68
Herodotus and Bob Woodward: A Comparison
Cicero first described Herodotus as the father of history. More
recently Herodotus is seen as a reporter, journalist, and ardent observer
of facts.^’ The topics he discussed, the motives he identified in the
historical process and the method he chose to describe them, are still
relevant today. Bob Woodward stands in the tradition of Herodotus. On
many levels Woodward’s book State o f Denial resembles the Histories.
Both authors use direct speeches and anecdotes to characterize
their protagonists. These help inform the reader about the motives and
values of the protagonists. Therefore the account of the war begins years
before the outbreak of fighting. While Herodotus, after disregarding what
seemed to him unreliable accounts of earlier events, starts with the
Lydian king Croisus, that is around 70 years before Xerxes' invasion of
Greece (480 BCE), Woodward begins his account in the fall of 1997,
long (in modem terms) before the chosen war against Iraq. The motives
and interests of George W. Bush become evident in certain passages. For
example. Bush says: “I will defend the American people against missiles
and terror, . . . I will begin creating the military of the next century”
(Speech Sep. 23, 1999). According to Woodward, Bush cited the “threat
of biological, chemical and nuclear terrorism . . . Every group or nation
must know, if they sponsor such attacks, our response will be
devastating.” The “pre-emption” doctrine speech, delivered at West Point
in June 2002, particularly conveys the fundamental strategy of the Bush
administration: “The war on terror will not be won on the defensive”
(342). With these direct speeches Woodward suggests that former
president Bush was driven by self-interest, and he shows his preference
for pre-emptive war.
In Herodotus we find a similar pattern. Croisus decides to attack
Cyrus and the Persians. Before Croisus starts the battle with Cyms,
Herodotus describes Croisus’ actions culminating in his thinking about
how to destroy the growing Persian Empire before it would become too
mighty (1.46). Croisus’ values determine his actions against the Persians.
Direct speeches reveal that Croisus is actively pursuing an expansionist
policy and that he is open to manipulated information.^’ His interest in
not only preserving but expanding his kingdom through a pre-emptive
attack against the Persians is evident (1.54). The anecdote of Croisus and
his false interpretation of the oracle at Delphi also reveal the motivation
and values of the Lydian king. The great empire that is going to fall if he
were to attack the Persians has to be the Persian one since he is so eager
to expand his own empire.