Bob Woodward’s Tantrum, Bradley Manning’s Torment

Bob Woodward’s Tantrum, Bradley Manning’s Torment

Bob Woodward’s Tantrum, Bradley Manning’s Torment

As Beltway pundits were captivated by Woodward’s whining over an imaginary threat, the Obama administration was delivering on its real threats to Manning.


Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, in handcuffs, is escorted out of a courthouse in Fort Meade, Maryland February 23, 2012. Reuters/Jose Luis Magana 

Anyone losing sleep over Bob Woodward’s relationship with the White House can finally rest easy. The éminence grise of access journalism has made his peace with the Obama administration. After a spat with economic adviser Gene Sperling over an op-ed he was writing about the sequester, Woodward received an apologetic e-mail from Sperling, who said “as a friend” he thought Woodward would “regret” his comments. Woodward took to the airwaves, casting it as a veiled threat. But by Sunday, order was restored: Sperling called him a “legend” on ABC’s This Week. “I’m going to invite him over to my house,” Woodward said on Face the Nation, adding magnanimously, “Hopefully, he’ll bring others from the White House, or maybe the president himself.”

If there are indignities to be suffered from running afoul of the White House, Woodward’s perceived injury is the least among them. His tantrum, skewered by The Daily Show, might simply be funny were it not for the actual targeting of journalists by the Obama administration. 

In particularly stark contrast is the ongoing imprisonment of Abdulelah Haider Shaye, a Yemeni journalist who in 2009 revealed a US airstrike that killed fourteen women and twenty-one children. In 2011, President Obama personally intervened to keep Yemen’s president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, from pardoning Shaye (see “Free Abdulelah Shaye, March 21, 2012). As we wrote on this matter, “While paying lip service to media freedom, this administration has undermined the rights of journalists, and the whistleblowers who aid them, whose work has sometimes cast the government in a negative light.”

Enter Pfc. Bradley Manning, whose case reached a critical juncture just as Beltway pundits were seizing on the Woodward affair. On February 28, the 25-year-old pleaded guilty to ten criminal counts stemming from his historic leak of sensitive material to WikiLeaks in 2010. Before a military judge in Fort Meade, Maryland, Manning told how he decided to expose the cache of files, including videos, military logs and 250,000 State Department cables. “The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that should become public,” he said. He called The Washington Post and The New York Times before turning to WikiLeaks. (“I do not believe she took me seriously,” he said of the Post reporter; the Times never called back.)

Manning was eloquent in explaining his motives. Disturbed by footage of a deadly aerial attack on Iraqi civilians in 2007, he said, “I wanted the American public to know that not everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan are targets that needed to be neutralized, but rather people who were struggling to live in the pressure cooker environment of what we call asymmetric warfare.” Such a sober meditation on the human cost of US military force is precisely what was missing from the press during the run-up to both wars.

Manning’s guilty pleas could mean twenty years in prison, on top of the 1,000 days he has languished in pretrial detention (including more than nine months in solitary confinement, often under horribly abusive conditions). But the worst is yet to come: the Obama administration will now prosecute Manning for the most serious charges he faces, including “aiding and abetting the enemy.” It’s a scorched earth move, designed “to terrorize future national security whistleblowers” and journalists alike, in the words of Harvard law professor Yochai Benkler. It’s also a story that merits deeper concern from the Washington press—the kind of story that in another age might have interested Bob Woodward.

The government says Ahmed Ferhani is a terrorist. But, writes John Knefel, Ferhani’s conversations with undercover NYPD police tell a different story.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy