DUELING TRANSCRIPTS

The WaPo today posts a full transcript of an interview between Bob Woodward and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in response to a transcript the DOD had posted -- that Woodward says is missing a page. It just isn't clear how Rumsfeld could possibly think playing games of this nature would possibly be helpful.

It's worth remembering that Rumsfeld was the one high ranking administration official who didn't cooperate with Woodward in the first book, Bush at War, and you can just see him doing the grumpy old man thing when the President made a point of actually going so far as to ask officials to cooperate on this one, but did he really think that posting an incomplete transcript would elicit any response from Woodward (or the Post) other than the immediate posting of a complete transcript? (Here is the Oct. 20 interview DOD posted, and here is the Oct. 23 interview from them. Here is what the Post put up as "Text of Deleted Remarks".) All Rumsfeld's accomplished with this is keeping the story going another day, since the remarks have to do with when Prince Bandar was informed of the plan to go to war.

Since I noted before, but very casually, without fully explaining what I meant, that Woodward's methods bothered me, I should probably take this opportunity to expand on what I did mean by that. I don't have any reason to believe that Woodward is anything other than accurate. It isn't anything with his reporting procedures per se that bothers me. What bothers me is the method he uses to actually get his subjects to sit for interviews.

Now, since it appears that the word came down from the White House this time around to cooperate, this wouldn't have been as much of an issue, but the kinds of things he was doing for the first book, Bush at War, were almost journalism by extortion. "Well, everyone else involved has sat for an interview. Do you really want to be the only whose perspective isn't represented in the book?" There were even stories that he was wandering around with sheafs of paper to show people that the book was basically done, to imply that this was their last chance to get their story told and pressure them that way (when what he was holding was an awful draft with very little primary sourcing.)

And I was bothered by trying to get principals to talk about how they felt about what had happened (which inevitably meant how they felt, at least to an extent about one another) lets face it, while a war was still being prosecuted. It had to have an effect. People would sit in meetings thinking, but if I say what I think, will it end up in the next Woodward book? Now, of course, the administration itself is complicit in that.

It was very interesting last night, I thought, that Woodward (to Charlie Rose) described his interviews with the President as "an interrogation" and mentioned one discussion in particular, regarding WMD, as a moment when they were "arguing." I'm sure it improves his cachet to be a guy who was arguing with the President in the Oval Office. But should a reporter really be arguing the point while conducting an interview? It struck me as odd.

But all that aside, I really don't know of anyone who has ever come back and just flat said, no, he got it wrong. Now, I know that Colin Powell spent all day yesterday doing that but he spent all day yesterday doing that on a point where he clearly has an agenda. So you can take that or leave that I suppose. But back to the original point:if Rumsfeld wants to contest the accuracy of a point, messing with the transcript hardly seems the way to do it.

Comments

[alkali]

Query how the President can say with a straight face that he'll only appear before the 9/11 Commission with Cheney, and only for an hour, when it's clear he's spent many dozens of hours talking to Woodward.

[rilkefan]

I found Woodward surprisingly strong on Charlie Rose. I got the impression that he regretted the confrontation with Bush - but then, given Bush's apparent failure to subject his views to any real debate (Woodward says W still doesn't accept the facts about the WMDs - that he didn't even talk to his father about the war - that Tenet's "slam dunk" comment was considered sufficient evidence of the WMD case), it would be hard to discuss reality with him without getting into an argument.

Re Woodward's methods of getting interviews - people in the WH are adults, and if they're not sophisticated about the press they probably should look for other work.

[dauber]

Just for the record, they've made it clear that "one hour" is pretty fluid, and he's spent a bit over three hours with Woodward. It was dozens and dozens of QUESTIONS. Now, you can argue he shouldn't be giving such privelaged access to a single reporter, but lets not exaggerate how much access that was.

As to people in the WH being sophisticated about the press -- exactly right. That's why threats from the press work on them. Those threats are believed.

[nobody important]

Probably about .001% of the population is aware of "Transcriptgate", or ever will be aware, or would care if they were aware. Its a non-story, just more he-said-she-said folderol.

[dauber]

Probably true of most Beltway stories!