The blogosphere was humming earlier this week about the New Yorker‘s profile (not available online) of Brent Scowcroft, former Ford and H.W. Bush national security adviser, which was rumored to contain some explosive new revelations about his opposition to the current administration’s invasion of Iraq.
As respected Washington insider and writer Steve Clemens posted on his blog this past Sunday, the New Yorker‘s Jeffrey Goldberg “coaxes Brent Scowcroft to delineate his differences with the foreign policy proclivities of George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and others …” He writes that “Jeffrey Goldberg’s article is a devastating, serious critique of George W. Bush’s foreign policy and national security team,” and that it’s “way, way, way worth it.” Clemons also posted at mega-blog TPMCafe that the piece was “stunning” and “masterful.”
That’s some pretty serious hype.
Also at TPM, Matt Yglesias struck a more measured note, writing that “I’ll certainly read the article on Brent Scowcroft when it comes out, but I feel compelled to at least semi-dissent from the heaping of praise upon the likes of Scowcroft, Larry Wilkerson, Richard Haas, and other Republicans who’ve started speaking out against the Bush administration lately. Everything they say could have been said 12-18 months ago when it would have made a difference for the future of the country.”
Needless to say, we were pretty excited to see the piece, as well. And now that we have, we’re left, as Bill Kristol might say, disappointed. There’s nothing wrong with Goldberg’s reporting or his writing — both are par for the course for the New Yorker — but what we’re curious about is the big deal the left-leaning blogosphere made of the piece (Clemons’ hype had spread far and wide).
Scowcroft says little that he didn’t say back in an August 2002 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. In that piece, he wrote that invading Iraq “would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken,” and that “the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism” and “could even swell the ranks of the terrorists.” That’s hardly a ringing endorsement.
Not only that, but Scowcroft’s opposition to the war has been common knowledge for at least that long. Bob Woodward wrote about it in his book Plan of Attack in April 2004 (which also presaged the New Yorker‘s “scoop” that the Bushes 41 and 43 might not see eye to eye on the war.) Of Scowcroft’s Journal op-ed, Woodward writes, “No one was as close to Bush senior as [Scowcroft]. He sent him an advance copy of the article and received no reaction. That meant it was okay.”
The New Republic‘s Franklin Foer and Spencer Ackerman also wrote in December 2003 about Scowcroft’s unhappiness with our current foreign policy, pointing out that Scowcroft and Cheney have been at odds on a number of issues dating back to the time they both served in the George H.W. Bush administration in the late 80s and early 90s.
Obviously, there are many out there who enjoy nothing more than watching the president squirm and hearing negative opinions about his policies from dissenting Republicans, but, in the end, the Scowcroft profile doesn’t live up to the hype — his comments don’t really prove anything new one way or the other, no matter how much some antiwar partisans want them to.
–Paul McLeary
Paul McLeary is a former CJR staff writer. Since 2008, he has covered the Pentagon for Foreign Policy, Defense News, Breaking Defense, and other outlets. He is currently a defense reporter for Politico.