|
always get a tingle of excitement when Bob Woodward writes something,
because it always signifies more than it says. A Woodward article
is a coded message, not merely reportage. Indeed, given his astonishing
record of creative writing — an "interview" with
CIA Director William Casey at a time when Casey was incapable of
speech, and another "conversation" with an Israeli official
that was only published after his death, when no denial or correction
could be issued, and yet another story published under his editorial
supervision that featured the activities of a person who did not
even exist — it is generally best to concentrate on the political
message. Sometimes he is used as a transmission belt from top policymakers
(his book on the Gulf War was in essence Colin Powell's view of
the events) or disgruntled underlings ("Deep Throat" of
Watergate), while on other occasions he advances his own political
causes.
Thus, his Sunday
scoop in the Washington Post, according to which President
Bush has authorized a "finding" that permits American
forces in Afghanistan to kill Osama bin Laden, was particularly
interesting. It may well be true that the president issued a finding,
but it probably wasn't necessary. As Woodward points out, American
forces in battle are entitled to take any and all action necessary
to protect themselves, or to advance their mission, and given bin
Laden's track record, he is certainly a legitimate target. A "finding,"
a legal document that entitles American officials to take actions
that would otherwise be forbidden, might be required for a specific
clandestine operation by CIA targeting bin Laden, but, according
to Clinton's last NSC adviser, Sandy Berger, they had already found
a way to do that, and had in fact subcontracted the assassination
to someone else. If that is true — and Woodward doesn't mention
it — then the legal authorization was already in place, and
Bush didn't have to take such a step.
So why was
Woodward told about a "finding"? The article reads as
if the information came from an interview with Vice President Cheney,
which would suggest that the White House wants us to know, in advance,
that the administration has taken careful steps to ensure that we
are within the letter of the law to go after bin Laden. This may
someday become an important matter, either before some insane congressional
committee (like the Church and Pike committees that started the
long list of legislation that crippled our intelligence community
in the 1960s), or one of the various international tribunals that
now assert their right to put anyone in the world on trial for "war
crimes."
So far, so
good. But then Woodward treats us to a repetition of some of his
personal theories about the recent past, above all, the Reagan years.
He asserts that Iran-Contra "involved secret arms sales to
Iran and the illegal diversion of profits from those sales to the
contra rebels supported by the CIA in Nicaragua." There were
certainly secret arms sales to Iran, but the diversion of profits
to the contras was not illegal. Not a single person was ever indicted,
let alone convicted, of such a crime. Woodward here is advancing
a personal political agenda instead of accepting the findings of
one of the longest and most costly investigations in American history.
The diversion was stupid, but it wasn't illegal. He then claims,
as he has in the past, that CIA Director Bill Casey colluded with
the Saudis to organize an assassination attempt against the leader
of the terrorist organization Hezbollah, a claim I have never believed,
but which fits nicely into the theory that the Reagan presidency
was rife with illegal activity.
The distortion
of the past is a serious matter, because it greatly affects policy
decisions now and in the future, and to portray Iran-Contra as a
criminal endeavor instead of a policy blunder helps convince other
policymakers to avoid risky undertakings, and, of course, it slimes
Ronald Reagan, which is in keeping with the politics of publications
such as the Washington Post. Indeed, there is now a generation
of journalists who constantly rewrite history in an effort to discredit
conservative leaders, and they are proud of their mission, whatever
the consequences for the national interest. Loren Jenkins, the senior
foreign editor for National Public Radio, recently bragged to a
Chicago Tribune columnist, "I don't represent the government.
I represent history, information, what happened."
Loren Jenkins
does indeed represent history, albeit a falsified version of it.
Back in 1982, he won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting that he had
watched while Israeli troops led Lebanese Christian forces into
the "refugee camps" of Shabra and Shatila, where Palestinians
were massacred. The problem with that Pulitzer was that Jenkins
could not have witnessed it, because it did not happen. An exhaustive
Israeli investigation concluded that General Ariel Sharon held "indirect
responsibility" for the massacre, because he should have known
it would happen, and should have prevented it. There was no evidence
that he, or any other Israeli officer, had overseen the operation
and actively abetted it, as Jenkins claimed.
"The best
reporting is getting to a place and assessing it yourself,"
Jenkins tell us, and warns that the military "never tell you
the truth." Frankly, I'd rather listen to Don Rumsfeld.
|
