QOTD: Bob Woodward
I was working at The Washington Post at the time, and I took it upon myself to examine the paper’s performance in the run-up to war. It was not a pretty picture. …
Len Downie, then the executive editor, told me that in retrospect, “we were so focused on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not giving the same play to people who said it wouldn’t be a good idea to go to war and were questioning the administration’s rationale. Not enough of those stories were put on the front page. That was a mistake on my part.”
Bob Woodward told me that “we did our job, but we didn’t do enough, and I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder.” There was a “groupthink” among intelligence officials, he said, and “I think I was part of the groupthink.”
Tom Ricks, who was the paper’s top military reporter, turned in a piece in the fall of 2002 that he titled “Doubts,” saying that senior Pentagon officials were resigned to an invasion but were reluctant and worried that the risks were being underestimated. An editor killed the story, saying it relied too heavily on retired military officials and outside experts — in other words, those with sufficient independence to question the rationale for war.
“There was an attitude among editors: Look, we’re going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?” Ricks said.
I think that’s just swell, don’t you?
On the other hand you didn’t have to be getting private briefings from Pentagon officials to know the whole thing stunk to high heaven. I’ve never experienced such dissonance in my life as I did during that period. The officials and the media sounded like a bunch of smarmy carnival barkers but there was this sense that we were going down the rabbit hole no matter what.
I feel that way today about austerity. And there’s clueless old Bob Woodward, once again part of the groupthink, doing his best to cheer on the madness.
.