Sun Nov 24, 2002 (Politics) Comments

[An e-mail to my father and sister.]

Good afternoon. I'm playing catch-up with a week's worth of N.Y. Times. I came across this gem by Elisabeth Bumiller from Friday's paper. I always enjoy her interpretation of presidential proceedings.

I especially enjoyed the contrast in assessments of Mr. Bush when one senior European diplomat said the sophisticated (read "kind") interpretation of him is of a man "whose style is still antithetical to the Europeans, but the action he's taking toward Iraq shows that he's moving down a multilateral route," while a senior Canadian official bluntly labeled Mr. Bush "a moron." I laughed out loud when I read Bumiller's quote of Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's obligatory defense of Mr. Bush: "He is a friend of mine. He is not a moron at all."

I was glad to find Ms. Bumiller's article because this morning I begrudgingly sat through Tim Russert's interview of Bob Woodward on Meet the Press. Woodward was hawking his new book, a behind-the-scenes account of the Bush administration at war. I have decided that I cannot tolerate much of Mr. Woodward. Whatever he once was, he no longer is. He seems intent on bolstering the mythology Bush image-makers have crafted for the president. Woodward seems to go out of his way to avoid criticism of the man and shows no shame in reaching quite low for anecdotal evidence of the man's profundity. He does this, of course, because such is required to sell a book in this time of patriotism- and to ensure continued allegiance from his readers. But in my mind, Woodward is seriously compromising his journalistic integrity.

I listened to the audio excerpts Russert played of Woodward interviewing President Bush for his book, and I listened to Woodward extract a non-existent gravitas from Bush's fumbling speech... and I wanted to yell through my T.V. set to the Meet the Press studio, "Get some perspective, Woodward! Listen to yourself. You are praising the man for being 'a good listener.'" What the hell is that? Isn't that a fundamental expectation?! Should we really be oohing and aahing at the courage of one George W. Bush, who, jolted by the horror of the September 11th terrorist attacks, transformed himself from a poor listener into a good listener? Pathetic! To make an analogy to my profession, that would be comparable to glorifying the transformation of a programmer, who, fresh out of computer science school and thrown into the pressure cooker of a DotCom startup, manages to turn himself into an accomplished typist! So what! I wanted to yell at Woodward, "Look at where you're taking the bar. As a senior Washington reporter you wield considerable influence, and you're using it to lower the bar!" Why are we measuring Mr. Bush on his demonstration of improved political mechanics?

Regarding foreign policy, we should measure the man, as all presidents, on his ability to advance American interests. And if Mr. Bush's strategy for the advancement of American interests comes at the cost of eroding good relations with our European allies, the press (and the Democratic opposition) should state this cost clearly and loudly, and force Mr. Bush and his administration to explain themselves, to explain their rationale, to justify their policy. We should not get all excited that the man has learned how to preside over a meeting of his own cabinet officials, or that he has gained his composure at international diplomatic conferences. What is this, the education of George W. Bush? A president should bring those skills to the office, not drag the American populace through Diplomacy 101 and all the patriotic, polite Softball Reporting it requires- at the cost of ignoring needed national dialogue.

How frustrating is all this. Lack of intellect in a leader is so difficult to confront, so exceedingly difficult, because the lightweight leader can always use the general populations' sensitivity to their own intellectual frailty as a shield. If you criticize me, Mr. Bush's attitude implies, you are criticizing the common American. That makes you unpatriotic and mean-spirited. Mr. Woodward, through his hagiographic reporting, is helping to strengthen this Shield of Insecurity.

Compare Woodward's tableau with that of last night's Saturday Night Live re-run, depicting an exasperated Condi Rice and Dick Cheney struggling to pull a befuddled George W. Bush through a national security briefing. Which depiction is closer to the truth? One can't help but consider that the Saturday Night Live sketch is closer. The simplest political reading of the situation says that Mr. Bush's handlers would grant Mr. Woodward the exclusive access to the president he had in researching his book only if they had judged him a non-threat. I have no doubts that Bob Woodward gets the access to the present administration he does (and the rights to publish today, rather than a decade from now) because the White House image-makers can count on him to tow the line.