Posted on 11/12/2004, 7:24:56 AM by Merry
Who is President George W. Bush?
That's an important question, said Bob Woodward, an assistant managing editor for The Washington Post who has been analyzing Bush since he was elected president in 2000. As Bush prepares for his second term, Woodward said it's important for people to understand what motivates their president.
Woodward, perhaps best known for his reporting on the Watergate scandal that led to President Richard Nixon's resignation in 1974, shed some light on the Bush presidency Wednesday while speaking to 500 members of the Washtenaw Economic Club at the Ypsilanti Marriott at Eagle Crest.
Bush has been the subject of Woodward's two latest books, "Bush at War" and "Plan of Attack," a critical examination of Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Woodward spent more than three hours interviewing Bush, and describes him as both courageous and negligent.
"You can't reduce him to a sound bite," Woodward said. "I guess if there's a theme to what I'm saying, there are more sides to him than what people think. He's a little bit more complicated. I think there is a critique of what he's done, and it's sound, and I think there is a defense of what he's done, and it's sound."
Woodward said that before the war, Bush suspected evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was weak, but the president conformed to the group-think of his administration when George Tenet, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said the case was a "slam dunk."
No such weapons have been found, prompting international criticism of Bush's reasoning for going to war.
"(Vice President Dick) Cheney started it when he said there's no question Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction," Woodward said. "And it was a mistake, but it was also a mistake by the president, who had sniffed that the case wasn't good. He should have pursued his suspicions further.
"(The lack of evidence) should have been in that intelligence estimate - we don't have a smoking gun. We think he has weapons, but we can't prove it. It might have changed history."
Woodward also believes Bush's unrelenting desire to liberate other nations - Bush told Woodward he has a "duty" to free people - can be viewed as a strength. During his interview with Bush, Woodward quoted a speech by British Prime Minister Tony Blair in which Blair admitted he had doubts about whether he should have sent troops to Iraq.
When he read Blair's quote, Woodward said, he was surprised when Bush jumped in his chair, saying "No doubt. I have no doubt" that the war is justified.
Because of that resolve, Woodward said, history might remember Bush as someone who brought peace and democracy to the Middle East.
"If you look back on history, the great presidents didn't seem so great in their time," Woodward said. "Look at commentary and discussion during the Civil War era. Most people thought Lincoln was crazy to fight a civil war where 620,000 people died in the North and South and the economy was destroyed. What were we fighting that war for?
"We now look back from our perspective and say Lincoln was a great unifier, a great president. For me, the most important characteristic a president can have is simply stated in one word: courage. And courage sometimes means walking the road alone. It means a leader saying we had to fight the Civil War, had to fight the Korean War, had to do certain things that leaders deem necessary that may be incredibly unpopular."
Sen. John Kerry's unwillingness to take a firm stand on the war in Iraq likely cost him the presidential election, Woodward said. While Woodward regards Kerry as a legitimate candidate, he said Kerry failed to provide answers for several tough questions.
"Kerry failed to say how he would use the power of the presidency," Woodward said. "He essentially was saying, 'I will use the power of the presidency to not be George Bush.' But he didn't have a positive agenda that was clear enough to people."
Woodward's audience, which proved through a show of hands to consist mostly of Kerry supporters, had mixed reactions to Woodward's message. Jessica Good, 33, of Milan, said she voted for Kerry and was disappointed to hear Woodward criticize her candidate.
"I'm a Kerry supporter, so I was surprised by his analysis of Kerry, and what he had to say about Bush and his strengths," she said. But Good said Woodward gave her a different perspective, because "he's looking at it all with a sense of history."
Brad Switzer, 36, of Milan said Woodward was fair to both Republicans and Democrats.
"I thought he did a good job of giving us both sides," he said.
Woodward was the last of four speakers to address the Washtenaw Economic Club this year, preceded by Ari Fleischer, Laura Ingraham and Richard Picciotto.
Woodward concluded his speech by answering questions from the audience, but he launched a pre-emptive strike of his own when he addressed one of the most frequently asked questions before it was asked.
"When are we gonna learn the identity of Deep Throat?" Woodward said, referring to the anonymous source he used during his Watergate reporting.
The answer?
"Not this afternoon."
James Briggs can be reached at jbriggs@annarbornews.com or (734) 482-2829.
© 2004 Ann Arbor News. Used with permission
Copyright 2004 Michigan Live. All Rights Reserved.
The answer?
"Not this afternoon."
Woodward has promised not to name Deep Throat until after his death. Of the people in a position to have the knowledge used to topple President Nixon most of them are dead. Liddy and buchanan are two of the few remaining possibilities.
That's one way of putting it. When someone is running for the presidency of the U.S. and all he can keep telling you is that,"I have a plan", without telling you what any of those plans are, it's a little disconcerting.
Hmmm: Liddy - Buchannan, Buchannan - Liddy? Of the two I would bet on Buchannan.
Woodwards book, Bush at War is actually very good, and he seems to give credit to the President for his conducting of it.
But Liddy and buchanan have always been known as die-hard loyalists. I lean toward the opinion that Deep Throat was a composite character, with a large dash of Woodward's dramatic flair thrown in.
buchanan? The same pat buchanan who looked close to tears today while he was singing the praises for Arafat? buchanan is a diehard loyalist...to himself.
What about Ford? He obviously had the most to gain...
Why not the little weasel, John Dean?
How much did he know? Then again, he did pardon Nixon right off the bat.
My vote goes to Buchannan.
He has always been an egotistical little shiz - and now appears to be more than a little senile.
Is he still alive?
You're talking about the Pat Buchanan of 2004, a very different person than the young editorial writer that quit his day job to work for Richard Nixon in 1967. I can't even recognize Buchanan now from the jovial co-moderator on Cross Fire with Tom Brady back in the early '80s. He's given in to whatever anti-semitic demons he had and that's a terrible thing.
Didn't Woodward break away from the Washington Post's endorsement of Kerry and personally endorsed the President the week before the election?
I'm not sure he wasn't opportunistic all of his life. Strange how he ended up on TV a while later; he wasn't that well known of a figure yet.
At the time of the events in question, he was in the House of Representatives. And you can bet that nobody would have trusted him with any inside information on Watergate once he became Vice President.
I really enjoyed both Bush At War, and Plan Of Attack. Woodward has a good writing style that is easy to read. I still maintain that both books paint a picture that is, on the whole, quite flattering to the Bush administration. Yes there were disagreements about how to do things, and there were heated arguments between the principals about better or worse strategies.
All of this is as it should be. Warfare is not something that *should* ever be undertaken without spirited discussion and passionate opinion-seeking within the halls of government. If it were any other way... I'd have a far larger problem with it.
Woodward was the last of four speakers to address the Washtenaw Economic Club this year, preceded by Ari Fleischer, Laura Ingraham and Richard Picciotto.
Look at the line up. Ari and Laura are surely Bush supporters. I don't know anything about Picciotto, but from google I learned that he's the leader of FDNY during 9/11. And then Woodward, who we know is willing at least give benefit of the doubt to Bush.
Woodward's audience, which proved through a show of hands to consist mostly of Kerry supporters...
It's quite interesting to see that the audience were mostly Kerry supporters. So, who organized this event? Are the other side trying to understand Bush now?
Actually he's not, unless you define "doing what you say" as puzzling. Combine that with common sense, faith in God, and understanding human nature, no wonder the left is so bamboozled. All foreign concepts to the Dims.
Of course, he was always opportunistic, aren't we all? He jumped at the chance to join Nixon's team by his own admission. Buchanan was ranked as Nixon's conservative speech writer, William Safire was the moderate, and Raymond Price was considered the liberal speech writer for Nixon.
The most insightful book I've read about Watergate was Raymond Price's book, "With Nixon". In those days, all three were friends, and if Buchanan fooled Safire and Price by playing Deep Throat, he's the world's best liar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.