What Woodward Knew

The politicization of the war is complete.

I wish I knew more about WWII. I remember a united public and no defeatism - but that's a kid's memory. Every war we've fought since then and all previous wars I've read about were accompanied by very public opposition.

How did Roosevelt do it? Or are my perceptions simply wrong?

Stentor, you mentioned Barone's stellar election night performance. I thought you'd enjoy the following from Barone's archives:

"The 51 percent nation
Nov 8, 2004
by Michael Barone ( bio | archive )

Love is stronger than hate. That is the lesson of the 2004 election results. Millions of Democrats and leftists have been seething with hatred for George W. Bush for years, and many of them lined up before the polls opened to cast their votes against him -- one reason, apparently, that the exit poll results turned out to favor Democrats more than did the actual results.

But Republicans full of love, or at least affection, for George W. Bush turned out steadily later in the day or sent in their ballots days before. They have watched "old media" -- The New York Times, the broadcast networks CBS, ABC and NBC -- beat up on Bush for the past year, and they have listened to the sneers and slurs directed at him by coastal elites for a long time. Now they had their chance to speak. They did so loudly and clearly, giving Bush the first popular-vote majority for president in 16 years.

The line among political insiders was that turnout would increase from 2000 and that higher turnout would favor John Kerry. Right and wrong. Turnout was up 11 percent, but Bush's total votes were up 18 percent from 2000, while Kerry's were up just 10 percent from Al Gore's.

The Democrats relied on labor unions and billionaire-financed 527 organizations for their turnout drives. They depended primarily on paid workers, some of whom were very good and some very poor; some signed up Mary Poppins, and one in Ohio was paid with crack cocaine. The Bush campaign built its own organization and relied primarily on volunteers, some 1.2 million of them. Volunteers were given varied tasks and numeric goals, and were repeatedly tested. They delivered on Election Day.

On election night, most observers were focusing on central cities to see how many votes the Democrats would roll up. Working for Fox News, I concentrated on smaller counties in Florida, Ohio and other target states in which all or nearly all the precincts had reported results. I found a clear pattern in state after state. In small and medium-sized counties, turnout was up, by 10 percent, 20 percent, even 40 percent in fast-growing areas, and the Bush percentage was up as well, by 2, 4 or even 8 percentage points. Aggregate those increases, and you have more new Republican votes than new Democratic votes in Cuyahoga or Broward counties. That, repeated over and over again, is the story of this election. Karl Rove's strategy of concentrating on increasing Republican turnout worked.

Four years ago, I wrote that this was a 49 percent nation. In the 1996, 1998 and 2000 House elections, Republicans led in the popular vote by 49 to 48 or 48.5 percent; the 2000 presidential election was a 48 to 48 percent tie. Americans seemed evenly divided, mainly on cultural and religious lines. In 2002, that changed a bit: Republicans won the House vote 51 percent to 46 percent, while Bush's job approval hovered around 65 percent.

This year his job rating has hovered around 50 percent or below. He has been the target all year of vicious and biased coverage from old media, many if not most of whose personnel saw their job as removing this scourge from the presidency. The "60 Minutes" story about Bush's Air National Guard service, which was based on obviously forged documents, is only the most egregious example. Old media have headlined violence in Iraq and reported almost nothing about positive developments there; they highlighted the charges of self-promoter Joseph Wilson and spoke nary a word when they were proved bogus; they have given good economic news far less positive coverage than they did when Bill Clinton was in office.

Yet the results of this election closely resemble the 2002 House results. Bush beat Kerry 51 percent to 48 percent; the popular vote for the House appears to be about 51 percent to 47 percent Republican. Voters knew the stakes -- polls showed majorities thought this was an important and consequential election -- and both candidates had plenty of opportunity to make their cases. Thanks to the 527s, more money was apparently spent against Bush than for him. So the results cannot be dismissed as an accident. We are now a 51 percent nation, a Republican majority, as once again in America, love has proved stronger than hate."

Thanks.

Bump for later

"Why does Fitzgerald give so much deference to reporters?"

I think I read somewhere that DOJ guidelines require that reporters be the last in the chain of evidence gathering, in deference to their so-called constitutional role as government watchdogs. The idea is that government should subpoena reporters only as a last resort.

But there's more to it than that. Fitz's press conference was very "light," almost gay, as the reporters were obviously sympathetic to his mission. Everybody was in a jolly mood, there were occasional outbursts of contented laughter, etc. Fitz cannot but have learned from the experience of Kenneth Starr, who found that a prosecutor who goes after a Democratic president will be vilified by the media, but that a prosecutor who goes after a Republican administration will get mostly sympathy and even adulation from the media.

And one final thing: one statement of Fitz that was almost universally ignored by the media was (quoting from memory): "My investigation encountered NO political interference from the White House or any government agency. We received full cooperation."

What I'm trying to figure out is the motive of the person who went to Fitz and told him about Woody. Was that person trying to help Libby, or hurt him, or help or hurt someone else? And why? Once again, as so often in this case, we have to ask the questions - the obvious ones - that the media refuse to ask.

My bet is Powell, Armitage, or Wilkerson at State. I am sure that once the Pincus and Kristof articles came out, the search was on for the name of this mysterious former US ambassador who had visited Africa on behalf of the CIA.

Has to be one of those three, or Marc Grossman. I have thought all along that the real "war" going on here has been the war between State and CIA. The CIA asked for an investigation of the Plame leak because they thought it came from State and they wanted to nail whoever did it. If Tenet or anyone at CIA had been the leaker, it's nonsensical for CIA to ask for a DOJ investigation. They didn't count on the Kerry campaign turning the whole thing into a political football, forcing the Justice Department to turn the investigation over to a special prosecutor.

Armitage is my bet. I think he turned himself in to Fitz because he found out Woodward was about to name him as the original leaker in a story. This way the heat gets turned back onto Woodward.

The reason this is so great is not only because it will exonerate Libby, but it will blow up Joe Wilson's whole scenario. This was no orchestrated campaign by the political animals in the White House to retaliate against him by outing his wife. It was an attempt by State to make the CIA look bad by revealing that a CIA employee had gotten her incompetent husband sent on an important fact-finding mission that turned out to be so badly handled that they tried to bury it.

There is a big reason why President Bush replaced both Tenet (and Mark Pavitt) and Powell when he did, and replaced them with people who are loyal to him. These two agencies have been at war with each other for years, both had been leaking like sieves, and Bush himself has become the collateral damage.

then those in the CIA that did this must be brought to justice and put in jail.
How many think this will happen?

I think it needs to happen. How about starting with a leak investigation?

To read later.

I am praying it is Richard Clarke

There is no doubt that Woodward has a good relationship with Powell and Armitage and has used them as sources before for his other books. I seriously doubt that Marc, a career FSO, would either be a contact for Woodward or leak such info to him. I agree with you that Dick Armitage is probably the guy. He does all the heavy lifting when it comes to bureaucratic in-fighting. Powell stays above the fray for the most part.

Bob Woodward did not, not, NOT come forward on his own. HE HAD BEEN IN HIDING!

Yep...don't you think Libby's attorneys' were hot on his trail, also? One way or the other Woodward was coming out...LOL

I am still hoping it is Richard Clarke

Interesting...wonder why Novak's source didn't say that they leaked the information to Woodward while the grand jury was around. As for Woodward, yes, he was trying to keep his involvement off the radar, but his source was in control of that. I didn't expect him to phone Fitzgerald.

How did Roosevelt do it? Or are my perceptions simply wrong?

Your perception is correct.

It is my recollection, as a little boy who pulled his wagon down alleys looking for scrap metal that I could sell to the metalworking shop (as I recall, $.02/lb for steel, $.04/lb for aluminum), that the country was absolutely united. At least, our little town in Oklahoma was.

The reasons for this are pretty clear:

1. We were attacked, after all, by Japan.
2. Germany had, in turn, declared war on us.
3. While there was a draft, it's necessity was understood. Most servicemen volunteered, anyway.
4. Every town, every family sent her sons to war. We all had a personal stake in it.
5. And, to insure and maintain that attitude, Roosevelt took steps toward what we now realize was a "marketing" of the war. Rationing and scrap drives were instituted for reasons that are now understood to have more to do with morale than need. Similarly, war bonds were promoted as a means of covering the resultant deficit -- and we put our savings into the war effort.

6. Importantly, the communications industry -- the news media and Hollywood -- were squarely behind the war effort and visibly supported it.

Pre-Pearl Harbor, I understand there was a great deal of conflict about the war and our limited involvement in it. But post-Pearl Harbor, there was NONE.

If the Bush administration can be faulted for their conduct of the Iraq war, it is in the "marketing" of it. It's a different kind of war, in that it doesn't really require any sacrifice on the part of the public -- beyond having to deal with the terminally silly TSA.

Meanwhile, the media can't be counted upon to provide an objective view of the war's progress. And, all too often, the administration falls mute.

As a consequence, the war is distant, increasingly misunderstood and, thus, unpopular. Unfortunately, though, that doesn't reduce the stakes...

Hmmm, interesting ideas.

The other reason Rove would have set this up is to protect himself as he may have anticipated the SP investigation.

So if I read you correctly, the leaker will come forward, say that he outed Plame to Russert, Woodward, Miller, Novak etc, then Fitz will be an idiot. But of course Fitz will drop the charges on Christmas Eve, the MSM will bury it all and nothing will become of it.

schu

ping!!

bttt