Anyone read Woodward's "State of Denial?"

[CS119laCoS]

Just finished it last night.

Was an interesting, entertaining read, well written.

But no really earth-shattering news, IMO. Basically confirmed what I had generally believed.

The person who comes across the worst and the most responsible for Iwreck is, by far, Rumsfeld. No one else is even close. If even 1/10 of what is written about him is true, it's bad. He's been a major problem. After reading the book, I would not be surprised if Rumsfeld is gone after the election, likely replaced by James Baker. I think by now, even Bush fully realizes it would be better for everyone if that change was made, but he's very cognizant that if he replaces Rumsfeld, many will trumpet that as an admission of failure. But hopefully after the mid-term elections, that won't matter as much and he'll do it.

Bush is of course painted very poorly in the book (deservedly so, IMO).

Not a lot about Cheney in the book.

I think Woodward is a good reporter and a good writer, but it seems to me that the book in many ways is entertainment. It's not the dry read that the 9/11 Commisson Report was. And it covers a lot more, in a lot less pages.

It seems by necessity, he had to do a lot of research, form some general conclusions, then write the book to fit those conclusions. You can't write about what ever person did every day over the course of 5 years, so you have to pick and choose the "vignettes" you want to present. I think at times it was a bit too one-sided. For example, he clearly likes the first administrator in Iraq, Jay Garner. So there is almost nothing ever showing Garner in a bad light. Others, like Garner's successor, Paul Bremer, are almost never shown in a good light. I'd have to think that everyone has some good and bad sides. If you've read the 9/11 Commission Report, you know that there were a lot of details to "pick and choose" from, and Woodward by necessity had to do that. As entertainment, I think he had to pick the various facts to "develop" the characters.

That's my macro-view of the book. It's painted with a broad brush, but I think it's broad, general themes are accurate.

Anyone else read it? I'd be interested in hearing reactions.

(Rodeo, you should read it, but be sure to consult your doctor if, while reading it, you experience an erection lasting longer than 4 hours).

[Bill Verburg]

It's on my to do list.

[stevepaa]

I just picked up the book on the Nixon tapes to read. I guess I'll do the Woodward book after that.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by stevepaa
I just picked up the book on the Nixon tapes to read.

Is that the one with 18 and a half blank pages?

[john70t]

His book is a day late and a dollar short.
Written during a "safe" time to criticize the prez so he can retain "access" to "news", and keep his reputation.
Why bother, his info has been publisized and ignored for years.

[Rick Lee]

I'm about half way through it and am loving it. While I agree Rumsfeld doesn't come across too well in it (not nearly as bad as the media made it out though) and Bush comes across as no more than someone who utters one-liners and short questions, I think this book is amost 180 deg. opposite from his last two. Check out Plan of Attack and Bush at War. They are vastly different and paint Bush and Rumsfeld totally differently than in State of Denial. Kinda makes me wonder what Woodward's whole point is. I mean, if the theme of State of Denial is the poor planning for Iraq, what made Woodward change his mind since the last book, which was all about the planning for Iraq? Which book is right and which is wrong? He wrote all three.

[cowtown]

I'm on page 150 and it's great. Best of the three IMO, based on reading this far in.

Rumsfeld seems to have had a genuine desire to reform the Pentagon for the better. He was just such a domineering ********* about it that he burned whatever bridges he could have used. Right intentions, wrong guy for the job. The "snowflake" strategy was interesting. Rumsfeld turned them into a blizzard.

I also get a kick out of people who dismiss the author's character when they don't agree with his reporting. The White House was Woodward's best friend after "Bush at War."

[Rick Lee]

Cowtown, I agree that Woodward was extra charitable to the WH in the last two books. I'm not questioning his character. I'm just a little confused by his about face. Other than the amazing access to all the players, it's hard to tell all three books were written by the same guy.

Rumsfeld is an interesting character indeed. Love him or hate him, you can't call the guy dull or lazy. I've been around him a little and he is just like the book describes him. After Bush leaves office, I would love to see Woodward and Tom Clancy team up to write a book about the Pentagon culture and how to reform it. Rumsfeld, like Bush and Cheney, is one of those guys who just doesn't care about being liked. And I think that's something to look for in a reformer with a huge, entrenched bureaucracy to fix. So far I think Jay Garner left way too early and Paul Bremer made a few irrepairable errors. But again, I'm only halfway through it.

Bandar plays a huge role in many of Woodward's books, which seems to go unnoticed outside the Beltway. His successor, Turki al Faisal was one of my dad's classmates at prep school, so my dad and I are always forwarding each other mentions of him in news clippings. But I don't think Turki can ever replace Bandar. Maybe that's a good thing though, as Bandar had an almost scary amount of influence in the last 3-4 WH's.

[Rodeo]

I'm finishing "Fiasco" and in the middle of "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone." On deck is "Hubris," but its getting too depressing, quite honestly. I'm going to hold off on Woodward's latest, at least in part because I don't want to support him with my $$$. I think he sold out for access, finally coming clean too little too late.

Also in the middle of Elijah Wald's "The Mayor of Macdougal Street," about Dave Van Ronk's life and work. I'm really digging that, about the early Greenwich Village folk scene.

[cowtown]

Originally posted by Rodeo
I'm finishing "Fiasco" and in the middle of "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone." On deck is "Hubris," but its getting too depressing, quite honestly. I'm going to hold off on Woodward's latest, at least in part because I don't want to support him with my $$$. I think he sold out for access, finally coming clean too little too late.

Also in the middle of Elijah Wald's "The Mayor of Macdougal Street," about Dave Van Ronk's life and work. I'm really digging that, about the early Greenwich Village folk scene.

No doubt you also read "Camus, and three Shakespeare's."

[cowtown]

Originally posted by Rick Lee

Rumsfeld is an interesting character indeed. Love him or hate him, you can't call the guy dull or lazy. I've been around him a little and he is just like the book describes him. After Bush leaves office, I would love to see Woodward and Tom Clancy team up to write a book about the Pentagon culture and how to reform it. Rumsfeld, like Bush and Cheney, is one of those guys who just doesn't care about being liked. And I think that's something to look for in a reformer with a huge, entrenched bureaucracy to fix. So far I think Jay Garner left way too early and Paul Bremer made a few irrepairable errors. But again, I'm only halfway through it.

Bandar plays a huge role in many of Woodward's books, which seems to go unnoticed outside the Beltway. His successor, Turki al Faisal was one of my dad's classmates at prep school, so my dad and I are always forwarding each other mentions of him in news clippings. But I don't think Turki can ever replace Bandar. Maybe that's a good thing though, as Bandar had an almost scary amount of influence in the last 3-4 WH's.

Yeah, Bandar seemed to have a scary amount of influence. I doubt 2% of Americans had even heard of the guy until now.

I'm with you on Rumsfeld- I definitely wasn't referring to your original post in my last sentence about character. It was more about the spinmeisters on cable and the WH staff. And like you said, Woodward had an about-face that needs explaining.

On Rumsfeld: it must be incredible to be so sure you're right all the time, and really not give one whit what other (respected) people think about you. In some ways it would make it so much easier to lead people...if the people don't rebel. I guess all CEO types must have this trait to a certain extent.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by cowtown
No doubt you also read "Camus, and three Shakespeare's."

I tried reading Caums' book that was finished after his death, it came out like 5 years ago, I think it was finished by his daughter (??). But I could't get through it.

"The Stranger" was a great book.

I couldn't read Shakespeare if my life depended on it.

[Rick Lee]

Originally posted by cowtown

On Rumsfeld: it must be incredible to be so sure you're right all the time, and really not give one whit what other (respected) people think about you. In some ways it would make it so much easier to lead people...if the people don't rebel. I guess all CEO types must have this trait to a certain extent.

Look at it this way. Rumsfeld is probably the wealthiest guy in Bush's cabinet, with the most stellar resume, the most type A personality and I think he's the oldest too, around 74 yrs. old. He doesn't need that job, he doesn't need the gov't. paycheck, the 14 hr. days, the 24/7 security bubble, the hecklers in restaurants, the haters in the media, etc. But still the guy does it. I know Rodeo would say it's just for the power trip. But is it really? Does anyone think Rumsfeld thinks he's no smarter than Bush? How would you like to be someone like Rummy, working for someone like W.? With an ego like Rummy's, I have to conclude the guy (let's face it, he's seen it all in gov't.) just wants to fix the Pentagon and take care of some nat. sec. issues before he's too old.

[Rodeo]

I don't question his intentions. His performance has been miserable, as everyone in the world except GWB seems to know.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by CS119laCoS
I'd love to hear some predictions as to how the Iraq situation is going to end, and when. I think that's almost impossible, but let's hear some guesses.

.

The biggest problem seems to be the sectarian fighting. Maybe the goal of a "unified Iraqi govt" is simply impossible, and it should be broken up into 3 separate reqions with their own governments.

Concerning democracy the original political groups have been fragmenting. The 3 major cultural group think has become sub-servant to sub-political fighting. The East End and the West End may belong to the same party but still has their own individual issues. As fragmenting continues a powerful political boss in one group has less widespread appeal. Some thinking goes with further redistricting into smaller groups. Then making them smaller and smaller till utilities and infrastructure becomes an issue instead of infighting.


Three separate regions is in no ones interest. No fighting or bombing occurs over wanting to split the country.

I'd like to give oil revenue to the population based on the Alaskan model.

Economics is the real issue now. Even the Iraq population knows the US is needed to prevent Iran or Russia from marching in.


or you can ask a Bush hater what the answer is?

[zander]

I need to grab that one.

[svandamme]

Originally posted by CS119laCoS


One thing seems certain, though. Iraq is a huge mess.

Is this the biggest blunder in the last century?

not if you have


"Dubbya-Vision awesome-perspective goggles"®...

[island_dude]

I have been reading the book since newsweek published a excerpt. Rumsfeld certainly doesn't come off well. I had issues with him from the begining and the book really defines what bothers me about him. Basically, he is on a power trip. He has a mission that he is pursuing to fix all that is wrong in defense. The problem is that he is seems to want to have it both ways. He wanted Bremmer to report through him and then claimed to be out of the loop when he realized that the results were not positive. Rice comes out of the books looking very principled it reniforces my impression that she has her head on her sholders.

I haven't read the other two books, and I would like to. I have to say though that it appears that they basically planned for failure. They focused on the early conflict and not the stability and rebuilding. Rumsfeld's lack of concern for this is down right scary. It doesn't bother him that decisions he made directly resulted in the early failures.

[Rodeo]

Rumsfeld's poor performance can be attributed to the same things that have badly hobbled this administration's performance on a wide variety of issues -- hubris, arrogance, rigid ideology and politics.

The key members of the administration seem to have an almost pathological self-confidence that makes them blind to their mistakes, and therefore incapable of adjusting. Couple that with some sense of entitlement, that they belong there under a mandate from the heavens. Then mix it together with a rigid ideology and the fact that Karl Rove sits in a policy chair, so political considerations heavily influence every policy they undertake, and the end result is Iraq and its domestic counterpart, Katrina.

There's one competent person at a senior positon in the White House, and that's Karl Rove. Unfortunately he's competent at politics, not governing.

[RoninLB]

Bias and Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg are also two books that rocks mass media, NY Times, and the Liberals.

Read only if you ever wondered how and why the mass media elete misrepresent what they say.