October 5, 2006

HIS ALLEGIANCE IS TO HIS THEME:

Woodward's Allegiance (ANDREW FERGUSON, October 4, 2006, NY Sun)

If you live in Washington long enough, you get used to the Woodward Spasm — that unearthly convulsion that wracks the capital at irregular intervals, whenever the famed Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward rears his handsome head and releases another of his insider tell-alls.

Some of us manage to remain unconvulsed. But even I've been taken aback by the intensity of this latest Woodward Spasm, which accompanies the publication of his new book, "State of Denial: Bush at War Part III." [...]

How to explain the intensity of this convulsion? Saturday's Post article about the media coverage contained hints.

"The dominant theme of the new book — that the administration was torn by internal divisions over Iraq and failed to recognize its blunders — could prompt a reassessment of Woodward's work," the Post wrote.

Such a "reassessment" was probably inevitable. Mr. Woodward has often been misunderstood, even — or perhaps especially —by his admirers.


What is there to reassess? It's been obvious for quite a while that Mr. Woodward is perhaps the single most important conservative writer of the late 20th century/early 21st century and this book follows his template precisely.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 5, 2006 12:10 AM
Comments

I haven't read State of Denial yet, but I'm still working on Peter W. Galbraith's End of Iraq, which appears to share Woodward's thesis.

The administration could not ever openly articulate that we had prededitatedly sown chaos within Iraq, with a view to brings about its total destruction. Certainly we could never admit that we had a policy of hasatening the "reformation" of the spiritual jailhouse by maximizing its contradiction.

Yet that is what Galbraith and probably Woodward are saying we are doing. It is supposed to be bad thing that the FORMER IRAQ joins the former Soviet Union, former Yugoslavia, former Japanese Empire, and former Third Reich?

Let us look at the Iraq business this way. We used the Saddam Hussein regime to restrain Iran when it was convenient to do so. When that was no longer necessary, we baited them to attack Kuwait, then chastised Iraq in Gulf War One. As Iraq became obsolete to our intentions, we neutralized it forever in Gulf War Two, now standing aside as it tumbles into the dustbin of history.

Posted by: Lou Gots at October 5, 2006 12:01 PM

Americans have been unable to think straight about the Shi'ites since the hostage crisis--hardly surprising that folks can't accept the war is about liberating them.

Posted by: oj at October 5, 2006 12:21 PM
« WELCOME BACK, BERNIE!: | Main | TITOLLATING TALES: »