Bob Woodward: Don't Blame Me for Iraq War

Bob Woodward, whose reporting (or lack of) on the White House and WMD in the run-up to the war in Iraq has drawn much criticism, continues to shirk much of the blame. The latest evidence is in an interview this week with the news editor of the Reno News & Review in Nevada. In it, Woodward's reveals that his attitude about Saddam and WMD was guilty-until-proven-innocent -- and he still defends that approach, which helped pave the way for more than five years of war.

In a maddening but revealing exchange, Woodward admits that he felt the evidence for WMD was "skimpy" but he took the word of his inside sources who said it was adequate. At another point he reveals that he knew there was no "smoking gun" -- and that there should be one before going to war -- but hey, what more could he do?

Finally, he claims that we couldn't just take Saddam's word that he had no WMD. His questioner points out that we did have weapons inspectors on the ground just before the war, who were finding nothing.

The interviewer, Dennis C. Myers, caught Woodward while he was in town for a scholarship dinner. After chatting about other media-related matters, Myers (a thoughtful fellow who has corresponded with me in the past) asked whether Woodward thought there was less scrutiny of "deception" in Washington by the press than in the past. Woodward replied, "I think there's an awful lot of scrutiny going on. I think there should be more, and I think it should be tougher, but there's a lot."

Myers then dropped a bomb: "It's said fairly commonly in journalism circles that people actually died in Iraq because reporters did not do their jobs. Do you believe that?"

Woodward, not getting it (or pretending not to), replied: "In what way?"

"There were sources out there who could have been tapped to find out about weapons of mass destruction, about things like that, and it didn't happen," Myers explained.

Woodward (according to Myers' transcript): "Well, it did happen and it was really hard and -- [pause]"

Myers: "For example, you guys didn't find what Knight Ridder folks found [about WMD]."

Woodward: "Yes, but if you go back and look at those stories, it's not clear what they had."

This is balderdash. It's actually quite clear what they had: strong testimony that the evidence for WMD was extremely questionable.

Woodward admits, "I fault myself mightily for not being aggressive enough on that. But I had sources who told me the evidence on WMD is skimpier than they say and we were going to do a big story about it, and I went back to the sources and I said, 'Okay, the evidence is skimpier, but do you still believe that there is WMD in Iraq?' 'Oh, yes.' They all -- all the sources believed it. They didn't say it didn't exist, they said the evidence is skimpier.

"And I ran a story before the war on the front page of the Washington Post saying there's no smoking gun evidence of WMD. Now, I should have known, if there's no smoking gun, you don't have it. Should have been more aggressive. But how do you penetrate that without going to Iraq under Saddam, knock on -- you know, and say, 'Hey, I'd like to investigate your WMD.' Not going to get very far."

But Myers jumps in: "But there were people who were there. They were arms inspectors and they were disdained by the press back here."

Woodward replies incoherently: "No, that's not true. I mean, we ran stories on it and Hans Blix, who was the chief weapons inspector for the U.N., said before the war he had inspected 300 sites and found no WMD, but he could not yet say there was not [WMD]."

This is a gross rationalization, of course. Blix was adamant about the progress being made, the surprising absence of any evidence of WMD, and naturally could not prove a "negative" -- that there were no WMD at all -- in just a few weeks.

Woodward seems to want it both ways: Get credit for admitting he could have been tougher while claiming that there really wasn't much more he could do. In this, his explanation perfectly mirrors the argument of nearly everyone in the mainstream media.

Greg Mitchell's new book is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq. It features a preface by Bruce Springsteen and a foreword by Joe Galloway. Mitchell is editor of Editor & Publisher.

Comments

[outnow]

The Fourth Estate must maintain a high index of suspicion if they do not want to be complicit in war-mongering. If something does not pass the "smell test," then it is probably untrue. Journalism is connected to a government propaganda effort. By getting private individuals to preach the "untruths," the government's end is achieved. Leaking sources in "high places" maintain a symbiotic relationship with the press. The MSM is useless in our "free" society. In fact, the MSM IS the official organ of propaganda. Just because the MSM is "for-profit" only makes matters worse. Who wants to give up a million plus salary by telling the public the truth?

[ignrnthllblly]

"I wrote what they said."

And that's why he's been rewarded with access. Once, with the help of a reporter, Woodward gained a reputation as a investigative journalist that he never could and never would have developed on his own. He's used his fame from Watergate to pursue access journalism, where celebrity stenographers do lack-of-depth reporting about famous subjects while giving priority to protecting their access. The result is something you can swallow without causing immediate indigestion--though perhaps proving a contributing factor to diabetes later.

[aofh]

Woodward and the Press are guilty of following the Administration's line during the build up to the invasion. But so is the general population. We had opportunities to question what we were being told. There were protests in Europe and here in the US, but for some reason the majority wasn't willing to see that there was something wrong with the picture. It should have been noted that every time there was a story about something being found that presented the possibility of WMDs (the aluminum tubes comes to mind) there was never a follow-up story verifying the link. People could have noted the impassivity of the chamber during and after Powel's UN speech inspite of the enthusiasm offered by the MSM commentators. I think the question we should be asking is why were we--mainly the general population and the Press--so emotionally prepared, even hungry, to invade Iraq. Why wasn't our presence in Afghanistan enough?

Of course, I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop, too: that we are not in as much control in Iraq as we are being lead to believe. What I've been reading in a nonMSM publication over the last five years indicates the Iraq is a lot more chaotic than MSM, the Administration and Congressional hearings suggests. MSM is still not doing its job.

[ajax2]

Woodward is trying to rewrite his personal history of support for GW Bush and the Iraq War. His new revelation about his doubts rings loudly untrue by his previous words. One of the most comical Woodward conceptions was the new Bush down home intelligence at the WH. While Cheney and Rumsfeld ran the government and the war, Woodward gave us fantasies about GW's body language. His failure to disclose his relationships with the Plamegate conspirators while defending them on TV borders on the criminal. Bob Woodward basically turned himself into a Bush courtesan.

[castlerider]

Woodward needs to be reamed and reamed good. And it shouldn't be any big surprise that he is. Thats what his job is. He needs to be held accountable for what he does and does not report. That is the nature of his job. He chose this job, and when you do, you put yourself in a position to have to be accountable. He has won accolades for reporting hard truths before, and if he has to bite it for being a crummy, seemingly paid-off reporter now, well, that's what he's done for himself.

[dapperdan32]

Ok Mr. Woodward, "everyone" thought Iraq had WMD's (that is chemical, biological) weapons-which they had a long time.
Be honest. The real issue was "THE BOMB".
Evidence? Fake, discredited uranium report and useless aluminum tubes.
Couldn't you guys have tried just a LITTLE harder?

[radlib1]

George W. Bush was bound and determined to attack Iraq from his first month in office (see Cabinet member Paul O'Neill's testimony -- unfortunately reported after the fact). 9/11 was just an excuse. There was no "smoking gun, no mushroom cloud" because Saddam Hussein never, ever for one second was able to pose any "immediate or imminent threat" to the U.S. He didn't possess the long-range missiles to deliver WMD's, whether he had them or not. And Hans Blix and his U.N. inspectors never found any before they were ordered out of Iraq in March, 2003 by the Bush Administration, not by Saddam Hussein.

We were rushed and lied into a bloody, expensive, unnecessary, and preemptive War on Iraq by the Bush Administration, who cowed too many spineless Democrats and co-opted too many mainstream journalists and pundits like Judith Miller, Michael Gordon, Tom Friedman, and David Brooks of the NY Times, David Broder, Fred Hiatt, David Ignatius, and Richard Cohen of the Washinton Post -- not to mention the formerly great Bob Woodward, who became a willing and acquiescent shill for the Bush War on Iraq.

We will drop more than three trillion dollars of American money and countless bloody bodies into the sands of Iraq because we were led by feckless and arrogant idiots in this Administration, who were aided by impotent and arrogant allies in the Mainstream Media.

[SURRYMARK]

The Washington Post has been right out front beating the drums for a long time. Lyndon Johnson could not have carried off Vietnam, in the early days, without the constant and deceptive cheerleading by J. Russel Wiggins, the Post's editor. Wiggins enforced his views on the editorial page writers, whose names I will leave out. Johnson couldn't have done it without this "liberal" support.

[outnow]

The "liberal media" supports wars "liberally." Vietnam was a "huge threat" to America. Those guys hid in caves just like bin Laden does. 60,000 men and women in uniform died there. Hundreds of thousands were permanently wounded. The Pentagon papers were just the sanitized version of the "real facts."

[filo]

I don't blame Woodward per se, rather all of main stream media who gave Dubaya a free pass. They didn't question any thing.

[biwee]

Yes, and WHY?? Those who control the major media outlets, print, internet, and cable/broadcast,
were supportive of this unnecessary war of choice....but WHY?? Maybe Rupert or Sumner, or Roger, or Mortimer could give us an answer.........

[wm1066]

I just can't listen to this man, he has lost my respect. I turn the channel when he comes on.
I viewed him as a hero, but no more.
His legacy wont be that he exposed Watergate but that he didn't expose Bush.

[leftcoastindy]

That he reports the lies, misrepresentations, and major elements of the whole ruse so dispassionately is the discusting part. To me anyway.

Like he is talking about a political discussion he witnessed at a friends house with no significant outcome.

[tinarm]

It's not suprising about Woodward , they are doing the same thing now with John McCain. Has anyone did a hard interview with McCain pointing out his flips on different issues. No, the media picks favorites or favorite story lines and then never question themselves what may happen in the end. The journalism of today is not the journalism of the past. Reporters main goal now is not to inform, but to make a lot of money. They really could care less about journalistic integrity.

[realpolitic]

What happened to Bob Woodward? He once was a reporter that if his mom said she loved him he would check it out. Now he lets the Bush adminitration skate away with any inanities. Also, he thought the Valerie Plame affair would not amount to anything, although he played a small role in it without revealing this role until later. His journalistic instincts seem to have been entirely left by the wayside somewhere along the way toward fame and fortune. If a reporter is able to penetrate the Bush administration with regard to one of the breaking scandals, such as the firing of the attorney generals, he or she will be known as this generation's Woodward or Bernstein. We need a Bob Woodward now more than ever. Too bad the old one is long gone.

[ddharder]

Woodward, whatever he was before, turned into a vile cheerleader for the current admin. He once wrote a multi week essay for the Post portraying Bush as the cowboy Gipper. Pure propaganda tripe.

I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.

[jagoneely]

It's the same old story with these Journalists. And then we have people like Bill Kristol who gets a cushy NYTimes job, still pushing BS, and getting paid for it. The truth is, the journalists are not being held responsible for their mistake-ridden coverage during the drum-beat-lead-up to Iraq. Our bombs killed three more Iraqi children yesterday. Do you think they feel "liberated" now? Does Bob Woodward carry any of the guilt for the innocent Iraqi's the occupation has killed? Do those children's parents feel happy that Saddam is gone? Would their kids be alive if Saddam was still in power? How can they live with themselves.....really. Whtat's wrong with admitting " I F***** up".

[Bluedog12]

Woodward is the most important political writer of our time. Well at least that's what he says.