Bob Woodward Calls War in Iraq Idealist
Email: 
Share: 
Bob Woodward, investigative reporter best known for his work with Carl Bernstein in uncovering the Watergate scandal, discussed his views on President Bush’s idealism and how it has influenced the Iraq war during his speech at Ithaca College yesterday. Entitled “State of Denial” after his book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III, it was the third lecture in a year-long series celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Park Scholar Program at Ithaca College.
“The Iraq war will be in the history books,” Woodward said in the question-and-answer session following his speech.
In his speech, Woodward chronicled many of his interactions with the White House, particularly in response to “the question lingering and really pulsing”: why did we go to war? After sending a 21-page memorandum to President Bush, which he joked was the longest thing he had ever read, Woodward had the unique opportunity to interview the president for three-and-a-half hours; “the longest interview a single president has given,” Woodward added.
During the interview, Bush “said something extraordinary,” something that, according to Woodward, could explain the Iraq war decision. He said “I believe we have a duty to free people, to liberate people.”
“At the center of the war, this is idealism,” Woodward said.
He sees this “embedded conviction” as blinding Bush, making him “unable to shift course.” Repeated red flags in decisions relating to the Iraq war presented by Jay Gardner former U.S. general, Stephen Hadley national security advisor and Philip Zelikow, counselor of the U.S. department of state, were repeatedly ignored, according to Woodward.
Unlike Woodward, however, Rebecca Bosh, one of Woodward’s many admirers in the audience, did not believe Bush’s misguided sense of duty and zeal to free people were the only motivations related his Iraq decisions.
“I was frustrated; I was curious, actually, about the title of his book … I felt there was more going on behind the scenes than to really deny what was happening in Iraq to the point of pursing policies … that doesn’t really seem to make sense … I do think there’s more to what’s happening in Iraq than that,” said Bosh.
One of the more startling aspects of what Woodward called “the decision of a lifetime” was that he did not seek the advice of his father, Colin Powell or Donald Rumsfeld, but asked only two people — Condolezza Rice and Karen Hughes.
“He was being honest,” said Woodward.
Yet as the country looks toward the future, Woodward suggests that people try to determine and understand what the presidential candidates have a zeal for and how they understand the presidency. According to the reporter, “the most important trait in a president is courage,” both the courage to “walk the road alone” and to admit mistakes and change course, as Bush has yet to do.
Woodward was part of a speaker series that included Danny Green, a Park School alumnus and co-creator of the The Smoking Gun website, and Norman Solomon, founder of the Institute for Public Accuracy.
According to Diane Lynch, dean of Ithaca College’s Roy H. Park School of Communications, the series was aimed at exposing all students to “the best of the best, to remind our community about the power and impact of real journalism.”
“He was a really good speaker. … I’m a journalism major so it was a big motivator; I really want to go out there and get the story,” said Norah Shipman, an Ithaca freshman.
Lynch estimated that about 1,800 people from all over came to hear Woodward.
“He’s an American icon. … There’s a whole generation of people who are journalists now because of Woodward and Bernstein. … Literally when I grew up and decided I wanted to be a journalist it was because of [them],” Lynch said.
In contrast to Bernstein, however, Woodward “reports the most difficult subjects in American culture and he has never had to make a retraction. He has never been wrong,” according to Lynch.
Woodward’s true love for reporting also made him an interesting speaker.
“It is an exhilarating business … It is the best job,” Woodward said.
To the students he gave the following advice: “I urge on you … find work you love … be hard on yourself resting … make that a goal.”
Dean Lynch on Woodward
I would suggest that Dean Lynch has violated the Mencken axiom, "No generalization is worth a damn, including this one." Woodward, while encouraging people to admit that they are wrong, has never made a retraction but this should not be taken as evidence that his work has never been challenged.
Many of those close to the late John Belushi strongly disagreed with things in Woodward's biography of the comedian. One described Woodward's work as, "He thinks that just because it's in his notes, that proves someone said it."
Woodward's accuracy
When reading Mr. Woodward's books, in particular his "Bush at War" trilogy, one has to keep in mind that nearly 95% of his material came from direct interviews, i.e., from the mouths of the participants themselves, much of which can be self-serving. I have read most of Woodward's work over the years, starting with "All the President's Men," and running through all of his latest trilogy including "State of Denial," which I just finished a few weeks ago. But I have also read quite a number of other books about the Bush administration and its wars by a variety of authors, some mainstream like Woodward, some from the left and some from the right.
There are authors who work like Woodward, that is, they have access to the powerful and most of their work comes in the form of intereviews with the principals and deputies. And then there are authors like Seymor Hersh, who gather most of their information through a varitey of informants, investigative stringers, mid-level participants, intelligence operatives, whistle-blowers,and the like. Generally, I put more stock in the Hersh-type writers and in the end they are generally more accurate. As Michael Ignatieff, professor of human rights at Harvard’s John Kennedy School of Government, says, Hersh is the “anti-Woodward.” Writing in the New York Times in October 2004, Ignatieff compared Hersh to Bob Woodward: “Woodward is official scribe to the inner sanctum. In Woodward’s world everything is what the principals say it is. In Hersh’s world, by contrast, nothing the policy elites say is true actually is.”
To properly evaluate a writer's work one must read as broadly as possible.
Court Historian
Woodward is what the late Arthur Schlessigner was for the Kennedys: court historian. After Watergate fame, he become close to the movers and shakers in Washington. In exchange for dinner invitations in Georgeotwn, he gets to write flattering portraits of the people he interviews.
Write something accurate (i.e. critical) and the invitations stop.
US foreign policy has never been idealistic in the 20th century unless you consider Woodrow Wilson's invasion of the Philippines to be an experiment in democracy. (See Stuart Creighton's splendid book, Benevolent Assimilation on the invasion and aftermath).
Bush can't care about democracy otherwise the Shia in Iran -- long repressed -- would form alliances with the Shia in Saudi Arabia and Iran and precious oil leverage would be jeopardized. Is Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or any of our new client regimes in Central Asia democracies? Does anyone care in the Bush White House.
Democratic action is liked so long as the right people win, otherwise elections are subverted.
Woodward is intellectually dishonest and a moral coward. That's why he has had best-seller after another and he never captures people committing war crimes and violating international agreements. At most, he claims Bush et al made tactical "mistakes."
Correction
I made a typo in my post above. I was referring the Shia in Iraq (not Iran as mistakenly typed) who have been long-repressed in favor of the minority Sunni's in Iraq. Thus, full democracy in Iraq would mean that the Shia would favor close ties with the Shia in Sau Arabia and Iran.