What's The Deal With...

... Bob Woodward? His new book:

In Bob Woodward’s highly anticipated new book, “State of Denial,” President Bush emerges as a passive, impatient, sophomoric and intellectually incurious leader, presiding over a grossly dysfunctional war cabinet and given to an almost religious certainty that makes him disinclined to rethink or re-evaluate decisions he has made about the war. It’s a portrait that stands in stark contrast to the laudatory one Mr. Woodward drew in “Bush at War,” his 2002 book, which depicted the president — in terms that the White House press office itself has purveyed — as a judicious, resolute leader, blessed with the “vision thing” his father was accused of lacking and firmly in control of the ship of state.

Why were the earlier books so different? Did he somehow not notice this stuff before? It's a serious problem for the most prominent people in the journalism world to be merely lagging indicators, praising leaders when they're popular and then pointing out that, in fact, they suck only after a whole series of disasters discredit them.

Comments

Why were the earlier books so different?

I would think the difference would be explained by the reaction to Woodward's prior books at Sally Quinn's cocktail parties. Also, he wants to get back in the left's good grances after helping to ruin Fitzmas.

Posted by Al | September 30, 2006 12:23 PM

You know Woodward's a Republican, right, Al?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 30, 2006 12:45 PM

I think he was supposed to be some kind of Rockefeller Republican back in the Watergate era, but (a) is there any reason to think he's still a Republican and (2) is there any reason to think that, even if still a moderate Republican, he's not interested in the Washington cocktail set? After all, people like Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy were also supposed to be some kind of Republicans prior to their entry into the cocktail set...

Posted by Al | September 30, 2006 12:53 PM

is there any reason to think he's still a Republican

Yes.

After all, people like Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy were also supposed to be some kind of Republicans prior to their entry into the cocktail set

Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy were well-tenured members of "the cocktail set" by the time they both voted to overturn the Florida Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.

Posted by Christmas | September 30, 2006 1:06 PM

Why do rats get off sinking ships?

Posted by Pithlord | September 30, 2006 1:09 PM

But Christmas, isn't Matthew's point that this new book is a complete political opposite from the last one? So does that mean Woodward's not a Republican?

Posted by Al | September 30, 2006 1:16 PM

But Christmas, isn't Matthew's point that this new book is a complete political opposite from the last one? So does that mean Woodward's not a Republican?

I think that the reversal makes him a "George Will" Republican: not smart enough to be a Democrat, but smarter than the rest of his party.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 30, 2006 1:19 PM

I think the reversal is interesting on two levels:
1st - I really would like someone to ask Bob what the hell he was thinking when he wrote the first two books, and I would like Bob to give an honest answer. I'd also like a pony, but I'm not getting that, either.
2nd - the reversal opens him up to massive attacks from the repub-bots, who will use it to show he's not trustworthy (a flip flopper if you will) and therefore his new book is not trustworthy.

Posted by Doug | September 30, 2006 1:31 PM

It seems to me he's just following the approval ratings. The Administration is unpopular, he wants to sell a lot of books, and so he writes a piece displaying the Administration in an unfavorable light.

Or, maybe, just maybe, the effects of the Kool Aid are wearing off, and he's written this a penance for the earlier tomes he wrote while under the influence.

But the cynical part of me says stick with the first theory.

Posted by moonbiter | September 30, 2006 1:38 PM

I consider this flop evidence that Bush will not attack Iran. Or that Bush will attack Iran, and it will be such a disaster on all fronts, military, diplomatic, and domestic that Bush will resign soon after.

Interpreting entrails is tough.

Posted by bob mcmanus | September 30, 2006 1:58 PM

Well, you pretty much nailed it -- they're all frontrunners. It's so much easier knowing that you'll never have to answer for being wrong without being able to retreat into, "But... but... everyone was saying that in 2002!"

Posted by Equal Opportunity Cynic | September 30, 2006 2:42 PM

"Why were the earlier books so different? "

They were in Bush's first term. Bush won't be running again, so Woodward isn't useful.

Posted by Jon H | September 30, 2006 2:50 PM

I consider this flop evidence that Bush will not attack Iran. Or that Bush will attack Iran, and it will be such a disaster on all fronts, military, diplomatic, and domestic that Bush will resign soon after.

I usually actually agree with you on substance, Bob, but I have to disagree with you here. I can't imagine anything short of an impending vote to convict from the Senate that would get George Bush to resign - and similarly, I can't imagine what could dissuade him from attacking Iran if he actually really wants to do it.

Posted by Christmas | September 30, 2006 3:14 PM

woodward, like colin powell, has ruined his reputation forever, but it's still rather amazing that he would now write a book whose subtext is: "i was a hagiographic fool for bush."

al, please, don't embarass yourself: woodward helped ruin his own reputation by playing cute on the plame case, but he did nothing to "ruin" Fitzmas, which hasn't been "ruined" in the slightest: thanks to fitzgerald, we know how desperate the bush insiders were to slime joe wilson and how little they gave a god-damn as to who else got harmed (and thanks to corn and isikoff, we know that the bush insiders didn't care if they harmed plame, either, since as far as they were concerned, she was part of the enemy at the CIA that just wouldn't recognize how many WMDs saddam had).

Posted by howard | September 30, 2006 3:23 PM

Matt's post suggests the question (I can't resist . . . ): "What did Woodward know, and when did he know it?"

Posted by Bobb | September 30, 2006 3:29 PM

My understanding of Woodward is that he's basically a mouthpiece for whoever his sources are on a given book. In this case, his sources would seem to have abandoned the sinking ship that is the Bush administration.

Posted by John | September 30, 2006 3:49 PM

just further evidence that there really has not been *anything* that deserved to be called "journalism" from the MSM for the last six years.

Josh Marshall's empire--they are doing some real investigative reporting, and printing the results. But NYT and WaPo? Completely in the tank for the Bush regime.

Posted by kid bitzer | September 30, 2006 4:18 PM

Al has an interesting idea for a political party: the interests of specific individuals (the Leaders), rather than ideas, form the basis for party membership. One's allegiance is to persons.

The idea that the body of the king is the state is rather an old one, but, hey, everything old is new again.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 30, 2006 4:24 PM

It's a serious problem for the most prominent people in the journalism world to be merely lagging indicators, praising leaders when they're popular and then pointing out that, in fact, they suck only after a whole series of disasters discredit them.

A problem for the country perhaps; but a damn fine strategy for selling books.

Posted by Dan Kervick | September 30, 2006 4:46 PM

The most likely explanation I can see for Woodward's about-face is a simple one: in the earlier books, the White House invited him in to the inner circle and made him feel important. This time, Bush wouldn't let him in. Woodward is, ultimately, driven by ego. He is no longer a journalist; he's a celebrity. His first two books on Bush included as fact things that Bush and the White House told him were true, and Woodward accepted them no questions asked. Which is too bad, because it seems apparent that this book is the only one of the three that bears some resemblance to the truth. But when you've lost your credibility, as Woodward has, it diminishes the impact of the occasional accurate reporting he does.

Posted by DH in DC | September 30, 2006 5:00 PM

And now think about it. If Woodward has no credibility left, who in the media has any left? Translation: We're fucked.

Posted by Reality Man | September 30, 2006 5:14 PM

Bob Woodward's active participation in the sliming of Valerie Plame, while all the time secretly concealing that he knew who had leaked her CIA ID, was the final straw in the political haystack that made me mistrust him for life.

WHY SHOULD WE buy yet another book from this man when his aim is hardly to inform the country he professes to love, but to just make more money off of his incestuous relationship with the current administration? This newest tome is yet another disgraceful attempt to “appear” trustworthy, in the loop and to prove he really isn’t “SOFT” on the administration. So anything that Woodward may have done in the past is really moot.

Moot, eh? HOW ABOUT THE FACT that he went all over television (and print) with allegations that Patrick Fitzgerald was a crazed prosecutor who proceeded in a ham handed manner. HOW ABOUT THE FACT that he actually KNEW first hand who said what to whom and yet didn’t think that was an important fact to reveal to the television audiences while discussing the entire despicable mess. HOW ABOUT THE FACT that he always saves all the “good stuff” for his books, so he ends up looking good, making lots of money WHILE keeping all of the important information from the voting public while an election is pending.

Well I have written to Bobbie boy at least 3 times plus various people at the Washington Post at least 7 times on this and I think Bob’s newest book blitz in attempting to suck all of the oxygen out of the room is deserving one more final email. I will NEVER buy a book from this man EVER again!

BOYCOTT WOODWARD!
(Smarmy idiot that he is).

Posted by Polly Tics | September 30, 2006 5:49 PM

I didn't actually take Plan of Attack to be all that flattering to the admin. Has everybody who goes along with the conventional wisdom on this actually read it? It has a lot of material not particularly dissimilar to Ron Suskind on the disparities between the public front, and the actual decisions to attack Iraq, and the intramural administration infighting, and so on.

Posted by Gary Farber | September 30, 2006 6:00 PM

"I didn't actually take Plan of Attack to be all that flattering to the admin. Has everybody who goes along with the conventional wisdom on this actually read it? It has a lot of material not particularly dissimilar to Ron Suskind on the disparities between the public front, and the actual decisions to attack Iraq, and the intramural administration infighting, and so on."

Quite true.

Posted by Petey | September 30, 2006 6:30 PM

"It's a serious problem for the most prominent people in the journalism world to be merely lagging indicator"

But, of course, they get to be prominent people precisely because they are lagging indicators. Representing the CW is a very specific occupational role.

Walter Cronkite came out against the Vietnam war in 1968, not in 1965.

Posted by Petey | September 30, 2006 6:32 PM

Leaving aside the fact that he wants to sell books and the climate's pretty ripe for this sorta thing, remember Woodward went from investigative journalism in his early career to a brand of access journalism, this variety depending highly on loyalty. From here it looks like Booby must be thinkin' Bush's time is up. That or he wanted a 2 year vacation from D.C. (doubtful.)

Posted by Murph | September 30, 2006 7:14 PM

If Woodward has no credibility left, who in the media has any left?

I get your dramatic point, but there are journalists doing real journalism. Many. Hersh and Suskind have been all over these creeps from the start. So has Palast. So have many internet people, like Matt. The problem is that public opinion in the U.S. is generally politically apathetic and is constantly being provoked with simplistic, sensational controversies that deplete the typical person's political stamina and concentration. Simultaneously, truly important matters are marginalized or presented, as was Iraq, with a maximum of hysteria and a minimum of content, al amid so infantile bickering by paid proponents, that the public is immune to any actual transmission of context and reality.

So ultimately whether Bob Woodward's got ethics or not matters little. Unless a major reform of the news media takes place, in which paid political agents are identified consistently and reliably, there is little hope of improving the signal to noise ratio that keeps Americans apathetic and inactive about such grave political fraud.

Posted by Murph | September 30, 2006 7:31 PM

Woodward is a stenographer. In the earlier books, his sources
(notably Powell) were on the inside and talking from the official
script. In the latest book, he's transcribing people who've
been screwed over by Bush - like almost anyone who ever deals
with him - and they're happy to tell the depressing truth (or
at least, a version which makes Bush look bad while making
themselves look good).

I have no sympathy at all for Powell. He knew Iraq was going
to be a mess, and he was probably the one person in the world
who could have prevented the war, by resigning and going public
with his doubts. Instead he peddled a steaming pile of horseshit
at the UN.

W's Republicans Party is a bunch of rats that you can't trust
with your tax dollars, your army, or your teenage son. No
surprise they're turning on each other. Let's hope the ship
goes down quickly.

Posted by Richard Cownie | September 30, 2006 9:05 PM

I haven't read Plan of Attack either, but, regarding Gary Farber's comment, I recall a long series of posts on the Daily Howler to the same effect. The Bushies put out the word that they felt the book was favorable so that, knowing most wouldn't read it, that would become the conventional wisdom.

Posted by matt | September 30, 2006 9:13 PM

Two options:

1) Woodward saw Fred "Fellatrix" Barnes make even more of a fool of himself with his printed Bush blow job.

2) Woodward looked at the market, and figured that more printed Bush blow jobs wouldn't be as lucrative as massaging anecdotes into a book critical of Bush.

There is no case 3) Woodward is a fair-minded observer with personal integrity.

Posted by sglover | September 30, 2006 10:35 PM

I think that the reversal makes [Woodward] a "George Will" Republican: not smart enough to be a Democrat, but smarter than the rest of his party.

Quoted for truth - I think Woodward has finally achieved the state of "buyer's remorse" that so many other Republicans are finally waking up to. His journamalism is driven by his personal opinions now, not the other way around.

Posted by NonyNony | September 30, 2006 11:01 PM

The Republicans have a habit of stabbing the people that help them in the back.

Let's accept this gift at face value and try to resist scoring some boilerplate blog content off our new friend's conversion.

Posted by monkyboy | September 30, 2006 11:07 PM

Bush won't attack Iran, of course. Is this really a question?

Woodward, the NYT, and everyone else in the industry is madly trying to position themselves for history. Unsuccessfully.

GHW Bush, the current leadership of the NYT, Woodward, and all the rest, will be judged badly. Too little too late Woodward.

The only question for history will be how Bush bamboozled the cognoscenti. Were they really that scared? Stupid? Unbelievable.

Posted by epistemology | October 1, 2006 12:39 AM

Woodward has Bush as a decisive, resolute, big picture guy. And now Bush is incurious and rigid. Funny how a guy used to be engaged but now has grown intellectually incurious.

Would Woodward care to explain how Bush has gotten less informed since he last described him? Woodward's reputation is trash. Nothing can redeem him. The Iraq war was far more damaging to the US than Watergate. If Woodward never went into journalism, the world would be better off.

Posted by epistemology | October 1, 2006 12:44 AM

Who has credibility? Jon Stewart has more credibility now than the NYT. Except for Krugman and Frank Rich.

Posted by epistemology | October 1, 2006 12:48 AM

Why were the earlier books so different?

Yes, it is due to the much higher poll numbers Bush had then.

Posted by bob h | October 1, 2006 7:15 AM

Kevin Drum and Richard Cownie (upthread) have it right. Woodward is the court stenographer. The court is grumbling, so we get "State of Denial."

Posted by SqueakyRat | October 1, 2006 11:20 AM

It's a serious problem for the most prominent people in the journalism world to be merely lagging indicators, praising leaders when they're popular and then pointing out that, in fact, they suck only after a whole series of disasters discredit them.

It's only really a problem if you rely on the likes of Woodward for useful information

Posted by TW Andrews | October 1, 2006 1:18 PM

It must be that the rats are all but off the ship. I have tried to get Senator Warner to go see him, but he refuses.
It will be sad watching the man disintegrate over the next couple of years. How on earth he stays off the sauce is a mystery to me.

Posted by Hedley Lamarr | October 1, 2006 1:35 PM

Wondering what's going on in Woodward's mind may be a mistake. As Richard Cownie points out, Woodward is essentially a stenographer. If Woodward ever investigates the truth of what he's told or interposes any thought at all between what the big shots on his rolodex tell him and what he writes, I've never seen any evidence of it. The value in Woodward's new book is that the big shots on his rolodex are now saying what they're saying. Woodward himself is just the messenger.

Posted by CJColucci | October 1, 2006 4:46 PM

Woodward was a nice guy at first, getting and receiving the President's ear by writing--initially--as a sycophant.

Once he had the access, he then used it to get to the real story, which is now coming out through him.

Grease the wheels, then burn the track.

Posted by Terraformer | October 2, 2006 10:03 AM

So have many internet people, like Matt.

Can you point me to any example of serious ORIGINAL investigative journalism Matt has done? He's a PUNDIT first and formost, and while that's all well and good (OPINION journalism is an honorable profession), that's not the same as actually doing shoe-leather reporting and ferreting out a new story. And, no, linking to others' stories in TPMMuckraker doesn't count.

Posted by TheManofKStreet | October 2, 2006 1:38 PM