A critical section edited out by the Pentagon
|
|
|
Et
Tu, Woodward?
Bob Woodward's new book, "Plan of Attack," became the latest expose of the Bush White House to hit the best-seller lists, joining works by former Administration insiders Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke. It has not been a good year for Bush on the literary front; currently a third of the Times non-fiction list is made up of books that bash the President for one thing or another.
But Woodward's book is unique in the pack. He is a seasoned journalist who had unprecedented access to secret documents and was able to interview all of the key players, including hours with Bush himself.
Why did the White House invite Woodward inside to prowl the closets for skeletons? Probably because they expected him to paint flattering portraits. After all, the last work by the famed Watergate reporter was almost fawning; "Bush At War" portrayed the president, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others like heroes in a Hollywood action movie, barking out crisp, smart dialogue as they confidently manage crisis after crisis. (In fact, the book was made into a movie for the Showtime cable channel.)
"Bush at War" covered just the hundred days following 9/11, from a nation paralyzed with fear and despair to a swift victory over the Taliban and the routing of al-Qaeda (or at least, for the time being).
The new book follows that by tracing the 500-day slog leading to the invasion of Iraq, and how a handful of obsessed men were determined to commit America to an unnecessary war for reasons of ideology and revenge. One book is about triumph; the other is about pigheaded will.
Woodward frequently mentions in interviews that the White House endorses his book because Bush again appears to be a resolute, unflappable leader. But that doesn't mean the White house is happy with what else it contains. Just as the Bush Administration had tried to cast doubt on the credibility of O'Neill and Clarke, it was eager to discredit Woodward's accuracy, particularly after he appeared on 60 Minutes. On the news program the author revealed that the White House had secretly diverted over $700 million from the Afghanistan budget to pay for preparations to attack Saddam, and that the Saudi ambassador was given a pre-war briefing using a top-secret map specifically marked as forbidden to be seen by foreign nationals. These were very serious charges that could even lead to impeachment.
The Administration's response to the 60 Minutes broadcast was to immediately release its own transcripts of Woodward's two interviews with Rumsfeld. But in the Pentagon's version, there was a critical section removed: Gone was the discussion of Rumsfeld telling Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar in January 2003 that he could "take [it] to the bank" that Iraq would be invaded. In the Pentagon transcript there was no indication that a section had been edited out.
Rumsfeld was asked about it at a press conference the next day. He said that only "some banter.. and some discussion about a totally unrelated topic, and some items that were agreed between us to not be in there" were not in the transcript. He also told reporters that he wasn't sure about the map: "General Myers may have shown him a map; I'm not certain of that, but he may have." Rumsfeld was sure that Bandar couldn't have been told that war was a certainty: "To my knowledge, a decision had not been taken by the president to go to war at that meeting," Rumsfeld said at the April 20, 2004 press conference. But he insisted that the transcript was complete, "except for where I said 'ah' or 'uh' or something like that ... or where the transcription was in error."
The Washington Post, where Woodward is a senior editor, quickly released the missing part of the interview. "We're going to have to clean some of this up in the transcript," Rumsfeld said at the end of Woodward's questioning in the deleted secton. "We'll give you a -- I mean you just said Bandar and I didn't agree with that so we're going to have to -- I don't want to say who it is but you are going to have to go through that and find a way to clean up my language too."
Rumsfeld also suggested at the press conference that parts of the interview may have been off the record. Woodward was quick to respond in a Post article: "As the transcript shows, it was not off the record. I was surprised that it was deleted because it obviously dealt with a critical issue and was important corroborating information for the book."
|