dagblog - Comments for "In Partial Defense of Bob Woodward"

to my mind, he's looking real

artappraiser — Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:51:51 +0000

to my mind, he's looking real good, super good. All the sticking to his guns on the non-partisan objective thing, all the criticism from the left for past publications that weren't tweaked towards the political, it's paying off big time. He's going down in history as one of the greats and his ex partner Bernstein is gonna be seen as having thrown away a gravitas gift in his youth for political hacking.

He's looking pretty good

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:45:24 +0000

In reply to In Partial Defense of Bob Woodward

He's looking pretty good about now.

I reread this relatively ancient post to see if I'd change any of it now. I'm not sure if I would. I haven't read Fear yet and maybe I'll revise my take on Woodward when I do.

It sounds as though with Fear, likewise as in the past he was not getting adversarial with people he was interviewing or telling readers what to think, just reporting some really hard to get facts wearing out a lot of shoe leather.

With the current crowd, that just happens to be explosive. Even given all that had already been documented about them.

As I write, several ugly (and

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:27:13 +0000

In reply to In Partial Defense of Bob Woodward

As I write, several ugly (and having little or nothing to do with the book) exchanges going on in comments responding to the 4 reader "reviews" of Obama's Wars published at amazon. Cheap and lazy hit jobs from Obama-haters is what they are.

By police effort, I mean

AmericanDreamer — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 21:07:25 +0000

In reply to About No. 6, Dreamer: The

By police effort, I mean attempts to work with other countries to share intel, arrest, and try members of AQ who are engaged in illegal activities--wherever they are in the world. Which requires no deployed US troops in Afghanistan or anywhere else.

About No. 6, Dreamer: The

acanuck — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 20:28:28 +0000

In reply to I read part 1 (of 3), and the

About No. 6, Dreamer: The Afghan war has just one remaining aim -- to prop up the guy the West installed, so as not to appear to have lost the war. Viet Nam redux. Unlike the North Vietnamese, the Taliban are ideologically indisposed to offer us a fig-leaf "peace with honor."

Hamid Karzai is toast without a foreign occupation, and the Taliban have lots of patience, so there is no viable exit strategy. Hence Petraeus is right: absent U.S. defeat, the war can never end. As for "an ongoing police action," how will that do the trick if 130,000 or so troops aren't enough? Especially since all major U.S. allies are set to pull out in 2011. Arab and/or Muslim countries joining the effort? You're kidding, right?

I read part 1 (of 3), and the

AmericanDreamer — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:15:26 +0000

In reply to In Partial Defense of Bob Woodward

I read part 1 (of 3), and the beginning of part 2, of the excerpts of Woodward's book in the Post. I will stipulate, again, what I tried clearly to imply in my original post, that this is Woodward's account and that that should be viewed as a first draft of a first draft of the history, very much subject to skepticism and revision.

A few reactions so far:

1. Obama felt the need, apparently, to get explicit verbal assent to his planned 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. If memory serves Lincoln did this with his Cabinet, to peg them.

2. The question of who is in charge arises. Obama asked his military people to come up with options and they repeatedly stonewall by giving him one option only, or what Obama saw as narrowly different variations on the same option. This, after telling them to go back and do it again. On the account given he clearly is irritated about this, to the point where he feels he has to develop his own strategy. I find it interesting that he was not more than irritated about it. It seems to me to be clearly insubordinate conduct by his senior military advisors, notably Mullen. Mullen does not appear to understand who he is working for. Obama is obviously frustrated and irritated that Mullen does not understand this, but he seems not to feel as though he has the ability to do much about that other than express his irritation and develop his own plan.

3. Biden voiced my dominant thought precisely when he said to Obama before the plan was announced publicly, but following these negotiations with his senior advisors over troop count levels (the military wanted 40K, Biden and his group were pressing for 20K): It's not about the troop count, it's about the strategy.

4. Obama clearly seems to want to go in a more dovish direction, but feels as though he needs unanimous stated agreement from his senior advisors. This effectively prevents him from doing so.

5. Elsewhere on the Post's website coverage of the book and its release, Petraeus is quoted as saying we are going to have to be in Iraq and AfPak for the rest of our lives, probably the rest of our kids' lives. Which begs asking him the question that is the title of his book: "Tell me how this ends." Maybe most folks here already knew this was Petraeus' view--I did not.

6. Obama's concept of what the war is about is going after AQ and also at least some Taliban elements. On the first, yes, of course. But AQ is not heavily present in Afghanistan if they are there at all. It is known, however, that they are in many, many other places. Those who favor a "police action" approach to combating AQ support going after them wherever they are (which we are also doing, of course). But this leaves open the question of why the conflict in Afghanistan should be thought of as a "war" at all. Doesn't the continuing unwillingness to revise that frame publicly (from a "war" to a "police action", although I would recommend coming up with a name that sounds more aggressive than "police action") make it inherently more difficult to avoid getting into Afghanistan with too many troops and too vague and unrealistic a mission, for fear of being charged with "cutting and running", and "losing the war"? The Obama Administration had long ago ceased referring to a Global War on Terror. At what point, if any, will there be an effort to explain to the public what kind of a conflict we have an essential national security interest in engaging, and what it will entail? (essentially an ongoing police action, using a different name than that, in collaboration with as many other countries, especially Arab and Muslim-majority ones, as will join with us)

NFL and War LinesDate &

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:08:06 +0000

In reply to Yes. Vegas ought to start

NFL and War Lines

Date & Time

Favorite

Line

Underdog

Ongoing AFGHANISTAN 35 anyone

Yes. Vegas ought to start

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:18:41 +0000

In reply to Shorter, from an account I

Yes. Vegas ought to start putting out lines on that once word gets out a country is thinking about some big badass operation there.

If there is anything

NCD — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:12:45 +0000

In reply to I expressed my views on AfPak

If there is anything worthwhile in the Woodward book I will read the whole paragraph that summarizes it all!

Maybe someone here can recall more details, but I once read that the usual right wing power brokers/corporate oligarchs of the Washington establishment were only too eager to get rid of Nixon, and Woodward's Watergate work may have been simply a means they fully applauded to speed Nixon on his way.

Nixon did create the EPA, he signed the Endangered Species Act, was President for our 'surrender agreement' to the commies in Vietnam, and deflated the fear mongering over the commies in China. These actions of Nixon were far and away serious affronts to the primacy of big business and to the defense companies, and were almost left leaning radical, no Congress or administration in recent years would ever pass any similarly wide reaching legislation. Woodward may have just been serving the need of the GOP to get rid of a President who was careening off the tracks to the left.

True. But he was always in

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:42:31 +0000

In reply to Woodward is now in the club.

True. But he was always in the Club. He was always Yale and Navy, always comfortable with the Club's senior members. He got his Watergate scoop not because he was a daring outsider, but because he was an insider.