October 24, 2004

IT STARTED WITH TAKING OUT NIXON...:

Decision Iraq: Would Kerry Have Done Things Differently? (Bob Woodward, October 24, 2004, Washington Post)

The role of commander in chief is clearly one of the president's most important jobs. But a presidential campaign provides voters little opportunity to evaluate how a candidate would handle that role, particularly if the candidate isn't an incumbent.

At the end of last year, during 3 1/2 hours of interviews over two days, I asked President Bush hundreds of detailed questions about his actions and decisions during the 16-month run-up to the war in Iraq. His answers were published in my book "Plan of Attack." Beginning on June 16, I had discussions and meetings with Sen. John Kerry's senior foreign policy, communications and political advisers about interviewing the senator to find out how he might have acted on Iraq -- to ask him what he would have done at certain key points. Senior Kerry advisers initially seemed positive about such an interview. One aide told me, "The short answer is yes, it's going to happen."

In August, I was talking with Kerry's scheduler about possible dates. On Sept. 1, Kerry began his intense criticism of Bush's decisions in the Iraq war, saying "I would've done almost everything differently." A few days later, I provided the Kerry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations. The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers.

Because the interview did not occur, it is not possible to do the side-by-side comparison of Bush's record and Kerry's answers that I had envisioned. But it seems to me that the questions themselves offer a useful framework for thinking about the role of a president who must decide whether to go to war.

Here are the 22 questions, edited only for clarity...


No one has done more over the last thirty years to advance the conservative cause than Bob Woodward, as this virtual endorsement of George W. Bush further demonstrates.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 24, 2004 6:09 PM
Comments

I certainly get the sense that there are numbers of Democrats who won't say so publicly, but are not thrilled with the idea of a Kerry presidency, and will vote for Bush.

Posted by: PapayaSF at October 24, 2004 6:44 PM

The questions were cream puffs. I get the impression that Woodward is really stemed and wants to slap Kerry silly.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 24, 2004 11:12 PM

steamed

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 24, 2004 11:15 PM

We should also note that Kerry has stiffed Bill O'Reilly.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 24, 2004 11:16 PM

Yes, but isn't he supposed to be interviewed by Katie Couric this week?

Katie Couric Joins Liberal Stars Hobnobbing
with John Kerry

No possible conflict of interest or bias involved is there?

Posted by: MB at October 25, 2004 1:40 AM

It's interesting because Woodward, a son of an admiral, is the voice of the Pentagon uniformed establishment.

Posted by: Bart at October 25, 2004 7:06 AM

He's the son of a judge, not an admiral. He had his own
chance to run swiftboats or PBR's down to My Tho, but
he chose an easier job as a Navy briefer, after his stint
with the USS Fox

Posted by: narciso at October 25, 2004 1:07 PM

narciso,

Thanks for the correction. I know I read that somewhere though. Woodward is certainly the voice of the DC Establishment.

Posted by: Bart at October 25, 2004 1:58 PM

Bart -

Woodward was, however, an intelligence officer in the Navy, and used to offer daily briefings to Al Haig, according to the book "Silent Coup". Woodward denies all that to this day. Hmmmm ...

Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at October 25, 2004 3:01 PM
« RED HAWAII (via mc): | Main | PREVENTING AFRICANS IS A TIMELESS VOCATION »