Woodward’s Allegiance

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

If you live in Washington long enough, you get used to the Woodward Spasm — that unearthly convulsion that wracks the capital at irregular intervals, whenever the famed Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward rears his handsome head and releases another of his insider tell-alls.

Some of us manage to remain unconvulsed. But even I’ve been taken aback by the intensity of this latest Woodward Spasm, which accompanies the publication of his new book, “State of Denial: Bush at War Part III.” As the world now knows, Mr. Woodward depicts a Bush administration crippled by incompetence, split by infighting, and overseen by an arrogant and clueless president.

The spasm began late last week and built with shuddering momentum over the weekend, laying waste entire Sunday morning talk shows and upending trailer parks from Chevy Chase to Georgetown. Even by Washington standards, this was a big one. For a moment it looked as though George Stephanopoulos might muss his hair.

And I can’t help but wonder why.

Just take a look: A Woodward Spasm always follows a pattern, a progression of symptoms resembling the clinical onset of Saint Vitus Dance. First come the dribbles of rumor about what the new Woodward book might contain. Then come, in rapid succession, the first excerpts in the Washington Post and the television interview with Mr. Woodward himself on a high-ratings venue like “60 Minutes” or “Today.”

These are followed, always a little anti-climactically, with the appearance in stores of the book itself.

The surest symptom of a genuine Woodward Spasm comes when the press begins to write stories about the story that Mr. Woodward is reporting, answering such secondary questions as “How has the press reported what Woodward has reported?”

By last weekend, however, some reporters had already moved to the tertiary questions, writing stories about stories about the story that Woodward is reporting.”‘State of Denial’ Lands Early and Hits Harder,” was the Washington Post headline on one such article Saturday, explaining that NBC News had followed the New York Times’ reporting to report on Woodward’s reporting.

Now if someone writes a column about the press writing stories about stories about the story, we’ll know things have really gotten out of hand. And here we are.

How to explain the intensity of this convulsion? Saturday’s Post article about the media coverage contained hints.

“The dominant theme of the new book — that the administration was torn by internal divisions over Iraq and failed to recognize its blunders — could prompt a reassessment of Woodward’s work,” the Post wrote.

Such a “reassessment” was probably inevitable. Mr. Woodward has often been misunderstood, even — or perhaps especially —by his admirers.

Republicans once distrusted him because of his exposure of Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal and of Ronald Reagan’s bungling in what became known as “Iran-Contra.” Democrats, for the same reason, thought he was one of theirs.

Then Mr. Woodward wrote two highly unflattering books about policy-making in the Clinton administration. Suddenly Republicans discovered he was “objective.” Democrats fretted that he might be “ideological.”

Indeed, so admiring have Republicans been of his last two books — flattering accounts of the war councils of President Bush, who appeared decisive and even visionary — that the White House itself took to distributing passages from them to reporters. President Bush sat for no fewer than four interviews with Mr. Woodward and ordered aides to do the same.

Democrats didn’t think the once-great investigative reporter could sink any lower.

But he did. While they busied themselves with the Valerie Plame scandal, which Democrats hoped would dethrone President Bush adviser Karl Rove for outing a CIA operative, Mr. Woodward denounced the entire affair as a “laughable” pseudo-scandal. And in the cruelest twist, he dared to say it on National Public Radio!

Some Republicans therefore have already whispered that Mr. Woodward’s new book is a kind of reclamation project, by which he hopes to return to the good graces of the capital’s liberal establishment. If so, it’s already proved highly successful, which accounts for the intensity of the present spasm.

Suddenly everyone has changed places. The once-friendly Bush White House is now dismissing Woodward as a purveyor of inaccuracies and “old news.”

“We’ve read this book before,” said spokesman Tony Snow, with a mock ho-hum.

For their part, Democratic leaders held a press conference on Capitol Hill expressing shock at the revelations in the book before any of them could have read it.

Mr. Woodward, said House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, has proved that Mr. Bush is in a “state of denial” — which just happens to be the book’s title. She might as well have worn a sandwich board plugging the thing.

Amusing as they are, the oscillations in Mr. Woodward’s reputation among Democrats and Republicans are just further evidence of the capital’s decadence. For professional Democrats and Republicans alike, facts are just the raw material of partisan advancement, to be manipulated as necessary.

But for Mr. Woodward, whatever his other faults, facts are things worth discovering and knowing for their own sake. Little wonder that so many in Washington don’t know whether, or when, to embrace him or reject him.

For now, Republicans will reject him. But for Democrats, Bob Woodward has come home.

And he’s receiving a hero’s welcome. It may last for years — until Mr. Woodward’s first book on President Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Ferguson is columnist for Bloomberg News.


The New York Sun

© 2024 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use