John Leo
Recommend this article

Though Woodward?s reporting doesn?t sustain the ?Bush Lied? mantra that has overtaken the left, there are anti-Bush notes about the WMDs the author could have sounded but didn?t. In his 2003 State of the Union message, why did Bush use the discredited claim that Saddam sought uranium in Africa? Tenet, correct for once, had told the White House to cut that line from a Bush speech four months earlier. So how did the uranium line get in? Woodward writes: ?Tenet had not reviewed the State of the Union speech, and Hadley (Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, who vetted the speech) had forgotten the earlier CIA warning.? That?s it? A story that doesn?t check out somehow drifts back into Bush?s most important speech simply because one man forgot? Some of us would have liked more reporting here.

Woodward leaves the issue hanging because he is not interested in arguing with people and wanted to avoid what he calls a ?toxic? book. And as always with Woodward?s work, the people who grant him access come off looking good. This is somewhat true of Bush and even more true of Colin Powell, who opposed the war but stayed on as secretary of state out of loyalty to Bush (though, of course, he somewhat disloyally talked about his dissent while still in office).

Bush?s critics have focused sharply on Bush?s early interest in planning for war with Iraq. ?We won?t do Iraq now,? Bush says to Condoleezza Rice at Camp David on Sept. 16, 2001. This fits the left?s current theory, sounded in recent books by Paul O?Neill and Richard Clarke, that Bush was always itching to get Saddam, no matter what. But Woodward?s earlier book Bush at War (read review) depicted a much more restrained Bush at the same Camp David meeting. He describes Bush as having strong reservations about attacking Iraq and not wanting his advisers to use the war on terrorism to settle an old score with Saddam. This emphasis is missing in the new book.

Besides, drawing up ?secret war plans? for a possible attack on Iraq wasn?t irrational. The low- level war against Saddam was 12 years old, with no end in sight. American and British pilots were getting shot at, sanctions weren?t working, and Bush was getting warnings that Saddam had all those terrible weapons and would use them against America.

Bush would have been a fool not to draw up plans. Gee, wait till the critics find out that FDR, without ever informing the media, was plotting to fight Japan and Germany before Pearl Harbor.

Recommend this article

John Leo

John Leo is editor of MindingTheCampus.com and a former contributing editor at U.S. News and World Report.

Be the first to read John Leo's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.