prevent interviews from being conducted in congressional offices, we were led down the street to the small apartment of a friend in the lower floor of a Capitol Hill townhouse. There, our crew rearranged the furniture for shooting and set up the lighting while I fidgeted and made small talk with Lieberman’s staff.
At about 5:15 the Senator walked in by himself, not surprisingly a little late. Lieberman’s a busy man these days. We made some small talk of our own – Lieberman and I had attended Yale at the same time, he in the law school and I in the drama school, both of us participating in the active campus civil rights movement of the period. We both squinted at each other, pushing back in our minds forty misty years, trying to recognize a youthful face hidden behind decades of life. But then, no time to waste, we set about the interview.
What I thought of him: I have always admired the Connecticut Senator more than most politicians, but I must also confess that I was occasionally put off a bit by the earnestness – that Holy Joe thing, the whiff of sanctimony. But I saw no evidence of that in the time we were together. In fact, the reverse: I was impressed with his genuineness and warmth. Was I wrong before or is this a new Lieberman? I’m not qualified to say.
But I offer this observation: In response to one of my questions, the Senator allowed that he felt running as an independent to be “empowering.” I could see in his eyes that he meant that in deep way. I empathized. I know from my own life how empowering shaking off the old clothes of rigid received ideas and alliances can be. At best, you can be reborn. Not a bad deal for someone whose age has a 6 in front of it.
I was also surprised at the honesty of his responses. The process of running for office makes people guarded in the extreme. His answer to one of my later questions particularly impressed me with its directness. I had been taken aback and moved by the decoration on the wall of his office reception room. Still lined up next to each other for the world to see were a number of smiling photos of Joe Lieberman cavorting with some great old friends in happier times – Connecticut’s other Senator Chris Dodd (now said to have presidential ambitions himself), Teddy Kennedy and Al Gore. Not one of them is supporting Lieberman for reelection. They are all backing his opponent. I asked Lieberman if he could ever forgive them. His answer, I promise you, will interest you.
Our new Washington Editor Richard Miniter accepts his position in his pajamas (plus Turnbull & Asser robe). Beside him, Glenn Reynolds. Photo cred: Michael Totten. (More on PJ with reactions)
If Democrats and Republican spent half as much time bashing Bin Laden as they do each other, he’d be dead a hundred times over. [Maybe he's dead anyway.-ed. I know, I know, but you get my point.] The latest salvos come from Condi who seems to have missed the point that Bill self-immolated the other day when wagging his finger (again!), this time at a perplexed Chris Wallace. (Off topic: Don’t you think sometimes that comparing Chris to his father is a proof point for nature in the nature vs. nurture debate?) Nevertheless, Condi felt constrained to defend herself after her opponent had already done it for her. Hello, Condi, time to reread Sun Tzu. This tawdry self-involved debate, naturally arising as an election approaches, is an example of American partisanship at its most self-destructive. The present objectives disappear in a blur as people turn backwards and rage.
Similarly, attempts to analyze the recent past like the “9-11″ Commission and the newly-revealed National Intelligence Estimate throw off far more heat than light. Indeed, I question whether recent events can be analyzed in a a dispassionate manner. There are far too many living and breathing parties grinding their axes. The documents of these biased and perforce perfunctory investigations are then accepted by as gospel by whatever side thinks they have scored a victory. Sometimes, as with meretrricious news organizations like the New York Times, analyses are proffered to the public based only of partial readingss of the conclusions. What a disservice to our country!
But rather than blame the Times, et al, which I do admittedly, I think it is time to discard criticism and look to the present and future. The great American success has been problem solving. Rather than blame each other, we should roll up our sleeves. What about the putting the vast resources of the NYT on the task of finding solutions. Now there’s a thought. [They're great at finding small Armenian restaurants in Brooklyn.-ed. Not as good as Chowhound.com. I thought you were being positive.]
Sunday’s lead story in the New York Times (”Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat“) carries the newspaper’s tradition of utilizing anonymous sources to the edge of self-parody. “More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article,” the fifth paragraph begins, “and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document.” [itals. mine, obviously]
Reporter Mark Mazzetti is referring to a National Intelligence Estimate none of whose details are revealed in the story, although the details would seem to be the very devils upon which this analysis depends. Never mind – it appears to be the Times’ practice to present veiled editorials on their front page despite a pledge to be more stringent in the separation of news and opinion (see Byron Calame in their own “Week in Review” section for Sunday). Never mind too that this particular piece, based on an intelligence review from April, suddenly appears at the height of a political season. We have come to expect this. All’s fair in love and war, as they say. But just don’t expect to be considered the newspaper of record or anything close. There’s no such thing and never should be. The Times is just another representative of a specific “class interest,” albeit an especially potent one.
Still the question raised by this April study is an important one, indeed seems to me the heart of the matter. How do we judge our policies and actions in the War on Terror? This is no easy matter. We Westerners live in a McLuhan-Warhol culture that exists for the moment, hurtling into the future in increasingly rapid bursts or bytes. We want answers – now, now, now. Then, on to the next. Our adversaries, most of them anyway, couldn’t be less interested in that. They are living out (”acting out”?) a Seventh Century belief system that, even when appropriating our technology, looks backwards to the imposition of a caliphate with religious law. We are a short haul civilization; they are an ultra long haul one.
The implications of this distinction are, I would think, immense and increase the difficulty in determining just how much the Iraq War fanned the flames of Islamism. The conventional wisdom is that this strain, if it is a strain, of Islam comes in waves. The same CW has it that the current version evolved from the ideas of Sayed Qtub, the Egyptian who spent some time in the United States and didn’t like what he saw. He played on the disaffections of his society, the failures of Nasserism, etc, which gave rise to the Muslim Brotherhood, which in turn metastasized to Al Qaeda and others and so it went.
I imagine this is true to some extent. But I suggest this view is also a Western (short haul) one and ignores the continuing and basically unchallenged doctrines of Islamic jihad referred to recently by Pope Benedict (for which he was attacked in a New York Times editorial). One of the problems here – and I am, like the Times’ Mazetti, at a distinct disadvantage not having read the intelligence report – is that by assuming that we are the ones who most fan the flames of Islamism we do not take the Islamists seriously. We are in a sense solipsistic and racist. Obviously jihad is a very powerful doctrine. It has lasted for fifteen hundred years – the terrorists of the Atocha Station cited the reconquista as their motivation – and is still growing in adherents, a record other extremist doctrines (Marxism-Leninsim, Nazism) should envy.
Looked at from that angle, the Iraq conflict is not more than a blip in a long war. In fact, you could argue that it brought to a head what was already inevitable and that it has hastened the resolution of this hugely difficult historical problem. [To be followed by the next one Herr Hegel?-ed. Of course.] Am I making that argument? Not necessarily. I just don’t know. But what does intrigue me at the moment, far more than the predictable political posturing of our leading newspaper, is the role of the Pope. He has challenged Islam on religious grounds to reform the doctrine of jihad and forever remove its violent component. Interestingly, the reaction on the vaunted Arab Street has been relatively subdued, nothing by comparison into the orgy over a few banal cartoons some months ago. I would suggest to the editors of the Times that they examine this. The Pope’s bold criticism of jihad may not fit their narrative, but it is proving to be one of the more heartening events in some time, ultimately far more “progressive” than anything offered by the newspaper.
UPDATE: PJ has more, including White House reaction to the Times.
MORE form the invaluable Spook86, a blogger you should bookmark, if you haven’t/
Well, not immediately… on Monday… I’m first stopping in Westchester County on family business (checking in on mom). Then on to DC for the Pajamas event on Tuesday night at the National Press Club (note to self: don’t forget suit). So far the evening is shaping up pretty well, but you’re always worried these things will turn into a disaster. What if nobody came? [That's why you have an open bar, idiot.-ed. Right, right.] In any case, I don’thave much to say at the moment (Is bin Laden alive? Who knows? And does it matter?) but I was inspired to write this post by an email that came through the editorial topic area in the Pajamas Media contact bin. It discussed me and this blog, regretting how after Pajamas Media started, comments began to dwindle here. That made me (and the corresondent) kind of sad. She liked the comments and commenters But there was good news. The writer, a woman in China, after going about other business, had rediscovered Pajamas Media lately and made it her homepage. She lovesit. So there’s good and bad. Onwards.
… that when they shake their fingers at us, they arouse our suspicions? But as I have said umpteen times on this blog, what people … anyone… did before 9/11 is of scant interest. What they did and do after 9/11 says everything. Those still playing the blame-game over 9/11, whether Republicans, Democrats or whatever, should get over themselves and start keeping their eyes on the ball – live in the now, as the shrinks say. We have a continuing crisis on our hands. Deal with that – not what happened in April 2001. (That includes Clinton. A man as intelligent as he is should know to keep his mouth shut. Qui s’excuse, s’accuse, as the French say. What he should tell his party, including his wife, is to come up with some concrete plans how to handle Ahmadinejad, et al. Bush bashing just doesn’t cut it, as the American public is evidently making clear. Time to come up with an actual program. And that’s not just for the benefit of his party. We are in a serious situation vastly transcending partisan politics.)
Everything moves faster these days, even Marx’s famous dictum “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. ” Now both happen at once as when Mad Ahmad tells us Krafty Kofi gave him permission to ignore a UN resolution against Iran. Kofi, of course, denied this in a New York minute lest he be run out of New York. Who knows who’s lying on this one? One? The other? Both? Farce indeed, with nuclear overtones – ergo tragedy. Meanwhile, to add farce to farce, Mad Hugo regrets the “death” of the living Noam Chomsky before Hugo could meet him and some wizard named George Palast, in the employ of the BBC of all places, opines on Fox News that Chavez is a “great stateman”. Marat/Sade anyone?
