Bob Woodward, whose reporting, or “reporting,” depending upon the circumstances, has long proven a reliable measure of establishment Washington’s rectal temperature, has a revelatory story in Thursday’s Washington Post describing the utterly pessimistic testimony of CIA director Michael Hayden to members of the Iraq Study Group during a session in November of last year. Hayden told the group that “[Iraq's] government is unable to govern. We have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government that is balanced, and it cannot function.” Members of the group said Hayden told them that the government’s failures were irreversible; Hayden’s spokesman claims otherwise, but Woodward’s sources, which include six ISG members, are unanimous.
Among those sources is retired Supreme Court justice Sandra O’Connor, who, like Woodward, resides at the epicenter of Washington society and who is as responsible as anyone for the fact of George Bush’s presidency, by virtue of her deciding vote in Bush v. Gore. She and former Clinton defense secretary William Perry were the only two of the six ISG members to go on the record in the story; O’Connor to confirm Hayden’s remarks and offer a plaintive, hand-wringing comment about the mess that the man she made president has made of Iraq, and Perry to likewise confirm the CIA man’s gloom and add an unflattering description of Bush’s own contribution to the proceedings.
Woodward was also given access to the written minutes of the sessions held with Hayden, Bush and other top administration officials. The cooperation of the ISG members and the access to the notes convey plainly that he’s acting with the approval and cooperation of some heavy hitters among Washington’s old guard; his story represents both the latest salvo in that crowd’s war to force a change in the administration’s stance on Iraq and the official opening of a second front in Congress, and may well be of a part with the stand taken last week by another old guard stalwart, Republican senator Richard Lugar, whose appraisal of the situation dovetails neatly with Hayden’s.
None of this is particularly significant in terms of actually getting anything done about our grand Iraq adventure in the near term, and in fact it may actually prove counterproductive, since the most notable element of the ISG’s recommendations, which are once again climbing to the top of the charts in Congress, even, as Woodward notes, making their way into legislation that would advance them as official U.S. policy, is the one that isn’t among them: leaving.
Along with the bleak assessment of Iraq’s government, Hayden offered a list of the inimical forces in the country, in order of importance: “the insurgency, sectarian strife, criminality, general anarchy and, lastly, al-Qaeda.” It’s hardly worth mentioning, but the story highlights once again that where Iraq is concerned, the administration’s first, last and sole impulse is to lie.
Bush stands everything on its head. He leads with al Qaeda where Hayden places them dead last.
Now, just in time to scare some wavering Repubicans back in line, we have the timely leak that al Qaeda is now back to full strength.
But this is hardly good news for Bush because it begs the question; what exactly has Bush been doing for the last 5 1/2 years since this is showing that no progress has been made. One would think that stay the course was the problem rather than the solution. So what does it take to get Bush off dead center and a new direction that might have a better chance of success — like agressive diplomacy. Oops, I forgot, that would take a Secretary of State that is diplomatic and competent.
It’s interesting to see there are actually disparate opinions within this criminal government. I wonder if Hayden is the only ranking dissenter, and how far his dissent actually goes. We’ve seen time and again how Bush appointees who disagree with policy will keep their mouths shut while in office even if it means that people are killed and lives destroyed as a result. In this regard, I guess it’s good that we have the government’s own official stenographer-publicist to tell us what’s happening – well, kinda tell us, since what Woodward “reports” is only what his masters allow him to report. He acts as the government’s public affairs officer, and when there’s some dissent in the government, he makes himself useful to the dissenters as well as the affirmers.
Two things come to mind: First is that Woodward is not giving us the whole story, and he never does. His access depends on his circumspectness, and he didn’t become a millionaire author who travels in the innermost of inner circles by violating the trust of the political hacks and criminals who use him for their own ends as he uses them for his.
Second, it’s easy to look at the dissenters as somehow noble, as voices of reason. Thus someone like O’Connor can come off as replete with rectitude. In reality – and this is what I’m glad you pointed out – O’Connor was the woman who put George Bush in office. George Tenet kept silent until he was out of government and his book was ready. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill said nothing about what he knew while he was in government, as did Surgeon General Carmona.
I imagine that over the years we’ll see more Bush government officials stepping up and finally telling the parts of the truth they think will make them look wise and honorable. I imagine they hope they’ll have someone as friendly and trustworthy as Bob Woodward to help them with the PR. When I hear them tell their stories I will wonder what the truth really is. I see all of these people as failures who violated their vows of office and caused untold numbers of people incalculable harm.