A real historian versus a fauxtorian:
Every source in Cobra II, Fiasco, or State of Denial, may be accurate, but we will never know that, because for a variety of reasons the authors who claim they worked from notes and recordings, chose not to identify the most inflammatory sources by name. It would be as if I [Hanson] wrote a history of the Peloponnesian War and, to support my most controversial points, added footnotes that stated “A manuscript in the Vatican,” or “Private letter to author from anonymous Greek shepherd attesting a stone altar in his field”
The other day I wrote of my own similar dismay at Woodward’s “thought” process. Of course, I don’t remotely have the qualifications VDH has in this area. If you look down at the link, you will see I added update backing off somewhat. After reading Hanson, I greeted that, not that anyone will care in the world of All Foley All The Time.
“…State of Denial, may be accurate, but we will never know that, because…the author…chose not to identify the most inflammatory sources by name.”
I’ve only read the Newsweek excerpts. The most inflammatory sources that I saw in it were on the record: Jay Garner, recounting an inane conversation with Don Rumsfeld, and (at the end of the excerpt) Rumsfeld himself, babbling inanities directly to Woodward. The first example:
“We’ve made three tragic decisions, Garner said.
“Really? Rumsfeld said.
“Three terrible mistakes,” Garner said. He cited the extent of the de-Baathification, getting rid of the army, and summarily dumping the Iraqi leadership group. Disbanding the military had been the biggest mistake. Now there were hundreds of thousands of disorganized, unemployed, armed Iraqis running around. Garner made his final point: There’s still time to rectify this. There’s still time to turn it around.?
Rumsfeld looked at Garner for a moment with his take-no-prisoners gaze. Well, he said, I don’t think there is anything we can do, because we are where we are.
But Woodward’s not a historian, and has never claimed to be.
Woodward said that his editor told him to wait until now to publish this book, because of the election of course. Increases book sales. Screw history.
The interesting thing is that when Woodward wrote a book about Bush that was favorable he was denounced far and wide by his social set for daring to be evenhanded. My guess is he is trying to get back in with the BDS people who don’t invite him to dinner parties anymore.
But to be truthful I don’t think that many people actually set down and read these books and I have no faith in most of them. How do I know he does not just make stuff up?
For instance he made some remark about Bush hiding the level of violence in Iraq. That information is available in the Brookings reports. Anyone, certainly any journalist can find. So how is that hiding it?
I remember when Saddam was in power journalists were bribed and threatened into lying for him but it did not seem to upset all that many people.
mrbones, you have made what we would call “a distinction without a difference.”
“Rumsfeld looked at Garner for a moment with his take-no-prisoners gaze. Well, he said, I don’t think there is anything we can do, because we are where we are.”
There’s something laughably melodramtic about this phrase. Who is the person describing Rumsfeld’s gaze?? Jay Garner?? A fly on the wall?? Woodward is having “Prisoner of Zenda” flashbacks. His next opus should start, “It was a dark and stormy night…”
Why is a respected journalist working for an influential newspaper withholding news information in order to write a book on behalf of a carefully scheduled book tour?
I read someplace that Woodward was turned down for a novel he wrote while at Yale.
Woodward should thank Richard Nixon everyday from when he wakes up, google’s himself and back to sleep again.
For those of you missing “All Foley, all the time” here is a curious list.
http://tinyurl.com/gw7go
Has any gaze anywhere ever taken any prisoners?
Tom Bevan at RCP posts a very interesting statement from Brent Scowcroft that puts the lie to at least some of what Woodward writes. Or at least moves it solidly into the realm of fiction.
Dave in W-S
Of course if Victor Davis Hanson were to write a history of the Peloponnesian War, he would rely on sources such as Thucydides, who are not all that different from Woodward at their best and often much worse. Thucydides for example was a disgraced Athenian general and politician who was intimately involved in the events he described and had a tendency to make up whole speeches that he could not possibly have heard himself to create drama. And he is widely regarded as the finest and most honest of sources. Many of the others are far less reputable. But that was 2400 years ago and besides the wench is dead.
I think people and sadly historians seem to forget that they always rely on a lot of unsubstantiated rumor.
..”Of course if Victor Davis Hanson were to write a history of the Peloponnesian War, he would rely on sources such as Thucydides….”
Thucyidides’ sources (and the author) are DEAD..
Woodward’s (if real) are alive….not a difference of degree but a difference of kind.