Bush at War by Bob Woodward

bushatwar
Originally uploaded by recyclingfan.

In this book Bob Woodward (of Watergate fame) interviews numerous individuals in the Bush administration about 911 and the decision to invade Afghanistan. My problem with his interviewing approach is that he allows Bush's advisors to tell their story, but he doesn't verify what they are saying. There is no investigation, no verification of facts. In fact, the very way he collects his "stories" prohibits him from verification. For example, he interviews Condelezza Rice and she says that Bush came up with the expression "we got him on the run," meaning Bin Laden. Supposedly, Bush realized that terrorism is war without a nation, a military confrontation without set geography. The idea that terrorists can flee, move from country to country, cave to cave, led him to formulate the "we got em on the run" phrase. I find it hard to believe that Bush took the initiative on that. He has speech makers and their job is to stage reality, create "spin," and he has political consultants who run focus groups to test how the public responds to certain words (like the word "racial quotas" in the 2000 race to be used instead of affirmative action). And Cheney tells Woodward that he telephoned Bush to get permission to fire on the remaining hijacked plane (the one that crashed near here in Pennsylvania - near Somerset). Again, my previous information was that Cheney and Bush only communicated once, and after that Cheney on his own initiative gave the order to down the plane if necessary. So these advisors are free to paint a picture of Bush as visionary leader: he coins the phrase we got em on the run, he orders a civilian plane shot down - not his advisors. I just don't believe what the characters in this book are saying. Is this journalism? I mean, Hunter S. Thompson creates gonzo journalism, a stream of consciousness type of reporting where he makes things up (like Hubert Humphrey is a speed freak, Ed Muskie is taking a sedative named Ibogaine) and Woodward creates a journalism where his interviewees can make things up. I minored in journalism in college: there are rules to journalism! Like verify sources; investigate and have cross references to establish facts; multiple sources - what has happened to journalism? CNN reports on the Iraq war like its a Bush press briefing; Dan Rather goes with some story based on the most suspicious documents (with hypertext! Obviously MS Word document - who is on his staff? What typewriters in the early 1970's had a special key for hypertext? Rather should know that - he used a typewriter in the '70's!). So I'm about 1/3 through Bush at War and I am wondering why I should bother finishing it?