THE PLANK FEBRUARY 8, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Last September, when Bob Woodward's fourth book about the Bush administration, The War Within, was released, Derek Chollet argued in TNR that, despite the general perception that the book was harshly critical of Bush, the Bush White House had, in fact, expertly played Woodward. Chollet wrote:
[B]eneath the surface, the core of
Woodward's account actually seems to reinforce the narrative that Bush
is trying to spin about Iraq--that against mighty resistance inside and
outside the government, a small group made the gutsy decision to
double-down with the surge. As with every Woodward book, there's a
story within the story. His sources share their tales (or in some
cases, secret papers) to settle a score or shape the historical
narrative. And here we see National Security Adviser Steve Hadley
taking over Iraq decision-making and guiding Bush as he stared down
leery Generals and worried political advisers to push the 2007 surge.According to the Politico,
it was Hadley who helped shepherd Woodward throughout the West Wing and
the national security bureaucracy to conduct his research. But wait,
one asks, wasn't it Hadley who has also spoken out against the book?
Last week, after initial news reports of Woodward's book appeared, the
White House released a lengthy statement
in Hadley's name rebutting some of Woodward's depictions as "at least
incomplete." Such a move heightened the drama and guaranteed further
coverage; instead of trying to delegitimize the book completely, the
statement is actually an effort to spin it, bolstering the perspective
the Bush team wanted Woodward to convey. It still has the Bush-as-hero
arc.
Today's long WaPo article by Tom Ricks about Army General Ray Ordierno--which is excerpted from Ricks's new book, The Gamble--backs up Chollet's argument. Ricks reports:
In a recent interview, Odierno expressed surprise that a book by The
Washington Post's Bob Woodward, published just as Odierno took command
in Iraq, credited White House aides and others in Washington with
developing the surge. From Odierno's perspective -- and that of many
other senior officers in Iraq -- the new strategy had been more or less
conceived and executed by himself in Baghdad, with some crucial
coaching from Keane in Washington."We thought we needed it, and
we asked for it and we got it," he said, referring to the strategy.
"You know, General Petraeus and I think . . . I did it here, [and] he
picked it up. That's how we see it. And so it's very interesting when
people back there see it very differently."Of course, Odierno
said, ultimately Bush had to make the policy decision, and some White
House aides encouraged that step. But, he continued, "they had nothing
to do with developing" the way it was done. "Where to go, what [the
soldiers] would do. I mean, I know I made all those decisions."
Of course, this wouldn't have been the first time Bush played Woodward. With Bush now gone, let's hope it was the last.
--Jason Zengerle
2 comments
Wait, wasn't the surge McCain's idea?
In '03...
- michael
February 8, 2009 at 8:42pm
As children we are spun by many----our parents, our families, our communities. And they are in turn spun by the particular cultural and historical narratives they evolve from and into.
Bob Woodward and the folks in the Bush administration are no less the products of this than are you and I.
In the end how we come to understand who we think we are is predicated in large part on how aware we are of all the circumstantial contexts [and the people within them] that came to mold and manipulate us in one direction rather than another. From the cradle to the grave.
All this is cynically reflected in the narrative that is now being spun upside down and all around regarding Iraq. Today the narrative in Bushworld [and they're still out there in droves] is that the surge worked and the recent elections [where the secular parties beat back the religious ones] is a vindication not only of the surge but of the invasion and the occupation itself.
Thus all the other variables leading up to the surge [the flagrant lies, the incompetence, the tens of thousands dead, the hundreds of thousands wounded, the millions of refugees etc.] get spun out of the picture altogether. The neo-conservatives exonerate themselves. It was all worth it after all.
Go ahead, try to talk them out of it.
By and large, we believe what we know to be true far more readily than what we see right in front of us. In fact, for many, what they see is generally hammered into what they know. However contorted it appears to others.
Once we lash on to The truth [and almost any one will do] we defend it ferociously because we equate what we believe with who we are. If our religious or ideological Self is attacked we are too.
In other words, few are more effective at spinning us than we are ourselves.
So, sure, it goes without saying that Bush played Woodward. And of course Cheney played Bush. And Cheney was no doubt played by the neoconservatives.
But with the authoritarian personality of an evangelical, Pious Pinhead was set up to be spun by practically anyone with an ulterior motive.
Including God, no doubt.
george walton
- iambiguous
February 8, 2009 at 10:44pm