Woody reporting

What do Bob Woodward's last three big books have in common?  I'll give you a clue, their titles are: Bush at War; Plan of Attack; State of Denial.

If you said they're all in-depth accounts of the decision-making processes of the Bush administration, you'd be wrong, I'm afraid.  They don't get close. If you said they're three different components of an unfolding narrative, a trilogy chronicling events  in Washington these last five years: wrong again. They flip about and overlap, repeat and contradict.

Congratulations, if you got the right answer:  They all have three words in the title, two nouns separated by a preposition.

Sorry, but I'm darned if I can find anything else the three share. Books One and Two told a stirring tale of heroism on the part of President Bush, focused and engaged on leading America through the post-9/11 trauma.  Book Three, published this week, to the usual promotional fanfare of the Washington Post's publicity machine, is a dark tale of the same president disengaged, incurious, incompetent, bungling his way through foreign policy.

Well, you might say, not unreasonable. A lot of people thought Bush was great after 9/11 and still OK until a couple of years ago.  A good reporter will surely recount that changing verdict from insiders.  But the really odd thing is that Book Three of course, covers much the same ground as Books One and Two, chronologically speaking: even some of the same meetings and conversations that supposedly took place. In other words, either those first two books were inaccurate or this one is.  Or, strike me down for suggesting it! - perhaps all three of them are.

There are various views of the latest Woodward phenomenon.  It's been opined that he's trying to make up for the overly hagiographic nature of the first two books by writing a Bush-basher for the third - commercially wise, probably, given the tumble in Bush's approval ratings.

But there's no mystery. The Woodward style is straightforward - to get some - some, not all, I stress - important sources to speak to him off the record. So the account that emerges is one that - surprise! - ends up making those sources look good. Two years ago, these sources had a big interest in making Bush look a strong president, because they were still, in various ways, associated with him. Now, it's in the interest of those same sources to trash him.

Now, your next question: Why does anybody pay the slightest attention to this stuff?

Comments

[eurosceptic]

You are way too kind to this guy. He is a "drive by hit man" who just happens to publish a book in advance of the elections which by the way was a requirement of his publisher. Bob Woodward himself is yesterdays news and most of this "conclusions" are made up in order to give the inside the beltway morons something to get excited about. Most people will not give him or his stupid book the time of day. You would need to be blind not to see that this is a blatant "hit job" which is exactly the kind of story that MSM love to put forward as the truth. Give us a break. No doubt it will confirm what you leftys in the UK have been feeding your readers. So be it.

[Jim Walton]

"Now it can be told" to quote Geraldo Rivera, America's leading tabloid TV star. Eurosceptic, who's identity had been carefully protected until now is actually Tony Snow, chief flak for the Bush administration.

[mike kendellen]

If we should not pay attention to Woodward's books, as you imply by your question, what do you recommend we pay attention to?