I was listening to the news for a while tonight and heard about the new book from Robert Woodward for the first time.
If the claims that Woodward makes are true, then they will dramatically change how many people view our entry into Iraq and could have considerable impact upon how many people view President Bush's honesty concerning how and when the decision to invade Iraq was made.
One bothersome piece of information that I heard was that the Saudi ambassador was allowed to view secret war plans a while before they were executed. According to Woodward, the Vice President and Secretary of Defense were present in the room as the ambassador viewed the plans. According to the Woodward account, the ambassador asked for a copy of the plans but was turned down, he was allowed to take notes which I assume he kept. This is the most troubling to me because it seems that the well being of troops that would do the invasion could have been put at risk by allowing a foreign official to view such plans.
Does anyone have more complete information on Woodward's book and the validity of the contents? Woodward was allowed extensive access to Whitehouse officials in early 2003 and I wonder whether the material for his book came from that access.
I know of Woodward from his involvement in bringing to light the Watergate breakin, but I know little else of the reporter/writer. I have watched a number talk shows that he has been a guest on and got the sense that he was reasonably cautious in taking a political viewpoint. During the shows that I watched, I got the sense that he was moderate politically, but I admit knowing nothing about his political bent that would allow me to frame my sense of his politics.
you are asking about Woodward's politics so that you can
'filter' what he says through those politics.
I guess it's too much to ask you evaluate what he has to say on
your own.
Any true politco would have him figured in a second and start
ranting from there. That's bad enough, but par for the course.
What your asking is others to tell you how to rant.
sheesh,
fr
-- Modified on 4/19/2004 4:57:15 PM
I am a political moderate so I gather as much information as I can before I start blowing steam from my ass. Was that graphic enough to convince you that I will make my own decisions after I have all the information that I need to properly make them?
60 Minutes did a segment on the book tonight. It does not make Bush look exactly honest and forthright about this Iraq War and those "weapons of mass destruction".
What bothers me is if Bush is proved to be a two faced lying, smarmy right-winged puppet of the military industrial complex Then who can I vote for this November because Kerry is just the same except left-winged.
Whoever becomes President does so by the will of corporate America.
Cm.
Well, one difference that might prompt a vote for Kerry is that he is unlikely to subscribe to Bush's policy of "preemptive" invasion of countries that have not attacked us. With the absence of any weapons of mass destruction (WMD) stockpiles, one new justification for the Iraq war has been that there were WMD program activities, whatever that means. Just raising the threshold for war back to where it was would be a big help.
And talk about creating distractions (e.g., Iraq war) to keep your eye off the ball. Wasn't it just reported that North Korea showed off three nuclear devices to the Pakistanis (who, by the way supplied N. Korea with the technology to make nuclear weapons)? Using the new Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes, shouldn't we be attacking N. Korea and/or Pakistan about now? Any chance to undo Bush's shoot-from-the-hip foreign policy misadventures would be welcome.
Because, THAT, my friends, if true, is illegal, and would certainly qualify as an impeachable offense. And I have still not heard any denial of this from the Administration. I am also curious where our Bush apologists James86 and Bribite come down on committing this type of financial fraud in order to cook up a war without the approval of congress or the American Public, and allowing Osama Bin Laden to scurry away into the hills while Bush did this.
-- Modified on 4/19/2004 5:38:55 PM
After all, Bush & Co. (a liesure service of Halliburton) said it was good for Democracy.
Besides, there were no documented blow jobs - just dead bodies. That, my friend, meets the Republican litmus test.
Point by point refutation of rants like this aren't worth my time.
My problem with this whole project is that Viacom-owned CBS News is is once again publicizing a book published by another Viacom subsidiary. And with Bob Woodward, you've got to wonder who he's been channeling, a la his claim to have talked to former CIA Director Bob Casey while he lay unable to speak.
"What Bush did is clearly illegal and an impeachable offense. I have no comment on this as it is inexcusable, but I am a Bush lapdog and so will make a feeble attempt to shift your attention away from it. I am such a dyed-in-the-wool Republican that I prefer the deaths of innocents and the wholesale rape of our country to making an admission that I was wrong in backing such an amoral idiot."
Thank you, James.
So when Woodward paints Bush as being involved in the decision making process and in control, we should not believe that either.
The fact that Bush has admitted to several clearly illegal acts is now basically a fact, and not an accusation. It was put into the public record BY BUSH, so his actions could be recorded for posterity. Not to mention the incredibly scary statement BY BUSH, that he got this mission to change the regime in Iraq DIRECTLY FROM GOD! If that doesn't freak you out, you must be a pod person, not a sentient being. Basically, Bush is admitting that he is no different from the radical Islamic Mullahs, in taking his war doctrine directly from a higher being, and considers himself above the law, because he's answering to a higher law. This is not MY accusation, and it is no longer WOODWARD's accusation. By virtue of the fact that Woodward has attributed these statements directly to Bush, and the White House has NOT denied them, is an affirmation that they are true. And frankly, that should scare the hell out of EVERY thinking human on the planet.
Look, this war is just the Republican idea of population control and environmental protection. It's probably more natural and workable than the Democratic one, ie., regulate the hell out of people until they couldn't get a hard-on if they had to.
Do you doubt for a minute that the owner/operators of the 1st MEF are probably better adapted to the current environment than the Hawiye Somalis, and therefore should probably inherit the earth?
So what the hell, we may as well get it over with.
while Blowjobs or even lying about blowjobs, are not OK?
Is it because financial fraud, and illegal funding of a war plan, and illegal disclosures of said war plans to Saudi Leadership, are less serious than getting a consensual Blowjob? I am really curious how you can justify this? And I'd REALLY like to see an answer beyond the glib: "I can't be bothered giving a point by point rebuttal to a rant". This isn't a rant. It's a serious, good faith question: How can you justify these CLEARLY ILLEGAL acts by the commander in chief, which have led to a war in which nearly 700 Americans have been killed, and which Bush entered because GOD told him to?
Well, fucking the entire country is what a politician is expected to do; equal protection may require that they not limit themselves to a single intern.
Nobody said blowjobs are not OK, but you Lefties have to keep up the lie that the impeachment was about sex, so I understand.
But simply because you consistently repeat a lie doesn't make it trut. Take this "illegal disclosures of said war plans to Saudi Leadership" BS. Prince Bandar was out in front of TV cameras in the last 24 hours, but you're still perpetuating the lie.
So you want me to waste my time responding to a rant? Sorry. Do that enough when I have to responde to Leftist rants in legal briefs. And that's only because idiot judges sometimes buy idiocy that should be beneath contempt. So much of what you say here is, but here, I can ignore it.
-- Modified on 4/29/2004 5:53:11 PM
Ok, so Bush shows a Saudi Arabian government official our top secret war plans, in violation of the law, in exchange for a promise to cut oil prices before the election, also in violation of the law, and he does this before he's even told the Secretary of State about the war. All the while Bush and the administration are denying that they are planning on attacking Iraq. In order to prepare for the war without telling congress he misappropriates $700 million, also a violation of the law, from the Afghanistan war effort - just as Osama bin Laden is getting away. And as for reasons for war? Even Bush doesn't believe the intelligence on WMDs, but they figured the public and the Congress would buy the story. Lying to the public isn't illegal but lying to Congress is a violation of the law.
Pop Quiz:
How many impeachable offenses can a president commit in a single act?
The site is free - you may have to register though.
I've linked in the main books page since the direct link may not
last more than a day.
happy reading,
fr
I don't recall the details, but Woodward was on Larry King last night and refuted the misrepresentations about his conclusions made by John F'ing Kerry himself.
And if this book is so revealing, why is it that the biggest promoter of it (other than CBS/Viacom, for obvious financial reasons), is the Republican National Committee?
Because it contains specific examples of criminal activity by the Bush Administration, including the CLEARLY impeachible offenses of misallocating $700 Million from the Afghanistan War effort toward the Iraqi War planning, which, BTW is known as FRAUD.
And the revealing of still classified War Plans to a foreign representative (the Saudi Amabassador, Prince Bandar), prior to even revealing these plans to OUR OWN Secretary of State, or our own Congress. Remember, the Saudis were the source of the vast majority of Al Qaida's funding prior to 9/11, and also were the source of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. Nonetheless, Bush sees fit to bring them into our War Planning prior to even our own elected representatives.
He thinks that Americans want a cowboy President. And surely, many do. But he may be surprised in November to find how many do not.
His support for Woodward's book is a good indicator of how out of touch he is.