Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The White House at War (Fred Barnes reviews Woodward & Sammon books)
The Weekly Standard ^ | 12/02/2002 | Fred Barnes

Posted on 11/23/2002 8:38:26 AM PST by Pokey78

Bush at War
by Bob Woodward
Simon & Schuster, 349 pp., $28

Fighting Back
The War on Terrorism from Inside the Bush White House
by Bill Sammon
Regnery, 400 pp., $27.95


LET'S GET RIGHT to the scoreboard. The winners in Bob Woodward's account of President Bush's response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks are Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA director George Tenet, and, to a lesser extent, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. And Bush himself, who Woodward believes figured out quickly how to be an effective commander in chief.

And the losers, those portrayed unfavorably by Woodward in "Bush at War"? Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. Rumsfeld is treated as difficult and cranky and not well liked by the uniformed military. Cheney is the administration's superhawk, and Woodward takes the word of others that the vice president is obsessive about going to war with Iraq. Meanwhile, in "Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism from Inside the Bush White House," Bill Sammon renders the post-September 11 days as a one-man show. Bush is the hero, playing his public and private roles as a wartime president with skill and compassion.

Publication of any book by Woodward is a major event in the Washington political community--and not only because some top government players are boosted, others not. A question always lurks: Who talked to Woodward? The rule of thumb is that those who talk extensively and leak riveting information come off better than those who don't. Maybe, maybe not. But it's clear Woodward had, in writing "Bush at War," impressive access to the people he promotes--to Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, to Tenet and much of what his agency was doing, and to what went on in the meetings of the National Security Council, the realm of the president, Rice, and Hadley. Rumsfeld and Cheney were less helpful. Rumsfeld provided only an on-the-record interview, according to an aide. Cheney was not interviewed for the book.

There's plenty of evidence of Woodward's reporting prowess in "Bush at War"--the inside details (Bush bench presses 205 pounds), the hidden fears (Bush aide Karl Rove worries Powell is protecting his moderate credentials at Bush's expense), the private conversations ("I hope you'll never lie to me," Bush tells Senate majority leader Tom Daschle on September 12, 2001), the interior conclusions of the players (Hadley "thought" Rumsfeld didn't take the CIA seriously enough), and so on. Woodward, famed for his investigative reporting that cracked open the Watergate scandal, is the best pure reporter of his generation, perhaps ever. He uncovers more things than anyone else in journalism--important things as well as trivial, and all interesting. For example, in "The Commanders," his book about the Gulf War in 1991, Woodward revealed the strong reluctance of Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State James Baker to go to war with Iraq.

But in "Bush at War" there's a glaring omission. Woodward misses the turning point in the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda forces. It's as though the most important scene had been left out of a movie, say, where Clark Kent turns into Superman. In Afghanistan, it was the moment when the Bush administration decided to abandon its strategy of appeasing rivals of the Northern Alliance, the anti-Taliban rebels, and begin carpet-bombing Taliban troops. The date was October 31, 2001, and within days Mazar-i-Sharif fell in northern Afghanistan, with the Taliban fleeing Kabul a few days later. Soon Kandahar, the Taliban headquarters, collapsed.

The author of the bombing restraint was Powell. He had Pakistan in mind, where President Pervez Musharraf was an opponent of the Northern Alliance and didn't want to see it occupy a large part of Afghanistan. Before September 11, Musharraf had backed the Taliban. So to keep Musharraf on board, American bombers had stopped short of striking massed Taliban forces, thus impeding an advance by the Northern Alliance. Not only does Woodward fail to mention Powell's role in limiting the bombing, he also doesn't cite the decision to adopt an aggressive new strategy.

THIS IS ODD because the dramatic shift was reported by William Branigin and Doug Struck on the front page of his own newspaper, the Washington Post, on November 1, 2001. "U.S. Intensifies Bombing," the headline said, and the sub-headline added, "Taliban Lines Hit After American and Alliance Generals Meet." The story said: "The intense bombing reflected a conclusion in Washington that U.S. military escalation should not be deterred by the failure to assemble a broad coalition of opponents to the Taliban inside Afghanistan, a senior administration official said. Previously, U.S. officials said that air attacks on front-line Taliban troops had been restrained in order not to favor rebels of the Northern Alliance, who are rivals of other potential members of a post-Taliban government."

Woodward notes that initially Taliban forces were off-limits to attacks in hopes they would break with al Qaeda. When they didn't, there was growing pressure to hit Taliban targets. Woodward mentions that Rumsfeld raised the question of these targets shortly after the war began on October 7, 2001. Two weeks later, he writes, the Northern Alliance wanted the Taliban front lines hit before its forces attacked. Later in October, a CIA operative in Afghanistan reported that the Taliban "had never been hit hard" and figured they could survive the American intervention. Around that time, Powell is quoted by Woodward as declaring, "I don't know that the opposition can take Mazar, much less Kabul." But Woodward fails to cite Powell's role in restraining attacks on the Taliban. Finally, Woodward writes that Cheney cited a CIA analysis to the effect the Taliban hadn't been bombed enough. "Do we need more sorties?" Cheney asks.

The answer was yes, though Woodward doesn't mention that such a decision was reached and implemented. The next thing we know it's November 5 and Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, is reporting to the National Security Council that "they were turning up the heat [and] hitting the front lines and troop concentrations of the Taliban and al Qaeda." Four days later, Army Lieutenant Tony Crawford rushes into Rice's office with the news: "Mazar has fallen." The decision to hammer the Taliban--the most critical decision in the entire war in Afghanistan--had worked. And on November 12, Woodward quotes General Richard Myers as saying that in three days the Northern Alliance had gone from controlling 15 percent of Afghanistan to holding half the country.

There's a final point about the gap in "Bush at War." Woodward mentions that on October 30, 2001, two columns appeared on the op-ed page of the Washington Post calling for the lifting of restraints on the bombing. One was by William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, the other by columnist Charles Krauthammer. Powell's diplomacy was specifically cited by Krauthammer as the source of the restraint. Two days later, a White House aide sent Krauthammer a congratulatory note along with a Post story that said a bombs-away strategy had begun. The aide should have sent the story to Woodward, too.

TWO PORTRAITS in Bush at War--of the president and Powell--stand out. Powell, while treated kindly by Woodward, seems a bit full of himself. "Powell's advisers were convinced their boss had clearly provided the margin of victory many, many times over" for Bush in the 2000 presidential race. And Powell appears to have been quite candid with Woodward in revealing his distaste for Bush's intention to take unilateral military action against Iraq if necessary. Woodward reports Powell's thinking: "Going it alone was precisely what he wanted to avoid if possible. . . . He believed the president made such statements knowing they might not withstand a second analysis. Tough talk might be necessary. But it shouldn't be confused with policy. . . . Cheney, in contrast, took Bush at his word."

As for Bush, Woodward casts him as an unusually confident commander in chief from the start. When Cheney suggests someone be assigned to run the war cabinet meetings, Bush instantly responds that he'll do that. Further, Bush knows the military must be prodded to act. He says, wisely, that his job is "to stay ahead of the moment." Bush told Woodward that one of his jobs is "to be provocative . . . to force decisions, and to make sure it's clear in everyone's mind where we're headed." And at war cabinet sessions, while others must explain themselves, he doesn't have to, Bush said. "That's the interesting thing about being president."

I DON'T MEAN to give Sammon's "Fighting Back" short shrift. Sammon, the White House correspondent for the Washington Times and a wonderful political writer, doesn't have Woodward's breadth of sources or access to CIA and State Department officials (and their leaks). But the book is highly readable and filled with telling anecdotes. Sammon returned to Florida to interview the schoolteacher in whose class Bush was sitting when he learned a second plane had flown into the World Trade Center. When Bush's session with her students was over, he took the teacher, Gwendolyn Tose-Rigell, aside and said he was sorry he couldn't deliver a planned speech at the school. As they talked, "she sensed that a transformation had taken place." She was "astonished by his heartfelt sincerity, especially since Bush hadn't had any private time to gather his wits." The point here is that Bush was calm and composed from the start of his war presidency.

One of the episodes in "Fighting Back" brings back the sorrow of September 11. When Bush landed by helicopter to visit ground zero on September 14, he walked over to greet some firefighters. "When he got to the fourth one--a big, burly guy--the president stopped in his tracks," Sammon writes. "Two enormous tears were rolling down the brute's cheeks. Bush reached up and cupped the fireman's face in his hand. The scene prompted a number of grown men to break down." It would have been hard not to.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 11/23/2002 8:38:26 AM PST by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Howlin; JohnHuang2; Sabertooth; Miss Marple; terilyn; lainde; KeyWest; MeeknMing; ...
Pinging the FredHeads!
2 posted on 11/23/2002 8:39:28 AM PST by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
#1 at Amazon.
3 posted on 11/23/2002 8:43:06 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I am thankful every day that G. W. Bush is the President of the United States. It sounds trite, but it's heartfelt. We could have been stuck with Cardboard Al Gore.
4 posted on 11/23/2002 8:56:03 AM PST by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
Cardboard he*l....Evil Algore is who we could have been stuck with.
5 posted on 11/23/2002 9:15:45 AM PST by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
You can say that again! By the night of 9/11/01, I was thinking the same thing.
6 posted on 11/23/2002 9:15:50 AM PST by NYC GOP Chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Great Post!!!
I have met Fred Barnes and heard him talk.
...I have Great respect for his insight on these books.

And thank God for George Bush as president at war. (it ain't over)

Incidentally, these books are doing substantially better in sales that Al Gore's book
7 posted on 11/23/2002 9:28:53 AM PST by edwin hubble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
This is a fantastic article, thanks for posting it.

1. Woodward always has an agenda and he's subtle about pursuing it by leaving in some material and editing other material out. Barnes is methodical in showing how Woodward has manipulated the data to pursue his own agenda.

2. The fall of Mazar back in 2001 always seemed to me to be both a key, if not pivotal moment, but also one that seemed to happen almost by magic. This gives us some very good info as to how it really happened. I happen to think there is more to the story than even what is presented here (always a safe statement to make!) as Afghanistan has always been a hotbed of intrigue and I suspect there was more than a little intrigue going on at that time and place. But the info here about the bombing really helps.

3. Again, we see how Bush's leadership is so instinctual and so decisive.

Again, great post and thank you.
8 posted on 11/23/2002 9:29:49 AM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FrustratedCitizen
One of the episodes in "Fighting Back" brings back the sorrow of September 11. When Bush landed by helicopter to visit ground zero on September 14, he walked over to greet some firefighters. "When he got to the fourth one--a big, burly guy--the president stopped in his tracks," Sammon writes. "Two enormous tears were rolling down the brute's cheeks. Bush reached up and cupped the fireman's face in his hand. The scene prompted a number of grown men to break down." It would have been hard not to.

Wow. You know, I've heard so many stories of this nature, and I've been deeply touched each time. Thank God we have this man steering our ship.

9 posted on 11/23/2002 9:37:21 AM PST by Hobsonphile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
the private conversations ("I hope you'll never lie to me," Bush tells Senate majority leader Tom Daschle on September 12, 2001),

This is the example Barnes uses to show that Woodward had inside information.

The problem is that inside information was posted on Free Republic long before Woodward published his book.

I have long felt that Woodward just makes stuff up. When he doesn't, he takes information not widely reported but still reported and claims it is exclusive information in his book. A year later no one remembers. A lot of information Woodward says is inside information was either poorly reported public knowledge or provably a lie.

We know Woodward lied in his claim to have a deathbed confession from William Casey for his Iran Contra book. Casey was in his final death-coma from which he never recovered when Woodward claimed to hear his confession. Woodward claimed to interview Casey in his hospital room. What Woodward didn't check was that Casey was in a coma in intensive care with no visitors allowed except immediate family. Casey was unable to communicate at the time because he was in coma. Woodward listed the date, the time and the hospital. That was correct. But he did not check for coma before making it up.

I have not read Woodwards book except the Nixon one. I rarely read fiction. But I did read his and Bernstein's book on Nixon. It was full of stuff that I know to be lies. I didn't think they were lies. I knew they were lies.

I think Woodward is what I used to claim to be.

Movie show hosts used to do Dialing for Dollars to make a living. Bernsetein is a news reporter. His job is Lying for Dollars.


10 posted on 11/23/2002 10:30:27 AM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Thanks for the article Pokey. I was thinking of reading woodwords book, but don't think I'll bother.

I just finished Bill Sammon's book Fighting Back. It is a GREAT read. I really enjoyed it.

Like many of you, I am soooooo happy and greatful for President Bush. He's the right man for the right time. The thought that Gore could have been the prez is a frightening thought.

We have been truly blessed.
11 posted on 11/23/2002 11:50:32 AM PST by BMC1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Don't forget the notorious but unnamed "Seep Throat" who supposedly supplied the information that was the glue that held Woodward's book together. I think that was just conjecture on Woodward's part and not a real person at all.
12 posted on 11/23/2002 1:00:58 PM PST by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Another aspect of Woodward's work, and in keeping with your remarks about his using common but not widely distributed knowledge, when you don't cite your sources but, instead, say "an aide in the Defense Dept. said" or "a high administration official said" it is easy to put words in the mouths of phantoms. (I think many of his widely tauted sources are indeed ficticious.) Add to that Woodward's gossip column style of writing and you have a summary of his abilites and the reason he appeals to the left.
13 posted on 11/23/2002 1:09:08 PM PST by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
In order to pretend to obey their rule of double-sourcing stories, they had to pretend there was a Deep Throat.
14 posted on 11/23/2002 1:17:56 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
"I hope you'll never lie to me"

This statement is one of the reasons I would never buy a book by Woodward. The President looked directly at Daschle and said, "Just don't ever lie to me".

Woodward's portrayal of what Bush said makes it sound pleading ... our President does not plead with people. Evidently Woodward could not take the direct approach - against his liberal principles?
15 posted on 11/23/2002 1:51:20 PM PST by CyberAnt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Sammon returned to Florida to interview the schoolteacher in whose class Bush was sitting when he learned a second plane had flown into the World Trade Center. When Bush's session with her students was over, he took the teacher, Gwendolyn Tose-Rigell, aside and said he was sorry he couldn't deliver a planned speech at the school. As they talked, "she sensed that a transformation had taken place." She was "astonished by his heartfelt sincerity, especially since Bush hadn't had any private time to gather his wits." The point here is that Bush was calm and composed from the start of his war presidency.

I think too many people don't see this side of Bush - his sincerity. More should, imho....

Thanks for the post and ping, Pokey !

16 posted on 11/23/2002 2:07:13 PM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
he walked over to greet some firefighters. "When he got to the fourth one--a big, burly guy--the president stopped in his tracks," Sammon writes. "Two enormous tears were rolling down the brute's cheeks. Bush reached up and cupped the fireman's face in his hand. The scene prompted a number of grown men to break down."

I finished Bill Sammon's book last weekend, started reading Saturday morning, fell asleep reading it, and finished it the next day. This was my favorite part of the book.

Bill's book is an important chronical of the events of 9-11 and all that followed after. Years from now, I expect I will be grateful that I purchased it because it records in infinite detail all that happened that day. It's also an important glimpse into the character of our president.

If you haven't read it yet, do yourself a favor and read it as soon as possible.

17 posted on 11/23/2002 2:24:43 PM PST by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hobsonphile
Pokey, thanks for the ping.

Hobs, if you haven't yet, you really need to read Sammon's book. You will love it.
18 posted on 11/23/2002 6:06:29 PM PST by LurkerNoMore!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
Sammon wrote the best book to date about the Florida recount. I could not put it down. The detail and inside information was not reported anywhere with more clarity. If you have not read, "At Any Cost...How Al Gore Tried To Steal the Election", by Bill Sammon, get it and read it. The public libraries probably have it, if one is not into buying books. It made the best seller right away when it came out in 2001. He did not have the free press blitz that the Gores had and no problems buying it from Amazon either.
19 posted on 11/23/2002 6:25:14 PM PST by peekaboo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Thanks, Pokey. I will read tomorrow.
20 posted on 11/23/2002 9:27:25 PM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson