The Big Journalism Thread: Bob Woodard, George Bush and the War in Iraq

Remove all ads!

It was the middle of winter, 1968. The night was quiet and dark around the US embassy in central Saigon. The MPs, on their late-night watch, were not expecting anything out of the ordinary. They had not been alerted that during the evening elements of Viet Cong and The People's Army of North Vietnam had attacked other key areas of the city, and were attacking other positions all over South Vietnam. Covert Viet Cong, who had infiltrated the capital, appeared out of the darkness, rushing the embassy and blowing gaping holes in the compound walls. After a desperate fight, which drove the American guards into the embassy building, the VC were driven out of the compound, most dead and left to litter the battered compound in small tangles about the heaps of smoldering rubble. What would become known as the Tet Offensive of Winter, 1968, ended in disastrous defeat for the Armies of North Vietnam.

On hand that winter to survey the aftermath was journalist Walter Cronkite, who, after interviewing shaken American soldiers, officers and dejected South Vietnamese citizens, filed a famous (or infamous) report, commenting:

His report that winter had a profound effect in America. And it is still analyzed to this day. It has been commented that it was the first time in history that "a war had been declared over by an anchorman." It is often remarked that there are no longer any "Walter Cronkites" left in journalism with whom the American people can trust with that kind of public authority.

Cronkite was no "Commie, liberal" journalist. He had been in the midst of the fighting of WWII - at Sicily and Normandy; he had flown with night bomber missions over Germany. He earned his credibility with the American people, and in the end, many trusted his judgment. So when he declared the Vietnam War "unwinnable" in the winter of 1968 it made a difference.

During the same years that Cronkite was engaging the American people with his much vaunted (and much deserved) "independent commentary," a new group of journalists promoting the new "investigative" and "gonzo" journalism was on the rise - journalists such as Hunter S. Thompson and Bill Cardoso, pushed the limits of journalistic credibility, with Thompson even suggesting that there was no such thing as "objective journalism." Of course investigative journalism had been going on for years. But it was the new generation of journalists during the later 60s and early 70s that would redefine its impact on American society, even bringing down an entire presidency and administration. The president was Richard Nixon, of course, and one of the young journalists involved, was Bob Woodward. But the Watergate years not only gave rise to Woodward and Bernstein, Morley Safer and Mike Wallace, but also G. Gordon Liddy and “Chuck” Colson.

But Woodward is the interesting one of the lot. Over the years Woodward has sought to polish and refine his image as a senior American journalist. It’s been interesting in recent years, watching Woodward attempt to appear sage-like and thoughtful on the large issues in American politics whenever he appears on cable news channels. In other words, he’s been trying to appear non-partisan, unlike all the others who have thrown off the shackles of “objective journalism,” and thrown themselves into the partisan fray that is contemporary American media journalism. And in more recent years his subject of choice has been the George Bush Whitehouse. In the opinions of some, he is attempting to become the journalist of record regarding the Bush presidency. His first two books on the Bush presidency were favorable towards him, Woodward having spent hours with Bush in several locations, including Camp David, sounding out “the man” himself. Some believed that Woodward was giving new meaning to the oft used phrase “all the President’s men.”

I’ve been setting the stage - with all the proceeding melodrama - for Woodward’s latest effort, _State of Denial_. And it is not what Woodward has written that really has had the media all abuzz, at the moment, but Woodward himself, within the context of his recent accomplishments and his recent “closeness” to the Bush Whitehouse, and what he means to the American political landscape. Is he the new - if not watered-down - version of Walter Cronkite? Has he positioned himself on that landscape as the credible authority who has the power to accomplish what Cronkite did some 40 years ago? Just a few days ago, I would have said, “no way.” But after the kind of reaction from the media, Team Bush, and the way in which Woodward has positioned himself in the larger argument, he may have done just that:

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out; if Woodward’s book, positioned as it is, so close to November, and in the context of his other books, will have any long term impact on the War in Iraq and its relative policies, and if Woodward himself has the kind of credible authority once wielded by the old grandmaster of journalism, Cronkite.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15068387/site/newsweek/

 

What I think the real problem is in both wars was arrogance of the commanders. They both expected a cake walk, and that's what they spun to the American People. When these wars didn't go as nice, quick, cheap and easy as the spin suggested then the people start to get more testy. If the war in Iraq went easily, and the troops were home within a year with little loss of life, and Iraq was a glowing example of democracy, I don't think there's be as much hostility towards King George on this one...

 

I watched 60-Minutes last night, and Woodward's book was one of the three main stories. One very telling quote Woodward gave was regarding Bush's outlook on Iraq. One of Bush's said he would not pull out of Iraq before the job was done even "if the only people who continue to support me are Laura and Barney". For those of you who don't know, Barney is Bush's dog.

 

Well, how are we going to know if Barney withdraws his support for the war? Is he, er, going to relieve himself in a room with some symbolic importance, or what?

(sorry, couldn't help myself)