Lone Survivor

An interview with the only survivor of a Navy SEAL unit that was overrun in Afghanistan . . .

I'm going to have to order that book, methinks . . . .

UPDATE: Done . . .

'Bush's War'

Little Green Footballs provides an excerpt from an interesting book about the post-9/11 wars and the resultant press coverage.

I think I've found something for my Christmas list.

'American Mourning'

Bill Crawford, at All Things Conservative, posts some excerpts from the book, 'American Mourning'.

It's worth your time.

So this is journalism?

National security correspondent for ABC News, Jonathan Karl reviews Bob Woodward's new book -- he describes Woodward's 'novel' approach.

What does the author's faux-realism add up to this time around? His two previous books on the administration--"Bush at War" (2002) and "Plan of Attack" (2004)--were criticized for lavishing too much praise on President Bush and his national security team, who were portrayed, for the most part, as steadfast, competent leaders in the face of an implacable enemy. No more. Now Mr. Woodward portrays the president and his team as incompetent, out of touch and dysfunctional. The conventional wisdom has shifted dramatically in the past couple of years and Mr. Woodward with it.

I've reprinted the whole thing in the extended entry.

So This Is Journalism?
Bob Woodward takes a novel approach in his new book on the Bush administration.

BY JONATHAN KARL
Wednesday, October 11, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

It may seem like another lifetime, but just over five years ago China forced down an American EP-3 spy plane for venturing into Chinese airspace and held its 24-member crew hostage for 11 days. It was the Bush administration's first international crisis, and it was a big one. So how did the president's national security team deal with it? They called Prince Bandar.

At least that's what Bob Woodward tells us in one of the non-Iraq revelations in his latest blockbuster, "State of Denial." In Mr. Woodward's account of that tense stand-off with China, Secretary of State Colin Powell called Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., for help. Prince Bandar, Mr. Woodward tells us, "had special relations with the Chinese through various deals to purchase arms and missiles" and, of course, oil. With a few calls to the Chinese, which were monitored by the National Security Agency, Mr. Woodward says, "Bandar eventually got the Chinese to release the 24 hostages." He goes on: "Never modest about his influence, Bandar considered it almost a personal favor to him."

---

The story is classic Bob Woodward: fly-on-the-wall descriptions of super-secret discussions, details missed by every other reporter, a juicy scoop. But the account leaves lingering questions: Did Prince Bandar really get the Chinese to release the hostages? Was that the whole story? How does Mr. Woodward "know" all this? Could it be that Prince Bandar himself is making the claim? Your guess is as good as mine. Mr. Woodward doesn't tell us.

"State of Denial" is replete with similar Woodwardian reporting: secret meetings recounted in vivid detail, complete with lengthy, verbatim quotations of what key players said to each other as the story unfolded. Once again, it all reads as if Bob Woodward was lurking in the background as the meetings happened, taking exceptionally detailed notes. But of course he was not there. We learn not only what the president and all his men said but also what unspoken thoughts raced through their minds. But Mr. Woodward wasn't inside their heads either, it is safe to say.

Mr. Woodward attempts to write like a novelist, not a journalist: His books are scenic and dramatic and dialogue-driven, more sensationalism than history. Take, for example, this description of a conversation in May 2003 (two months after the Iraq invasion) between Gen. John Abizaid, then deputy military commander in the Middle East, and Gen. Jay Garner, the official briefly responsible for the reconstruction of post-Saddam Iraq:

"Garner told Abizaid, 'John, I'm telling you. If you do this it's going to be ugly. It'll take 10 years to fix this country, and for three years you'll be sending kids home in body bags.'

"Abizaid didn't disagree. 'I hear you, I hear you,' he said."

Mr. Woodward doesn't tell us where he got this verbatim account of a meeting that took place more than three years ago; he writes as if it is a simple fact that it unfolded as told, not someone's recollection. We cannot gauge whether the source, whoever it was, might have had a motive to put a certain spin on facts. The discussion neatly makes Gen. Garner look like the truth-teller who foresaw precisely what would happen and tried to do something about it. Maybe it's true or maybe it's the way Gen. Garner would like to remember it, but he said no such thing publicly at the time.

As more than a few people have noted over the course of Mr. Woodward's long career, his narratives are propelled in part by who talks to him and, just as important, who gives him the best, most detailed and colorful descriptions of what went on in all those secret meetings. And that brings us back to Prince Bandar.

Apparently Prince Bandar is an excellent source for Mr. Woodward, somebody willing to give blow-by-blow accounts of virtually every encounter he has had with top Bush administration officials, including the president and his family. In this book, Prince Bandar seems to be everywhere. He persuades President Bush to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state, he educates President Bush on the ways of the Middle East, he warns against the invasion of Iraq. In Mr. Woodward's account Bandar is a central player, mentioned almost as often as Vice President Cheney and more often than British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Consider this typical anecdote:

"The elder George Bush was concerned about his son after 9/11 and he called Prince Bandar. 'He's having a bad time,' Bush told Bandar.

" 'Help him out.' "

Perhaps President Bush's father is the source of this nifty exchange. If so, it's an amazing revelation that he was so worried about his son that he tapped the Saudi ambassador for a personal intervention so soon after the attack on America carried out largely by Saudi citizens. Or maybe the source is somebody who says he was told about the conversation by either the elder Bush or Prince Bandar, in which case it's basically hearsay. Or maybe, just maybe, the source is Prince Bandar himself. Again, Mr. Woodward gives us no clue, instead describing the conversation as if he were there.

---

What does the author's faux-realism add up to this time around? His two previous books on the administration--"Bush at War" (2002) and "Plan of Attack" (2004)--were criticized for lavishing too much praise on President Bush and his national security team, who were portrayed, for the most part, as steadfast, competent leaders in the face of an implacable enemy. No more. Now Mr. Woodward portrays the president and his team as incompetent, out of touch and dysfunctional. The conventional wisdom has shifted dramatically in the past couple of years and Mr. Woodward with it.

At a time when nearly everyone seems to be blaming Iraq's problem on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld--too few troops, not enough planning, too much arrogance--"State of Denial" presents him in an unflattering light, to say the least: demanding power over Iraq's reconstruction and deftly avoiding responsibility when things go badly. When Mr. Woodward goes mano-a-mano with Mr. Rumsfeld in an on-the-record interview, he puts himself into the narrative. He prods Mr. Rumsfeld and expresses exasperation and disbelief at some of the defense secretary's answers.

Yet it may be the best interview that Mr. Rumsfeld has given as defense secretary. He is combative and defensive but makes news. For instance, Mr. Rumsfeld tells Mr. Woodward that the phrase "mission accomplished" was in the original draft of the now infamous speech President Bush gave on the USS Lincoln after the fall of Saddam Hussein and he asked that it be taken out. The White House has always claimed that "mission accomplished" was coined by sailors who wanted to give the president a warm welcome on their aircraft carrier. More significantly, Mr. Rumsfeld says that he disagreed when the president, in a major speech on the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, described U.S. strategy as "clear, hold, and build." Mr. Rumsfeld felt that "hold" and "build" were not for the Americans to do but for Iraqis: "I wanted them clearing. And then holding." It is a remarkable admission: the defense secretary and the president unable to agree on how to define U.S. strategy three years into the war.

Mr. Woodward also describes an interview with Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that shows how Mr. Woodward's legendary commitment to protecting his sources has evolved over the years. In the interview, which took place earlier this year, Gen. Pace stumbles when he describes the insurgency. Here is the book's version, beginning with Gen. Pace's words:

" 'They're on the ropes . . .if this parliament continues to function and this prime minister continues to function.' "

"'Okay,' I said, 'but are they on the ropes?'

"'Wrong word,' Pace said.

"'You're going to sound like Cheney,' I said. 'You want to retract that?'

" 'I do,' he said. 'I would like to retract that. Thank you. I appreciate that. I appreciate the courtesy.' "

Courtesy? Mr. Woodward recounts the whole thing, right there on page 475. Apparently for Bob Woodward, Peter Pace is no Mark Felt. Maybe Gen. Pace would have fared better with Mr. Woodward if he had given him a good scoop during a parking-garage rendezvous.

Mr. Karl is senior national security correspondent for ABC News.

[Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from Dow Jones & Company, Inc.]

On facts

Thomas Sowell has an enlightening review of a book about fact and fiction in the political arena.

If you think that the Constitution of the United States provides for "separation of church and state," that George W. Bush is not as smart as either Al Gore or John Kerry, or that the big-money donors to political campaigns give more to the Republicans than to the Democrats, this book provides documented facts showing the opposite.

Go read it. He shares a few surprising facts.

Book list

Thomas Sowell shares a list of books that influenced his life. Among which, surprisingly enough, are the writings of Karl Marx.

He also remarks about his transition from political left to political right:

There was no book that changed my mind about being on the political left. Life experience did that -- especially the experience of seeing government at work from the inside.

I found his article interesting. In fact, there are now a couple of books newly added to my Christmas list as a direct result of reading it.