Demosophia

Bob Woodward and the Hermeneutic Loop (Update)

I've just finished listening to the Charlie Rose interview of Bob Woodward on PBS, and have the impression that I've just heard a political reporter give an inspired impression of a pair of Siamese twins. Woodward says the President made an executive decision that was reversible. So, OK... I guess. Anyway he feels it's a big disappointment, and rather obviously dishonest (in a non-obvious sort of way) for the President (and Colin Powell, et al) to characterize this reversible whatchamajigger as anything other than a decision. Because that's what it was. A decision. Well, how could one argue with that sort of impeccable logic? I'd sooner shove currants up my nose.

Woodward insists, on the basis of his unerring reporter's insight that a meeting in January of 2003 was "momentous," that the President made a decision to go to war with Iraq way before the rest of us were even aware we were on the turnip truck! I broke my foot in the fall though, so I remember distinctly that I sort of had an inkling that we might be seeing soldiers in sandstorms before too much time had passed. Yet, even after most people in that crazy-but-sincere administration, and especially Andrew Card and Colin Powell, knew that the die had been cast, they continued to act as though there might be a contingency or two to consider. In fact they thought the direction might even be reversible, depending on the results of diverse diplomatic efforts and initiatives. Indeed, this reversibility is not just a naive and foolish illusion of Card and Powell. Woodward concurs.

What?

Now I've completely lost the thread of what we were talking about. We were forging a road through the wilderness, but could forge another road if the geography changed. Yeah I know, we're talking about decisions, not roads. But the road analogy helps me clear my head a little. Was this a decision about a goal, or a means? Aren't all decisions about means sort of contingent on the best way to achieve the goal? What was the goal, by the way? That's the decision I want to know about. Are we still heading toward it? Somebody tell Bob.

I've been listening to the Peace Activists, and the opponents of this Administration for some time, and it's my impression that they're going to be somewhat disappointed about Woodward's definition of a "decision." I get the sense that when they get down to savaging George W. for not leveling with us in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, what they mean is that George Bush crossed into Mesopotamia while the rest of us were still contemplating a nice vacation in the Greek Islands. What they mean is that George made an irreversible, ironclad, cast in concrete, um, er... whatchamacallit.

Well, Bob doesn't totally let them down. The Pres made a decision, alright. Well, it's what Bob's calling a decision, and he apparently has "the goods." (WaPo is supposed to release some transcripts of that "momentous meeting in January" tomorrow, which will settle what it was that Secretary Rumsfeld actually told Prince Bandar (known to his friends as "Snowball") in that meeting that he could "take to the bank." I'm curious about that myself. I'll bet the WaPo revelation isn't all that clear though.

Some time after the momentous meeting the people "in the loop" tell Secretary out-of-the-loop Powell to take the package "to the bank," and he agrees wholeheartedly. But he still drops off a hunk-a-junk at the United Nations, that Tenet apparently left lying around when he slam dunked it. Well, it's all a ruse and only one package is really going to the bank. (Bob is letting us in on a BIG SECRET here. That's what he does, you know.) But if the hunk-a-junk bears fruit they'll still, apparently, deep six the invasion. You know, if Saddam just folds and gives up the secret recipe for the falafels he's apparently hiding in his marvelous underpants. Who'da thunk they fooled him about those falafels? It does explain why he looked like he had something funny in his underpants though, doesn't it? Slam. Dunk.

I don't know about you, but by this point in the saga I had pretty much made up my mind that we were going to war in Iraq. That was my, er... whatchamacallit. DECISION. I'd have been perfectly willing, nonetheless, to just sit and watch the treasure emerge from the tyrants undies, but wasn't really holding out much hope. I was just cynical, I guess. Not enough faith in humanity.

Just in case there are any doubts that the President's whatchamacallit was one of those whatchamacallits (referred to by some people as decisions) rather than just plain old cynicism, Bob reads his impressions and thoughts about the state of the Executive Prerogative back to the President to see if Bob has it right. And wouldn't you know, the President tells him, unambiguously, that he has it right. Well, actually George says "You have it about right, Bob." But let's not quibble. Interpreting four out of five words is close enough for government work.

And in case you were wondering about that underhanded agreement with Prince Bandar, apparently "Snowball" said in no uncertain terms that he'd keep oil prices below $30 a barrel to accommodate the President's reelection bid in 2004. Man, that's really disappointing. Well, actually he said he'd "try to keep oil prices below $30 a barrel," which makes it eight out of nine words Bob got more or less right. That certainly justifies calling the agreement "a pledge," doesn't it? Because that's what Bob calls it. A... whatchamajigger (as distinct from a whatchamacallit).

Except that oil prices haven't looked up at $30 a barrel in quite awhile, and aren't likely to any time soon.

So this was a "PLEDGE" in about the same sense that the course set by that "momentous" meeting in January was a "DECISION." It was a more or less inevitable, but at the same time reversible and contingent...

What?

Well, Bob Woodward calls it a decision... but you can call it whatever you like.

[Update: In an interview on PBS's Newshour program Gwen Ifel asks Mr. Woodward whether there is "any evidence at all of a Saddam/Qaeda connection" to which he responds with conviction: "None whatsoever!" And he then adds, as if to emphasize the foolishness of such a proposal that it was Tenet himself who observed that there was "no evidence of authority or command/control" of Al Qaeda coming from Hussein. He says, as though an afterthought of no particular import, "There was evidence of connections, but no 'authority or command/control'."

I'm puzzled. Why is command/control important, but "connections" unimportant, when what we're concerned about is the sharing and proliferation of WMD? What in the world is the standard here, and how did Woodward arrive at that estimation?

As he delivers his observations in such a low-key monotone that he seems literally on the verge of dropping off to sleep, he makes other somewhat extraordinary judgments. For instance, in both the Rose and Ifel interviews he feigns alarm at the thought that George W. Bush did not, apparently, confer with George the Elder about his views on invading Iraq. Yet he doesn't seem to use this incredible ability to peer past the superficial to speculate on the possibility that George the Younger might be rather familiar with his father's thoughts on the matter, since he not only lived with him for the decade following the First Gulf War, but actually served in his father's administration. Why would he consult with someone whose views and thoughts he no doubt knows as well as his own?

Bob Woodward is one of the real heavyweights in the media establishment, and people tend to pay attention to him, even when what he says only has the appearance of making sense. But I honestly can't make much sense out of a DECISION that isn't decisive, a PLEDGE that isn't binding, and a CONNECTION that is dismissed because there's no evidence of a hierarchy of mutual command. I mean, I find it worse than useless. It's as misleading as the assumption that a queen-sized bed sheet could double as a parachute. Has Woodward always been this foolish, and I just never noticed?]

Posted by Demosophist at April 21, 2004 02:21 AM | TrackBack