I'm a bit curious here - just how does a person change in to a "source"? I've been thinking about that, especially as more and more "journalistic" hit pieces on President Bush, the GOP and the war hinge upon the credibility of un-named "sources". I bring this up because Victor Davis Hanson, in an act of sublime courage worthy of a Presidential Medal of Freedom, seems to have actually ploughed through three of the latest hit pieces - ploughed through all the way to the footnotes:
...by too often using only the veneer of the historical method, the authors of these three books give their work a patina of scholarly credibility that can confuse the reader. In "Cobra II," for example, some citations at the end of the book state that information came from a "former senior military officer," "former Centcom planner" or "U.S. State Department official."
In "Fiasco," often verbatim quotations are not cited with specific attribution, but only vaguely noted in the text as "said a Bush administration official" or "recalled one officer." Among the endnotes in "State of Denial," we are apprised, "The information in this chapter comes primarily from background interviews with seven knowledgeable sources."
But who are these "seven knowledgeable" sources? Since Woodward so far won't name them, how do we really know that they are "knowledgeable" or even "primarily" used? Is the answer because they talked to Woodward (and not to others?), or were pre-selected because they happened to agree with his own views?
In "Cobra II," we wonder why one "former Centcom planner" would talk while others (more numerous?) choose not to. And in "Fiasco," is the talkative but unnamed "Bush administration official" getting even at his rivals by offering only his interpretation of shared past conversations?
Hanson then immediately goes on to call this stuff what it is - gossip. This isn't history - it doesn't even rise to the level of journalism (the 'first draft" of history, as it were)...if this is journalism, then so is the stuff in the National Enquirer. For all we know, "knowedgeable sources" are the two Pentagon guys who will actually pick up the phone when Woodward calls...heck, for all we know, Rumsfeld has DOD employees on a rotation to be "knowledgeable sources" for Woodward. It would make sense - why has scores of people annoyed by Woodward when you can just set up a couple people to field his calls?
All of that, by the way, leaves aside the absurdity of writing a history of the War on Terrorism while it is ongoing. When you don't know how it will end and you don't have access to any reasonably classified material, you can't write a worthwhile history of a war - its just not possible. So, why do it? Because when it comes to knocking down President Bush, nothing can be held back - and if you have to make up things and call it history in order to do it, then it is all in service of the only good cause in the world, thwarting President Bush (and if you're a worn out journalistic hack like Woodward, it doesn't hurt that it also pads the retirement account).
Just keep all this in mind: most of what you read about the war is either bogus or entirely out of context. The best thing to do is keep faith with our magnificent men and women in uniform. They, by re-enlisting in record numbers, are showing us what they think about the war, and if they have faith in victory, who are we to do other than back them up?
Posted by Mark Noonan at October 12, 2006 02:08 AM
Comments
If they identified their sources, then they would expose them to scrutiny. It seems like a lot of them have very obvious axes to grind. From Deep Throat forward.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon at October 12, 2006 02:49 AM
Mark:
Do you ever stop to ask yourself why you think every criticism of Bush, the GOP or the war is a "journalistic hit piece?" Are they all above any type of criticism? You can't possibly claim Bush or the GOP has ever made a mistake.
You sound like someone who thinks the entire world and everyone in it is in error except for you. This is not the sign of sanity.
Wade
Posted by: Wade at October 12, 2006 02:56 AM
Wade must not have read the same article that I read. The books mentioned are "hit pieces." The point of the Hanson's article was to show that the author used less than credible sources. A hit piece is a hit piece no matter which side of the aisle it comes from. Hit pieces are fine as long as one backs the information up with credible sources. Obviously Woodward and the author of the other hit pieces did not.
Posted by: Cecil Hill at October 12, 2006 04:47 AM
Sources??? Since when do Republicans care about the quality of sources?? Whether its Clinton sex scandals or mobile biological weapons labs, you guys will believe any piece of garbage as long as it suits your purposes. Talk about hypocrites...
I am curious, though, the previous two Woodward books on the Bush administration, which painted Bush in a very positive light, I assume that those are also not credible, because they too rely on unnamed sources. Right?
Posted by: steveGA at October 12, 2006 08:51 AM
Wade,
Depends on what you mean by mistake - everyone makes mistakes: you and I will make a score of them before we have lunch this afternoon. I'm sure President Bush will, too.
What you want, I believe, is an admission that whatever the President has done has been incorrect and/or incorrectly carried out from start to finish. You consider Iraq to be an error, and want me to admit it: but I don't consider it an error...indeed, I consider it one of the most brilliant politico-military campaigns in history, and as a person familiar with the history of such things, I'm certain that it will be viewed as such by dispassionate viewers in the future.
Were there flaws in execution of the plan? Of course - it was executed by human beings. Now, our soldiers are very well trained and have institutional safeguards against failures, so 100 of them will make far fewer mistakes than 100 average people, but they will still make mistakes...but does that mean that President Bush has made a mistake? Does that mean the military as a whole is a mistake? Does that mean that the campaign undertaken was a mistake. No.
My favorite analogy these days has been the battle of Tarawa in 1943 - as far as mistakes being made, it was just one gigantic series of mistakes from start to finish...we even messed up on such elementary planning as finding out when high tide was. Imagine that - an amphibious assault and we didn't bother to find out about the tides! Imagine how that bone-headed error would look on the TV news, were there television back then. But the battle wasn't a mistake - it was the absolutely correct thing to do, and it was carried out superbly by a group of magnificent Marines and sailors. So it is with Iraq - you can point to 10,000 flaws, and I still won't call it a mistake - because it was the absolutely correct thing to do, and it is being carried out superbly by the United States armed forces.
Now, I call things like the three referenced books hit-pieces because that is what they are - they cherry-pick flaws, don't place them in context and just basically build a prosecutors brief rather than providing us with a comprehensive look at the situation.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at October 12, 2006 08:54 AM
It is frustrating that 'sources' are leading the masses around by the nose and the general public has no real clue about how little truth there is in the "truth" they are being told. Is it even worth trying to talk about integrity these days? *sigh* That's simplistic, but you know what I mean.
Unfortunately, the folks who are astute enough to do the research, ask the questions and get at least some more of the 'actual facts' aren't in the majority. I was about to go off on a rant about the media and what they are feeding to the public but that’s a well worn path.
As for quoting sources and the general ‘making up’ of facts and details – I don’t know why it would be necessary these days. If you want to make George Bush and his administration look bad, simply quote the man himself. So much ‘crazy talk’ comes out of the Oval Office these days, I’m surprised that anyone would need to subsidize with extraneous, vague ‘sources’.
Posted by:
Heather at October 12, 2006 09:54 AM
Oh joy, another Canadian elitist that thinks to ridicule the President's speech pattern is the same as debating issues.
The Bush is dumb meme is “now the joke that stupid people laugh at.” Christopher Hitchens
Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence at October 12, 2006 01:13 PM
steveGA,
"Since when do Republicans care about the quality of sources?? Whether its Clinton sex scandals or mobile biological weapons labs, you guys will believe any piece of garbage as long as it suits your purposes."
So Paula Jones, who Clinton paid $850,000 to settle out of court, was an unreliable source? Her lawsuit resulted in the former President being found in contempt of court, agreed to be disbarred, and was impeached by the House of Representatives. I guess her entire claims were "garbage".
How about the former President going on national TV and declaring that "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"? Then later admitting that he did indeed have sexual relations with Monica. Was what the President said pure "garbage"?
As for the biological weapons labs, one set of experts believe that they were indeeed bio-weapons labs (you do not need that level of equipment to inflate weather ballons - a tank of helium will work), while another believes the Iraqi claim that they were for purely innocent purposes.
Our purpose: fight and win the war against global terrorism, promote freedom and liberty throughout the world, and ensure domestic economic, scientific, cultural, and social growth.
The liberal's purpose: oppose everything that the Bush Administration supports. No need for a plan or better way to solve problems or accomplish programs, all you need to do is criticize and block each and every program proposed by the President.
Posted by: A-10 at October 12, 2006 02:33 PM
"Our purpose: fight and win the war against global terrorism, promote freedom and liberty throughout the world, and ensure domestic economic, scientific, cultural, and social growth."- by: A-10
Indeed. Here's another front in the war against global terrorism-Somalia...andSweden.
Somali Sheikhs Call for Expatriates to Return for Holy War
Lgf, "The Islamic warlords of Somalia have issued a call for Somalis abroad to return home for Jihad against Ethiopia."
(SomaliNet) The Islamic Courts who are controlling most of southern Somalia have urged on Wednesday Somali communities in abroad to join their efforts to the holy war already declared by the Islamists to defend the country from infidels.
Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, the leader of executive council of Islamic Courts made the statement in an occasion happened in north of Mogadishu where members from Somali community in Sweden donated $7,000 to Islamic Courts. The money was collected from Somalis in Sweden.
“I am appealing to all Somali communities in abroad to take part in the Jihad operation against the Ethiopian troops who want to occupy our land,” Sheikh Ahmed said. “I am telling you that Somalis had done a lot for the current leadership of Ethiopia. We know that former Somali government helped Meles Zenawi to study in Mogadishu and launch his rebellion mission from here but it is misfortune that in return Zenawi rewarded us with constant interference in Somalia.”
Sheikh Ahmed also accused the Ethiopian government of destroying the peace in Somalia. “Somalis would not accept that Ethiopia enjoys peace while Somalis suffers and I hope the victory will lastly be with us Insha Allah.”
Also in the meeting, Sheik Fuad Mohamed Qalaf, the head of educational department of Islamic Courts spoke to the members of Somali community in Sweden saying that he was so happy to see some of his friends in Sweden in Mogadishu and urged all Somalis to return into their home country.
“I am calling on all Somali communities in countries of infidels to move to their country Somalia with their children and families,” Sheik Fuad who has Swedish citizenship said adding that he would never return to Sweden.
Posted by: Freedom1 at October 12, 2006 04:43 PM
as a person familiar with the history of such things
You keep saying that you're familiar with the history of such things, yet you never actually display such familiarity; often, you display the exact opposite. Your appeals to your own authority are severely lacking.
Posted by: SeesThroughIt at October 12, 2006 05:08 PM
Mark,
I haven't read Bob Woodward's book but I do know that he did quote named high-level sources including Andrew Card, George Tenet, and Dick Cheney, to name a few.
Posted by: Brian at October 12, 2006 09:44 PM
Please report any inappropriate comments to abuse (at) blogsforbush (dot) com. Be sure to include the title of the blog entry, the name of the commenter, and the text of the offending comment.
Post a comment
If they identified their sources, then they would expose them to scrutiny. It seems like a lot of them have very obvious axes to grind. From Deep Throat forward.
Mark:
Do you ever stop to ask yourself why you think every criticism of Bush, the GOP or the war is a "journalistic hit piece?" Are they all above any type of criticism? You can't possibly claim Bush or the GOP has ever made a mistake.
You sound like someone who thinks the entire world and everyone in it is in error except for you. This is not the sign of sanity.
Wade
Wade must not have read the same article that I read. The books mentioned are "hit pieces." The point of the Hanson's article was to show that the author used less than credible sources. A hit piece is a hit piece no matter which side of the aisle it comes from. Hit pieces are fine as long as one backs the information up with credible sources. Obviously Woodward and the author of the other hit pieces did not.
Sources??? Since when do Republicans care about the quality of sources?? Whether its Clinton sex scandals or mobile biological weapons labs, you guys will believe any piece of garbage as long as it suits your purposes. Talk about hypocrites...
I am curious, though, the previous two Woodward books on the Bush administration, which painted Bush in a very positive light, I assume that those are also not credible, because they too rely on unnamed sources. Right?
Wade,
Depends on what you mean by mistake - everyone makes mistakes: you and I will make a score of them before we have lunch this afternoon. I'm sure President Bush will, too.
What you want, I believe, is an admission that whatever the President has done has been incorrect and/or incorrectly carried out from start to finish. You consider Iraq to be an error, and want me to admit it: but I don't consider it an error...indeed, I consider it one of the most brilliant politico-military campaigns in history, and as a person familiar with the history of such things, I'm certain that it will be viewed as such by dispassionate viewers in the future.
Were there flaws in execution of the plan? Of course - it was executed by human beings. Now, our soldiers are very well trained and have institutional safeguards against failures, so 100 of them will make far fewer mistakes than 100 average people, but they will still make mistakes...but does that mean that President Bush has made a mistake? Does that mean the military as a whole is a mistake? Does that mean that the campaign undertaken was a mistake. No.
My favorite analogy these days has been the battle of Tarawa in 1943 - as far as mistakes being made, it was just one gigantic series of mistakes from start to finish...we even messed up on such elementary planning as finding out when high tide was. Imagine that - an amphibious assault and we didn't bother to find out about the tides! Imagine how that bone-headed error would look on the TV news, were there television back then. But the battle wasn't a mistake - it was the absolutely correct thing to do, and it was carried out superbly by a group of magnificent Marines and sailors. So it is with Iraq - you can point to 10,000 flaws, and I still won't call it a mistake - because it was the absolutely correct thing to do, and it is being carried out superbly by the United States armed forces.
Now, I call things like the three referenced books hit-pieces because that is what they are - they cherry-pick flaws, don't place them in context and just basically build a prosecutors brief rather than providing us with a comprehensive look at the situation.
It is frustrating that 'sources' are leading the masses around by the nose and the general public has no real clue about how little truth there is in the "truth" they are being told. Is it even worth trying to talk about integrity these days? *sigh* That's simplistic, but you know what I mean.
Unfortunately, the folks who are astute enough to do the research, ask the questions and get at least some more of the 'actual facts' aren't in the majority. I was about to go off on a rant about the media and what they are feeding to the public but that’s a well worn path.
As for quoting sources and the general ‘making up’ of facts and details – I don’t know why it would be necessary these days. If you want to make George Bush and his administration look bad, simply quote the man himself. So much ‘crazy talk’ comes out of the Oval Office these days, I’m surprised that anyone would need to subsidize with extraneous, vague ‘sources’.
Oh joy, another Canadian elitist that thinks to ridicule the President's speech pattern is the same as debating issues.
The Bush is dumb meme is “now the joke that stupid people laugh at.” Christopher Hitchens
steveGA,
"Since when do Republicans care about the quality of sources?? Whether its Clinton sex scandals or mobile biological weapons labs, you guys will believe any piece of garbage as long as it suits your purposes."
So Paula Jones, who Clinton paid $850,000 to settle out of court, was an unreliable source? Her lawsuit resulted in the former President being found in contempt of court, agreed to be disbarred, and was impeached by the House of Representatives. I guess her entire claims were "garbage".
How about the former President going on national TV and declaring that "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"? Then later admitting that he did indeed have sexual relations with Monica. Was what the President said pure "garbage"?
As for the biological weapons labs, one set of experts believe that they were indeeed bio-weapons labs (you do not need that level of equipment to inflate weather ballons - a tank of helium will work), while another believes the Iraqi claim that they were for purely innocent purposes.
Our purpose: fight and win the war against global terrorism, promote freedom and liberty throughout the world, and ensure domestic economic, scientific, cultural, and social growth.
The liberal's purpose: oppose everything that the Bush Administration supports. No need for a plan or better way to solve problems or accomplish programs, all you need to do is criticize and block each and every program proposed by the President.
"Our purpose: fight and win the war against global terrorism, promote freedom and liberty throughout the world, and ensure domestic economic, scientific, cultural, and social growth."- by: A-10
Indeed. Here's another front in the war against global terrorism-Somalia...andSweden.
Somali Sheikhs Call for Expatriates to Return for Holy War
Lgf, "The Islamic warlords of Somalia have issued a call for Somalis abroad to return home for Jihad against Ethiopia."
(SomaliNet) The Islamic Courts who are controlling most of southern Somalia have urged on Wednesday Somali communities in abroad to join their efforts to the holy war already declared by the Islamists to defend the country from infidels.
Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, the leader of executive council of Islamic Courts made the statement in an occasion happened in north of Mogadishu where members from Somali community in Sweden donated $7,000 to Islamic Courts. The money was collected from Somalis in Sweden.
“I am appealing to all Somali communities in abroad to take part in the Jihad operation against the Ethiopian troops who want to occupy our land,” Sheikh Ahmed said. “I am telling you that Somalis had done a lot for the current leadership of Ethiopia. We know that former Somali government helped Meles Zenawi to study in Mogadishu and launch his rebellion mission from here but it is misfortune that in return Zenawi rewarded us with constant interference in Somalia.”
Sheikh Ahmed also accused the Ethiopian government of destroying the peace in Somalia. “Somalis would not accept that Ethiopia enjoys peace while Somalis suffers and I hope the victory will lastly be with us Insha Allah.”
Also in the meeting, Sheik Fuad Mohamed Qalaf, the head of educational department of Islamic Courts spoke to the members of Somali community in Sweden saying that he was so happy to see some of his friends in Sweden in Mogadishu and urged all Somalis to return into their home country.
“I am calling on all Somali communities in countries of infidels to move to their country Somalia with their children and families,” Sheik Fuad who has Swedish citizenship said adding that he would never return to Sweden.
as a person familiar with the history of such things
You keep saying that you're familiar with the history of such things, yet you never actually display such familiarity; often, you display the exact opposite. Your appeals to your own authority are severely lacking.
Mark,
I haven't read Bob Woodward's book but I do know that he did quote named high-level sources including Andrew Card, George Tenet, and Dick Cheney, to name a few.