I wanted to comment very briefly on the new book by Ron Suskind based primarily on material from, and interviews with, former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill since it was such a hot topic in the news today, especially given O'Neill's interview on 60 Minutes.
The first thing I wanted to say is this: anyone commenting at great depth is probably speaking a bit out of school since none of us has had the chance to read the book yet. However, why should we believe this doesn't include the press? They all got advance copies, I'm sure. And managed to read them at the same time? And came up with precisely the same quotes to use in their stories, beginning and ending the quotes at exactly the same word? Which is more plausible, that, or that they haven't yet read the books either -- but have read the press packets that accompanied the book?
Second, like some other bloggers I'm simply untroubled by the claims that Iraq was on the table from the beginning of this administration's term. As Glenn Reynolds points out, regime change was not just administration policy, it was the law of the land, and as he also points out, the military is supposed to have "off the shelf" plans for contingencies of all kinds.
What he does not point out is that the military doctrine still in place at the start of the Bush administration for sizing the military was "2 MRCs," that is, two major regional contingencies. No one said it, as that would have been the height of political incorrectness, but everyone knew exactly who the two were that mattered for sizing purposes: North Korea and Iraq. It would have been utterly irresponsible for a new administration, given that, to not ask for an update on the status of Iraq plans (and I would hope, plans for a Korean contingency as well) not because anyone wants war on the Korean penninsula but because you don't want to find out the status of planning is inadequate the hour after the balloon goes up.
Third, really, this is not the first tell all out of the Bush White House. (It isn't even the first kiss and tell, but David Frum was obviously way lower on the food chain than cabinet secretary.) The first tell all was the book where everyone and his sister told all to famed stenographer-cum-intvestigative-reporter Bob Woodward. Have we all forgotten all the attention that book got when it came out? Bush at War is also based on multiple documents -- and interviews -- but unlike this book, it represents a washing out of the perspective of multiple players. Presumably, the way this game is played, it's like a big version of journalistic Prisoners Dilemna. Everyone thinks everyone else is talking to Woodward. Everyone thinks whoever talks to Woodward will tell a version that makes them look good at everyone else's expense, so it benefits them to do the same and pretty soon they're all talking up a storm.
The downside, of course, is that it's highly questionable whether we want a book like this coming out in the middle of an administration, especially an administration at war. Will everyone begin to edit themselves even in secret meetings, for fear that their comments will end up in the next Woodward book? The upside is that, presumably, knowing everyone's self-interest is at play, Woodward can wash that out and come up with a pretty good first draft of history.
Now, that book begins with September 11th, so it can't speak to the question of whether Iraq was on the plate as soon as the administration was sworn in. But it can provide insight as to whether Iraq was being debated coming out of the 9/11 attacks (it was), and whether the President decided then and there to go to war with Iraq (it doesn't sound like he did definitively.) That does in a sense reflect back on O'Neill's claims -- the debate, you would think, would have been shaped somewhat differently if they had in fact been shopping for an excuse from the beginning and all knew it.
But it certainly speaks to whether the President is a disengaged leader, letting Cheney run the show. That doesn't deny any of the specific examples O'Neill speaks to, of course: different book, different meetings, different issues. But if you are looking to make an overarching claim about the President's leadership style based on O'Neill's book, it would seem as if you would have to take Woodward's book into account as well.
And Woodward can surely match Suskind transcript for transcript, and secret document for secret document. Unfortunately. I say unfortunately because although I use Bush at War as a text for my Political Communication class (so much of what they were discussing in the days immediately after the attack was how to handle the rhetorical challenges facing them, how could I not?) I'm still just unsure a book like this should be out in the middle of a war. But given that it's out, I'm not going to deny my students the benefits of using it.
Update: I completely forgot about this exchange during the 2000 campaign in which then-Governor Bush lays out his intentions towards Saddam pretty clearly, posted by Instapundit. Of course, conveniently, so did 60 Minutes tonight when they were trying to make it look as if the war with Iraq contradicted the anti-nation building position taken during the campaign. (That argument always irritates me. Do we want a president who, after September 11th would have said, yeah, well, sorry, I know the world's changed and all, but I did say certain things during a presidential debate, so I'm kinda stuck now. Especially since this argument generally comes from people who -- like me -- would like to see a little more nation building in, say, Afghanistan.)
