'State of Denial' Lands Early and Hits Hard [More Rumsfeld revelations from Woodward]

The Washington Post ^ | Saturday, September 30, 2006 | Howard Kurtz

[Irish Rose]

'State of Denial' Lands Early And Hits Harder

By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, September 30, 2006

The impassioned debate that seems to surround each new book by Bob Woodward burst into public view yesterday, two days ahead of schedule.

The unveiling of "State of Denial," Woodward's latest take on the Bush administration's struggle with the conflict in Iraq, scrambled the usual media alliances. The New York Times ran a front-page exclusive on a book by a journalist for The Washington Post -- which begins running excerpts tomorrow -- and Brian Williams led "NBC Nightly News" with a story based on advance tidbits put out by CBS's "60 Minutes," which airs its Woodward interview tomorrow. ....

Some commentators have maintained that those who cooperate with Woodward fare better in his narratives. In this case, however, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- who had to be ordered by Bush to cooperate with "Plan of Attack" -- granted two on-the-record interviews. Yet Rumsfeld is portrayed as "an arrogant, indecisive bumbler who won't take responsibility for his mistakes," as the New York Daily News, which also obtained an advance copy of the book, put it. ...

Times reporter David Sanger, who wrote his paper's story, said Woodward books are always news. "As someone who covers the White House, I can only view this with admiration," Sanger said. "He's got some fabulous supporting details and great scenes. Did we all know there was tension between Condoleezza Rice and Don Rumsfeld? Yes. Did we know the president told him to return her calls? No."

[Irish Rose]

I apologize if this has been posted before (I didn't find it). I posted it because that Sanger quote really surprised me. The president had to order Don Rumsfeld to return the Secretary of State's calls?

[advertising guy]

believe it ?

[Howlin]

And you believe that crap?

[Howlin]

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.

So now they will "reassess" Woodward as a writer because he trashes Bush?

Isn't that swell!!!

This book is nothing except people inside the Beltway trying to reposition themselves for the next administration.

In the words of Bill Clinton, they are trying to keep themselves "politically viable."

[advertising guy]

bingo Howlin...bingo....simple posturing

[Howlin]

I hope nobody forgets that Woodward is the guy who has let Scooter Libby sweat for two years when he didn't come forward and tell the world that he knew Armitage first leaked Valerie Plame's name.

He's not a reporter; he's a player.

And this article is MAJOR SUCKING UP on Kurtz part.

[advertising guy]

long as you are here we will remember....Woodward is a pedestaled liberal with Nixon credits....good enuf to not be scrutinzed by the drive by's

[HarryCaul]

Lands early? What, it was supposed to be only 3 weeks before the elections?

[Brad from Tennessee]

"Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, said of the new book: "I don't know whether that's where his reporting led him or whether it's more fashionable to be anti-Bush in 2006 than in 2002. I don't see what the big revelations are, and I don't see this changing anyone's mind in November."

In other words Kristol is saying Woodward was cobbling a book together during a time Woodward found himself being alienated from the Leftist American Media Establishment because (1) He had written a friendly book, "Bush At War", about the lead-up to the Afghanistan Operation and Invasion of Iraq and later "Plan of Attack", an update of "Bush At War", more critical of some people and events in the administration but politically a wash; (2) After Plamegate began to unfold many of Woodward's peers began to see him as an independent operator, like Judith Miller at the Times, who had exclusive access to the most powerful figures in Washington but saved his notes for his books rather than the daily news pages. This perception had the effect of distancing Woodward from his colleauges because Woodward, like Miller, seemed to operate on a higher professional plane. They weren't using the valuable scoops and nuggets of gossip and leaked secrets to bash Bush. Miller got fired and Woodward decide to turn his book into a political hit piece just weeks before an election. Woodward's new book is an apology to the Washington-New York news community for srtaying away from the herd.

So this new book

[Howlin]

You need read only one line of Kurtz's article to confirm you statements:

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.

[AmeriBrit]

Howlin, read this article all the way through when you get a chance, especially about Armitage and Powell getting their noses pushed out. After reading this I'd lay bets that Powell was the main instigator behind the Wilson/Plame leak to get his own back at GWB and crew. He just couldn't stand not being 'the main man' and being replaced.



http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/65285.htm

[snip]

" QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you for this opportunity. The New York Times insinuated today that there is "an air of tension" between you and Secretary Rumsfeld and that this contributed to the decision to have the two of you come here today. I'm actually quoting from Steve Weisman's piece. Have you had difficulties in your relationship with Secretary Rumsfeld?
SECRETARY RICE: Secretary Rumsfeld and I have an excellent relationship. We're working very hard together. We're actually having a great time here in Iraq. I think it's very stimulating for us both to be in these meetings with Iraq's leaders together. We can take a look at the nexus between political and military issues because after all, the security issues here have both a political and a military aspect. We had a meeting with the embassy and with some of the key military people. And this is a great opportunity for us to make sure that we have all the seams knit up and that we are fully ready to support this Iraq Government. But, no, the Secretary and I have an excellent relationship and we're having a great time here in Iraq. "

[snip]

[Coldwater Creek]

They think that if they throw enough of the stinky stuff, some is bound to stick!

[nopardons]

I've ALWAYS said it was Powell and for the very reasons you stated.

Many thanks for including me in the ping. :-)

[Howlin]

Okay, it's very late here for me, spell it out........Powell and Armitage?

[Brad from Tennessee]

You're right.

[nopardons]

Spot on!

[vimto]

Is there a new State in America the 'State of Denial'?

[Darkwolf377]

Is there a new State in America the 'State of Denial'?

[AmeriBrit]

They were pi@@ed off at having their noses pushed out.

You really need to read the whole thing but about 2/3 down it gets into it.

Powell thought he was going to be kingpin and be in charge of the Pentagon and State Dept. GWB showed him otherwise and he ended up on the outside.

[Howlin]

Okay, what am I missing? I read the Condi thing and that was about Iraq.

I read the Kurtz thing and I didn't see anything in there about Powell or Armitage.

What article are you talking about?