State of Denial or Amateurism at the Highest Level
State of Denial is Bob Woodward’s third book on the Bush administration. In it, Woodward tells the story of an administration in which no internal accountability exists and in which intellectual laziness rules the day. It is a history of weak military leadership, an incredibly dominant and undefined US Secretary of Defense and political leaders who conveniently ignore all bad news. In short, it’s the history of an utterly incompetent administration or at least when talking about the Iraq war and postwar Iraq. The sad reality is – of course – that it’s not just a history. Nothing indicates that the Bush administration is willing to change its ways.
State of Denial is fascinating but also – perhaps more so – infuriating. It is infuriating to read that the administration had all the information it needed to realize that the initial approach was not working, that more money was needed (in the short run) but that – first and foremost – security should have been the primary target and that there were not enough troops in Iraq from the get-go.
Woodward did extensive research. His description of meetings in which Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush (among others) were present and in which, mostly, military officers held presentations about the situation in Iraq form the most – as far as I am concerned – infuriating parts of the book. Those meetings were / are, quite simply, useless. Especially Bush does not ask any real, critical questions. Even the military officers holding the presentations are surprised by the – seemingly – lack of interest. They expect an audience critical of the information and views it receives. Not so. The audience – the most powerful people of the most powerful country in the world – remains silent. A nod here, a nod there and that’s about it. It gave Bush the image of intellectual laziness. He is not stupid, every now and then he seems to have a good day and suddenly starts asking more critical questions or demands of someone to do something. But those days are rare. Too rare for a President of the United States of America.
The most incompetent person however, is not George W. Bush. It’s Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld is – generally – hated by the military. He is obsessive, a control-freak: a micromanager of the worst kind. He seems to live for the ‘chain of command’ but, when things go wrong, he refuses to take responsibility for it. Bob Woodward interviewed Rumsfeld on several occasions for State of Denial. Those interviews are not just interesting, they are fascinating. For a change, a journalist seemed to be willing to ask the tough questions.
Andrew Card realized, early on, that Rumsfeld was messing up tremendously and tried to persuade U.S. President George W. Bush to get rid of him. Same goes for Condoleezza Rice whose views clashed with those of Rumsfeld, especially since she became US Secretary of State. Rumsfeld believed that the US should liberate the Iraqi people and withdraw ASAP: no re-building the country, that’s something the Iraqis have to do themselves. Rice has a different view: sure they have to re-build their own country, determine the future of their own country but she also realizes that the US and allied forces have a great responsibility: it cannot be expected of the Iraqi people to re-build their entire country after being ruled by a ruthless dictator for 30 years and after the country has been destroyed during OIF. That is quite simply impossible.
One might think that the administration would debate about this and come up with a unanimously-supported approach. Not so. Rice (and others) are lobbying for and trying to put into practice the latter approach, Rumsfeld carefully ignores it and does as he think is best.
There is so much information in the book, so much new to me at least that a short summary is insufficient. One truly has to read State of Denial oneself. It’s the best possible source for understanding how the Bush administration dealt with Iraq and how it continues to deal with it. If one wants to understand why Iraq is the mess it is right now, State of Denial provides all the answers. Miscommunication, intellectual laziness, no real plan, weak military leadership, keeping up appearances, micromanagement, no management at all… it’s all there.
On a scale from 1-10, State of Denial gets a 9: very well researched (great sources), good structure, the only point of criticism is one of personal flavor: he – obviously – writes like a journalist and less like a professional author (which is of course logical): it’s a matter of style and thus, a matter of taste.
27 Responses to “State of Denial or Amateurism at the Highest Level”
Personally I wasn’t a fan and not just because it knocked bush. The way it was written, as if he was there for every event, and the stunning certainty that he has to exactly what was said leaves me a little flat. It’s more of historical fiction than you would think a newsman would write. That doesnt even begin to go on to the massive number of contradictions that take place between his version and what is know to of happened.
I always wonder how powerful these books actually are. To me there are 4 distinct groups in the US:
1. Conservative or Rightwing partisans
2. Liberal or Leftwing partisans
3. Moderates
4. People who essentially don’t pay attention to politics.
I think group 4 is by far the most numerous. Plenty of people don’t watch the nightly news (and even if they do they aren’t getting much information) even more never ever read a newspaper that deals with non-local affairs. These people would probably fit in groups 1 2 or 3 ideologically but aren’t very interested or are disenchanted entirely, and may or may not vote.
Groups 1 and 2 generally speaking are not convinced by arguments, or rather, their only source of information comes from partisan sources, which means they live different political realities and therefore really can’t discuss things amongst themselves. Someone from AmericaBLOG and someone from New Republic or Little Green Footballs really can’t have a conversation. The extremists of these groups are imprervious to arguments or logic that comes from people not on their side. The little boys at LGF don’t give a damn how logical and well documented this book is, it comes from an uppity New York Nixon bashing liberal reporter, and on top of it it says that the administration is incompetent, it MUST be a lie.
Group 3 is a mishmash of people. There are people with centrist views. There are those who have liberal views and conservative views, depending on the issue. In this group you find the people willing to change their mind if presented with logical arguments and proof. Some self-identify as liberal or conservative There are also moderates that don’t value discussion, but I think they are the minority, since being a moderate generally means you have to constantly defend your views to others and often can’t just pick up “party line” because you have no party. This is a group that could take an interest in and posibly have their views changed by a book like this.
While I’m sure that 4 is more numerous than 1 2 or 3, my big question is how many people are moderates? Group 4 doesn’t care enough to read the book. Group 1 would read it and agree wholeheartedly, since it fits their worldview, group 2 won’t buy it but if they did they’d disagree because it DOESN’T fit their worldview. That leaves the moderates, and to look at the TV or the blogosphere, there aren’t many of us.
Lynx: what is important to remember is that, this is something Joe and I both believe and the polls underline this, independents (who are mostly moderates or at least independely thinking people) decide who wins elections in the US.
In other words: a book like this does not have to change the views of group 1 and 2 to have a major impact. It’s all about the third group.
The personnel management of the CPA is just another example of incompetence: Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone. The link will go to Amazon.com’s website for the particular book.
Lynn, That’s a good breakdown But I do think there are plenty of Moderates Republicans and Independents who will be influenced. Especially those I call the ole school crowd. The kool aid drinkers, I think they will read it and get angry but in the end will vote Republican anyway.
I’m on the waiting list at the library for the book. I should get the book sometime around Dec of next year….seriously, the wait list is the longest I’ve seen in a while. I live in a “red” state so I didn’t expect it. Will the library issue it in a brown paper bag…who knows?
Lynx, Putting people in little boxes is really the best way to deal with them. You will no longer have to care what people think because you already have them figured out. When they disagree with you it doesn’t matter because you “understand” that they could never think otherwise and are just blind to the “truth”. Yep that’s the way to go.
Michael, “the third group� almost sounds subversive! The problem we have is that we don’t vote as a block, that stands to reason in that we think for ourselves and have that annoying habit of not goose-stepping with the AM pundits. In order to have a political impact more in tune with our numbers that would have to change. But any attempt would be like herding cats, you could not do it with some pronouncement by “moderate� pundits, we don’t listen to emotional appeals. You have to convince us, and that take a lot of time and effort. In a way our independent way of viewing the world makes us our own worse enemy.
Oh fer cryin out loud Eric, what a way to twist things up. You act like I proposed a color code tattoo system, completely ignoring the point of the whole comment.
There ARE people who are clearly partisans. They CLEARLY live in different political worlds and, if you’ve ever seen “crossfire” or other “debate” shows, they basically cannot communicate. There are also people, lots of people, who either don’t care or avoid politics because of all the dirt, I don’t blame them. Finally moderates, AS I CLEARLY STATED, come in many different forms, from conservative to liberal to everything in between. Obviously different people are going to have different views on what constitutes a partisan, indifferent or moderate, and that’s fine. I NEVER said that I refuse to deal with people and I most certainly never claimed to be in possesion of the so-called “truth” that others simply don’t understand. You are utterly mis-representing what I said for no purpose that I can fathom.
O, Grognard: I agree completely. Listen, I am not favoring putting people in any groups as such, that’s quite contradictory to liberalism actually. The only reason I commented on it, is because it makes it easier to explain some certain general approach / prediction of what certain information might accomplish -> it makes it easier to speculate.
lol I see that Lynx explained his comment quite passionately:D
Ermmm, that’s actually HER comment Michael, but thanks anyway
Lynx: lol my mistake sorry:) I actually knew it should be HER (the chocolate and all). Seemingly I didn’t think when I posted. Sorry.
No you were putting people in boxes, four of them to be precise. While it’s nice that you lumped conservatives and liberals together in the same box (the fighting and crying will give them something to do) that doesn’t make me feel as if you should cut any slack. You want to label people so it’s easier to deal with them. “Those crazy conservatives/liberals, you just can’t deal with them!”.
As frustrated as I get with some people I don’t put their refusal to change viewpoints down to being willfully ignorant or dishonest unless I have a greater reason than they didn’t change their mind. But hey, I think people should be dealt with as individuals.
I agree with that. However, when talking about a certain strategy political parties should use to, for instance, win elections, that’s not the most effective way of doing things.
That’s common sense Eric. Not difficult to do.
I assume that you’re talking to Lynx since I have never stated anything closely like that. Heck I am a conservative myself. Lynx can deal with that herself I think…
obviously nothing but my first statement was really directed your way. You do make a good point about political strategy but I’m just tired of the boxes every keeps trying to put people in. The multitude of comments about how people in the south think (news flash I will lay money there is more and stronger racism in Detroit and Chicago than in my home town) never ending comments about how “those” people are partisan, illogical, racist, homophobic, unamerican, willfully ignorant, ect. I’m not trying to point at anyone in particular but it’s rampant everywhere and it’s crap!
I had some conservative friends that I stopped debating some time ago. The reason was that in order to debate them you had to buy into the “vast liberal conspiracy to take over the world� view . The context of every argument had to be good conservative vs. bad liberals. I did not understand why everything had to be in that context until one of them got me to listen to Limbaugh, boy did that make the mindset clear. Note that I am not talking about some stereotype rednecks here, these were professional people that should have known they were being jerked around with emotional rhetoric to further a political cause. Lynx is right, there is no debate.
Eric, well, I agree with that as I assume Lynx agrees with that as well (looking back at her previous comments here at TMV). I am quite confident in writing that she did not mean it as simplistic – to a degree – as it may have seemed.
Anyway, your general point is well taken and agreed upon.
I am in the middle of State of Denial and it is a really good book. Like the review stated there is alot of information in it and the drawing of the characters in this whole mess is amazing.
That said, I do recommend for anyone trying to understand this administration to read How Bush Rules. For me it gives me a real understanding what these guys are like that nothing else has. There is a really interesting chapter on Deep Throat and the old Nixon staff that is now introducing those policies today now that they are so powerful.
The Iraq mess, well, James Risens book was extreemly powerful. Made a huge impact on me.
Also: I think that Lynx did not mean the majority of American liberals and / or conservatives. I think she was actually referring to a relatively small group of individuals: the Limbaugh types on the right (and American left has types like that as well). As I read it, Lynx called individuals open for debate, reasonable people who have their principles, but who not automatically asume that those who disagree are … (fill in one of the words you mentioned), moderates. A bit of an unlucky divide perhaps, but you should read it in that context.
At least, that’s how I read it.
I’m going to try this one final time, and only once.
1. People are a continuum. Putting them in categories instantly makes things simpler than they really are. That’s one of the points of creating categories. They can be more or less complex depending on the PURPOSE you have in mind at any given moment. The fact that I have used these categories for this purpose in no way means I think things are actually that simple or that I go about life using that level of simplicity. I never said or implied such a thing. Being Black, White, Asian or Latino are categorizations used by virtually everyone, even though in reality race is much much more complicated.
I could swear I mentioned that I NEVER said you shouldn’t or that I don’t deal with them, though I enjoy moderate (oops, there I go categorizing again!) conversations more than those done with extreme partisans. I notice you removed partisans, even though I clearly separated conservative/liberal partisans from just conservative/liberals. I firmly believe that extreme partisans cannot, or have a very hard time, dealing with eachother.
That’s my last try, if you still want to willfully missunderstand me, that’s your trip.
Well, back to the book. I am reading it now, and am enjoying it as an inside look into what I have, up until recently not been able to fathom. It doesn’t answer all of my questions about why the administration has failed so badly, but it helps you understand the personalities involved.
I do respect Woodward– I respect the fact that he wrote 2 books that were mostly favorable to Bush, but then was able to report differently when he started getting a different take. This elevates him from the Bushbashing crowd. Also the book IS well-researched. After it came out Card and others were denying what was in it, and Woodward went on Hardball, 60 Minutes and Meet the Press and showed their producers his sources- detailed notes and taped interviews with WH insiders.
When it comes to how the current crop of conservatives/Republicans make decisions and weigh the facts, consider this. In the debate over the Michael Fox ads someone mentioned early on that Sister Toldjah was posting on it. I made the mistake of going over there to see. First, she wasn’t doing research it was nothing but this is what Rush says and some basic RNC talking points. I read what some of her posters were saying and they used the standard conservative “Adult stem cells have been proven to have more promise than embryonic ones.” argument. I pointed out that it was only logical that a field that had been being studied for 40 years had more results than one that has only existed for 40 years and is limited by lack of federal funding, which is a huge source of funding for research in this country. This is a simple and logical point, isn’t it? I was attacked as someone who believes that the government should do everything and that what I said was just my opinion, not any kind of logical statement. Now tell me how it is just a matter of opinion that if you have something that’s been being worked on for 5 times longer than something else it’s reasonable to expect that there would be more results on it and that you can’t make any blanket statements about the younger discipline.
Jim S,
OK, I’ll bite. Here’s a page that obviously has a bias, but presents references to scientific reasons that ESCR has major obstacles to overcome. I know you feel that the religious right has falsified the scientific argument, but these appear to be legitimate sources in at least most of the cases, of scientists who feel that there are theoretical barriers that would have to be overcome before any benefits of ESCR could even be possible.
The problems boil down to two major categories: the high probability of immune rejection and the high difficulty in controlling the differentiation of ESCs to prevent cancerous growth. I understand your point, that adult stem cell research is more advanced because it’s been funded and has reached a further point in solving scientific dilemmas, but if we compare the two, you still have to admit that the adult stem cell research has fewer obstacles to overcome just by it’s very nature (because the embryonic cells are at a more primitive and undifferentiated state); it has also already progressed to the point of some therapies/cures, so why not keep building on this success, and finally, there are not the ethical considerations that go along with the embryonic cell research.
It seems to me that concentrating federal funding on the adult stem cell research is a win win situation, and personally I feel that the burden of proof should be on researchers who want to pursue ESCR, to show that there is some inherent superior potential in that line of research to make it more desirable even in light of the problems that I just described.
CS,
Yes, there are barriers to be overcome. Embryonic stem cells have only been being researched for 8 years compared to 40 for adult stem cells. Anyone, no matter their credentials who states that any given issue is an insurmountable problem that cannot be solved is either incompetent or lying because we just haven’t been looking long enough to know. This attitude that I constantly see displayed is like a Dilbert cartoon where the boss is asking Dilbert “Are any unforeseeable problems likely to develop?”.
The page you cite is BS. Sorry, but that’s the truth. Consider the articles quoted for the purpose of pushing the cancer myth. Yes, I called it a myth because like most myths it is based in truth but then runs with it to places that the truth alone just doesn’t take you. Did you bother to read, for example, the entire article by Weiss in the Washington Post that the web page you cite selectively quoted? The Post article in fact pointed out that cancerous development is a problem if you maintain a cell line long enough. Not that it just suddenly happens when stem cells are implanted or something, that like human cells in a person, keep going long enough and the odds of developing cancer go up. Here’s part of the Weiss article that your source didn’t bother to mention.
Interestingly enough I couldn’t find the other article by Weiss they cite concerning Alzheimer’s research and stem cells. But here’s a link to a position paper of the British Alzheimer’s Society position paper on stem cell research.
Also a simple google search shows that the authors of the piece entitled “Hushing Up Adult Stem Cells” have some pretty impressive credentials, both in science and in deciding to become an activist for their personal belief system that allows them to make sweeping statements that don’t necessarily derive from the science.
And the last one that I have time to point out is for those who repeat ad nauseum that Bush and the Republicans have never wanted to ban the research. The Bush Administration, that odd group of people who have derided the U.N. far more than they have praised it were more than willing to try and use it to get their way on this issue. When the U.N. was considering a ban on cloning, including SCNT which is a vital tool for ESCR the Bush administration was pushing hard to implement it. Quietly, in the background so they wouldn’t alienate moderates by making a big public display of the attempt to ban the basic methodology needed to do the research.
There are several Weiss/WaPo articles so I don’t know which one you are quoting. I think the one you said you had difficulty finding is this one
With the excerpt(emphasis mine):
There is distortion going on on both sides of the political debate on this issue, despite your desire to dismiss Woo Suk-Hwang as an isolated ethical lapse that was corrected by the system.
From another article on the usccb website:
Yeah, if only those religious righties were as committed to sticking to the pure facts of science instead of distorting it to suit their ideology, we’d have no problem, right?
On the cancer issue, I don’t know how you can possibly call it a myth, and your assertion that these cell lines are only showing signs of cancerous growth after aging is not what I read in credible sources (and it seems to be common sense that the more primitive undifferentiated cells would a higher potential risk of that behavior). I’m not arguing that there might not be a solution to that problem if the research proceeded, but it is rather disingenuous to complain about ESCR opponents playing loose with the science and then condoning your side for selectively putting out information to the public that they feel helps their cause, while withholding other critical information that might lead more people to oppose them.
First, go back and read what I said. I said that it was something based in fact but not necessarily completely true. I will provide links, not quotes taken out of context. This one is from New Scientist and accurately points out that both types have problems, with the adult cells developing them after a while. Here is a link to the full article by Weiss from 2005. Here’s a very good balanced article on the issue. And here’s an interview with a scientist who works in the field.
You quote from an article and then say “Yeah, if only those religious righties were as committed to sticking to the pure facts of science instead of distorting it to suit their ideology, we’d have no problem, right?”. Of course the article you quote from isn’t simply from the web site, is it? It’s written by Richard Doerflinger, the Interim Director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Bishops. While there is probably further reference to the quotes you cited somewhere on the web I haven’t been able to find it. Also, if there’s anything I’ve found out from the various bills and constitutional amendments I’ve followed the pro-life sector of the Catholic Church is just as willing to lie and misrepresent things as any other partisan. So you go from citing a partisan web site to citing an even more partisan paper stored on the web site. How fair and balanced. You criticized me for claiming to know why Jim Talent did something and then cite approvingly an article that does the same thing in terms of the New England Journal of Medicine. If this is your idea of a credible source I sincerely question your capability of recognizing one on this issue.
Then you say this “…it is rather disingenuous to complain about ESCR opponents playing loose with the science and then condoning your side for selectively putting out information to the public that they feel helps their cause, while withholding other critical information that might lead more people to oppose them.”. Now, frankly, I’m pissed. Show me where I condoned any such thing. Be specific. There’s nothing I’ve written here that condones any such thing. Frankly, people make me squirm when they exaggerate the benefits or shorten the time line that they might be discovered in and anger me when they go further. It makes honest people who share the position I believe in look bad. I don’t like it. But they are also not nearly as disingenuous as what I hear from your side of the debate. As I’ve said before just look at the claims that the superiority of adult stem cells is proven by the treatments derived from them when they’ve been being researched five times longer than embryonic stem cells. They also love to present any problem discovered as being completely insurmountable. What it comes down to is that they couldn’t care less about the science or if in fact cures for terrible diseases would be discovered from the research. Pretending that these things matter to them is far more misleading than anything the people who support the research have done. Because when it comes down to it the opposition has one and only one real point. They believe that the instant sperm meets egg it is a human being and they oppose this research for the same reasons they oppose abortion, the morning after pill and even most contraceptives. Anything else they say is just an attempt to camouflage this because they know that most people don’t agree with that position.
Jim,
I didn’t mean to piss you off and I’m sorry for the snarky comment. I admit though, that it was meant to provoke you into making an admission like this:
…because prior to this, you’ve been arguing about how my side of the debate is littered with dishonesty but you have not acknowledged any such thing from the pro-ESCR sector. I admit that I shouldn’t have prejudged your opinion, but it could have been assumed from everything you had written previously that you didn’t see any dishonesty in the debate from the pro-ESCR side.
I think we both agree that it is wrong to selectively use some facts while ignoring others. I wasn’t trying to do that by presenting a biased source (that is why I acknowledged the bias). You can acknowledge the bias of a source and then still look at what they are actually saying and see if it is factually based or not. Frankly, sources like Michael J Fox or various Alzheimer’s foundations are just as biased; for obvious reasons they have a stake in encouraging as much stem cell research as possible. Frankly I think they are being misled into thinking that ESCR holds some advantage over adult stem cell research. Even if you take the position that ESCR is just further behind because there have been barriers put up, the facts still remain that there are more obstacles to overcome with it and channeling more funding to it is more of a gamble than putting additional funds into adult stem cell research (funds are not going to grow to accommodate all avenues of research, and directing toward one avenue ends up diverting from others). You seem to have a problem with that just based on principle because you are pissed off that people have put ethical boundaries on the ESCR. What I’m trying to say is that just from a pragmatic standpoint, it makes more sense to pursue what we know works and find more ways to use that technology, rather than fighting political battles just on principle because you feel that the ethics shouldn’t be a factor.
Let me ask you this: is there anything that you see as inherently superior in ESCR as opposed to adult stem cell research?