EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Tuesday, September 28, 2010 by TomDispatch.com
Bob Woodward Meet… Bob Woodward
The Forgotten Role the Bestselling Author Played in Sandbagging the President
We
know the endpoint of the story: another bestseller for Bob Woodward, in
this case about a president sandbagged by his own high command and
administration officials at one another’s throats over an inherited war
gone wrong. But where did the story actually begin? Well, here’s the
strange thing: in a sense, Woodward’s new book, Obama’s Wars,
which focuses heavily on an administration review of Afghan war policy
in the fall of 2009, begins with... Woodward. Of course -- thank
heavens for American media amnesia -- amid all the attention his book is
getting, no one seems to recall that part of the tale.
Here it is: President Obama got sandbagged by the leaked release of what became known as “the McChrystal plan,” a call by his war commander in the field General Stanley McChrystal (and assumedly the man above him, then-Centcom Commander General David Petraeus) for a 40,000-troop counterinsurgency “surge.” As it happened, Bob Woodward, with his Washington Post reporter hat on, not his bestselling author one, was assumedly the recipient of that judiciously leaked plan from a still-unknown figure, generally suspected of being in or close to the military. On September 21, 2009, Woodward was the one who then framed the story, writing the first stern front-page piece about the needs of the U.S. military in Afghanistan. Its headline laid out, from that moment on, the president’s options: “McChrystal: More Forces or ‘Mission Failure’” And its first paragraph went this way: “The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict ‘will likely result in failure,’ according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.”
The frustration of a commander-in-chief backed into a corner by his own generals, the angry backbiting Woodward reportedly reveals in his book, all of it was, at least in part, a product of that leak and how it played out. In other words, looked at a certain way, Woodward facilitated the manufacture of the subject for his own bestseller. A nifty trick for Washington’s leading stenographer.
The set of leaks -- how appropriate for Woodward -- that were the drumbeat of publicity for the new book over the last week also offered a classic reminder of just how limited inside-the-Beltway policy options invariably turn out to be (no matter how fierce the debate about them). As one Washington Post piece put it: “[T]he only options that were seriously considered in the White House involved 30,000 to 40,000 more troops.” And in the way he channeled and framed the McChrystal-plan leak Woodward helped narrow those options, while preparing the way for his own book. All in all, it’s a striking example of how the system really works, of how incestuously and narrowly -- to cite the title of Andrew Bacevich’s bestselling new book -- Washington Rules.
Here it is: President Obama got sandbagged by the leaked release of what became known as “the McChrystal plan,” a call by his war commander in the field General Stanley McChrystal (and assumedly the man above him, then-Centcom Commander General David Petraeus) for a 40,000-troop counterinsurgency “surge.” As it happened, Bob Woodward, with his Washington Post reporter hat on, not his bestselling author one, was assumedly the recipient of that judiciously leaked plan from a still-unknown figure, generally suspected of being in or close to the military. On September 21, 2009, Woodward was the one who then framed the story, writing the first stern front-page piece about the needs of the U.S. military in Afghanistan. Its headline laid out, from that moment on, the president’s options: “McChrystal: More Forces or ‘Mission Failure’” And its first paragraph went this way: “The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict ‘will likely result in failure,’ according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.”
The frustration of a commander-in-chief backed into a corner by his own generals, the angry backbiting Woodward reportedly reveals in his book, all of it was, at least in part, a product of that leak and how it played out. In other words, looked at a certain way, Woodward facilitated the manufacture of the subject for his own bestseller. A nifty trick for Washington’s leading stenographer.
The set of leaks -- how appropriate for Woodward -- that were the drumbeat of publicity for the new book over the last week also offered a classic reminder of just how limited inside-the-Beltway policy options invariably turn out to be (no matter how fierce the debate about them). As one Washington Post piece put it: “[T]he only options that were seriously considered in the White House involved 30,000 to 40,000 more troops.” And in the way he channeled and framed the McChrystal-plan leak Woodward helped narrow those options, while preparing the way for his own book. All in all, it’s a striking example of how the system really works, of how incestuously and narrowly -- to cite the title of Andrew Bacevich’s bestselling new book -- Washington Rules.
© 2010 TomDispatch.com
Comments are closed
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



16 Comments so far
Show Allperhaps Woodward's column was an intentional plant to foster the notion that the president might be 'forced', against his wishes, to supply more money, er, I mean, troops...
a thing he was going to do, anyway, but didn't want to look like he was going to do, anyway...
to imply Obama actually felt pressured by Woodward's column, whether or not McChrystal had anything to do with anything, leaves the wall of ignorance firmly in place regarding power, government, war and the media...
reading the New York Times, or the Washington Post, can be bad for you, if you don't have a robust 'propaganda' filter...like believing political speeches...
these people all bang each other, and lie incessantly...why would anyone not immediately ignore their words about virtually everything, and dig for the deeper truth, which is frequently physical, and toxic or illegal...
what's up with the heroin, Tom?
Dubet and All,
Well stated.
Woodward's blurring of subject and object is entrepreneurial brilliance. Proof that there is always more that can be wrung out of an existing commodity.
Is their a polite way to say Woodward is a book whore?
Bob Woodward is the "grownup" equivalent of a kid that sells Lemonade on the street corner...except that the kid at least is more honest...he knows lemonade is only lemonade and doesn't try to sell it as the panacea for everything or more valuable than an afternoon refresher.
bob woodward, however , tries to sell his lemonade as if it is victual and the potion of the gods. he tries to sell as "SOMETHING" what is really nothing.
Journalism is soooo 1970s.
THIS Woodward runs with the winners.
This is mere speculation from someone who obviously didn't read the book.
"As it happened, Bob Woodward, with his Washington Post reporter hat on, not his bestselling author one, was assumedly the recipient of that judiciously leaked plan from a still-unknown figure, generally suspected of being in or close to the military."
Tell me again that Woodward is not a paid asset of the MIC.
i recall a discussion with bob woodward and tele-conferencing carl bernstein with a tv host -- just around the Bush Invasion of Iraq...
it was clear that bernstein, after the initial warm "hellos" , was offended by the invasion and bob woodward was trying to dissemble like a chameleon. and just when bernstein was becoming more critical of woodward's position which was obviously "let the empire do what it must"...they were cut off as the program was ending...and bernstein had the last word:
"we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I am disappointed, Bob".
As the late civil rights photographer Ernest Withers was recently outed as an FBI snitch, so too will Woodward eventually be exposed as a security state asset. Posthumously, perhaps-- but hopefully sooner than later.
And I'm not just saying that because he has a permanent Bill Kristol-type rictus, something between a grin and a sneer.
Woodward is like our political and military leaders: His career, like theirs, is more important than the lives of millions of other people. Sacrifice the lives of Afghans, Pakistanis, and Americans troops so that he can sell more books. Which level of hell is it to which he ought to be relegated together with our political and military leaders?
instead of "speaking truth to power" -- Bob Woodward has turned into a Sycophantic pedant. immersed in his ivory tower dissembling given to glamorizing the "palace intrigues" but never really enlightening anyone. this is bob woodward's one-man-operation version of "hollywood in the white house and the Capitol of the Empire" .
and woodward is the "alfred hitchcock-wanna-be-let's see what's the NEXT exciting turn of events"...."director".
this is all ABOUT BOB WOODWARD the ORACLE.
Woodward's journalistic history has never been his own; instead he was propped up by political forces in order to be used when needed. This was the case during Watergate, during Plamegate, during the McChrystal leak, and now with respect to doing what can be done to power-down Obama.
woodward is nothing more than a political gangster, blackmailing all sides of any issue for his private money and power.
Woodward and The Washington Post: M$M whores.