Bob Woodward: Bush Misleads On Iraq

[RickSp]

Bob Woodward: Bush Misleads On Iraq

Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward tells Mike Wallace that the Bush administration has not told the truth regarding the level of violence, especially against U.S. troops, in Iraq. He also reveals key intelligence that predicts the insurgency will grow worse next year. According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. "It’s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That's more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces," says Woodward. The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. "The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], 'Oh, no, things are going to get better,'" he tells Wallace. "Now there’s public, and then there’s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know," says Woodward. "The insurgents know what they are doing. They know the level of violence and how effective they are. Who doesn't know? The American public," Woodward tells Wallace. President Bush is absolutely certain that he has the U.S. and Iraq on the right course, says Woodward. So certain is the president on this matter, Woodward says, that when Mr. Bush had key Republicans to the White House to discuss Iraq, he told them, "I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me."

Woodward's new book is called State of Denial: Bush at War

[Zeebadee]

I think bush is being overly optimistic about Barney.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Zeebadee I think bush is being overly optimistic about Barney.

Nah. Barney is well trained to bark on cue. Just like Bush's generals and most members of the Senate. Bush might have more to worry about with Laura.

[bishop]

some nice war profiteering by woodward.. rather than sharing this very important, breaking news with the public, he instead decided to save it for another one of his books - leaking out choice bits of information to build up hype.

not to diminish the importance of this information, but woodward's a scumbag for keeping this private in order to profit off of it.

that said, this is some damning news, but unfortunately won't amount to much of anything.. this is far from the first time that similarly damning information was released to the public - and the teflon president always managed to slogan his way out of it. hell, he gave us the WMD line which proved to be a lie, and the bastard was for it... never underestimate the stupidity of the public and its appetite for mindless sloganeering.

something about the information he mentioned, about the number of attacks per day... the average daily number of deaths may be down, but the average daily number of injuries/wounded has been steadily rising. i know the casualties make the biggest headlines, but over 20,000 have been wounded in this unnecessary war.

United Press International - Security & Terrorism - Benchmarks: 20,000 U.S. troops injured

[Nono]

Quote by: bishop woodward's a scumbag

Didn't he do a fawning book on Boy George's "presidency" a couple of years ago?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop some nice war profiteering by woodward.. rather than sharing this very important, breaking news with the public, he instead decided to save it for another one of his books - leaking out choice bits of information to build up hype. not to diminish the importance of this information, but woodward's a scumbag for keeping this private in order to profit off of it.]

That is exactly what I was thinking upon first hearing of this. This certainly seems like some questionable behavior from somebody who strives to be taken seriously.

[RickSp]

Woodward's first book on Bush was very favorable. The Bush cabal heaped praised on it and Woodward, which now makes it somewhat more difficult to claim that he is a left wing hack.

I am just happy the truth is getting out one way or another.

[underbear1]

Bush only mentioned Barney and Laura because they have higher approval numbers.

[bishop]

nice to get this information, no doubt...

i wonder how much other information woodward might know that he's sitting on for another hyped up book.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop nice to get this information, no doubt... i wonder how much other information woodward might know that he's sitting on for another hyped up book.

Yep, me too. This is sort of thing that lodges in the old integrity filter.


I get the feeling all of these Washington insiders know a Hell of lot that public isn't privvy to, and that the "leaks" are just the things that they can't rationalize away, and actually end up losing sleep over. Everything else is written off as criticl to the needs of the Empire.


That, or else the guy that threatened them died, and they feel a little safer revealing the information in his absence.

[bishop]

some depressing bits that this book includes:

Bush battens down for hurricane Woodward - World - theage.com.au

The book reveals that Mr Bush's parents have become increasingly concerned about the war. At one stage, his mother, Barbara, spoke to a former Democratic senator David Boren who had worked closely with her husband at the CIA in the 1970s, and asked him to be candid. "Are we right to be worried about this Iraq thing?" she asked. "Yes, very worried," he said. — "Do you think it's a mistake?" — "Yes, ma'am. I think it's a huge mistake if we go in … " "Well, his father is certainly worried, and is losing sleep over it. He's up at night worried." — "Why doesn't he talk to him?" — "He doesn't think he should unless he's asked." Woodward suggests that Mr Bush never asked his father for advice, and has not talked to him at any length about Iraq since the war started. Woodward's description of the relationship of Mr Bush with his father suggested that the President may love his father, but does not respect him much as a politician. At one stage, according to Woodward, Republican presidential hopeful John McCain was asked whether Mr Bush had ever asked him for his views on Iraq. "No, no, he hasn't," Senator McCain said. "As a matter of fact, he's not intellectually curious. But one of the things he did say one time was, 'I don't want to be like my father. I want to be like Ronald Reagan'." There are some minor but interesting revelations. Mr Bush and his senior adviser, Karl Rove, for instance, enjoy fart jokes, which they sometimes swap in the middle of Oval Office meetings. Mr Rove, when bored, plays with a battery-powered "Redneck Horn", which can be attached to a car dashboard. When you press a button, it rattles off such obscenities as: "What race are you in, shithead" and "Put the cell phone down, dickhead". Mr Bush, Woodward implies, found the toy amusing.

he doesn't ask his father for advice, doesn't ask senior members of his party for advice, has no intellectual curiosity, prays to god to receive approval of his decisions, likes fart jokes and immature toys...

what the fuck.....

[Scribbler1]

Are you REALLY surprised out dear leader is a redneck lobrow?

[bishop]

no, i just hate being reminded of it.

[Fonceai]

@bishop

I don't know if you have ever listened to Paul Harvey, but he said something during the Bush-Kerry race that is very similar to what you said earlier.

Instead of doing his standard "The Rest of the Story" bit, he did a commentary about the Presidential race.

He addressed both candidates and said that both of them are claiming to have plans and know how to solve all of America's problems, and that if elected they would put them in action. Paul Harvey then said that he thinks less of both men because of this. He said that if they really cared about the American people and about doing what is best for the country, they would share the plans so that America would be better no matter who was in office.

This is a prime example of someone trying to use the proverbial carrot on a stick in order to make a buck. Yes, it's the American way, but rather disappointing considering the source.

[bishop]

yeah... it's definitely one thing to say that you have a plan, and it's something altogether different to actually lay one out for people to analyze.

when bush and kerry said that they have plans, what they really meant was that they have different approaches... the difference between the two terms is very significant, although frequently ignored/overlooked. neither of them had a plan at all, they had approaches consisting of a set of ad-hoc ideas. for instance, kerry said he wanted to see NATO play a larger role, and talked about how he would try to get them on board... that's an approach, not a plan.

the key difference between an approach and a plan is that plans ALWAYS have target dates assigned to the various tasks.. and by including target dates, you can track whether/not you're meeting your targets, or if the plan is falling behind - which would lead to a revision of the plan, or different policy decisions. that's project management 101 and doesn't make an ounce of difference if it's a war or some IT project. in this case, a plan for training battle-ready iraqi troops would have a target date of, say, January 2007... instead, we have this never-ending approach.

[Spartacus]

But one of the things he did say one time was, 'I don't want to be like my father. I want to be like Ronald Reagan'."

Not even Reagan, in his pre-Altsheimer's state, was this clueless and dense. He certainly has succeeded in his desire to be like Reagan in that he has become reviled for his refusal to modify his stances when his stances prove to be wrong.

[Fonceai]

@bishop

I agree. Bush and Kerry should have said "approaches" and not "plans" because, as you said, "plans" makes you think that it's all laid out and ready to go.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop the key difference between an approach and a plan is that plans ALWAYS have target dates assigned to the various tasks.. and by including target dates, you can track whether/not you're meeting your targets, or if the plan is falling behind - which would lead to a revision of the plan, or different policy decisions. that's project management 101 and doesn't make an ounce of difference if it's a war or some IT project. in this case, a plan for training battle-ready iraqi troops would have a target date of, say, January 2007... instead, we have this never-ending approach.

...and thus, another bit of the Washington Two Step becomes visible to the naked eye, as the Five Year Plan is born. Well, for those that manged to develope an actual plan they would consider putting before the voters.


If you are elected to a four year term, and then proceed to develop a five year plan, what does that say about ones intellect? How about that politicians perception of the constituents? What, so now we have to elect you again to see how the movie ends? :rolleyes: Can we spot the trend here?


Maybe we are seeing the next evolution of the Two Step, and having no concrete plan will be the norm. They are already rigging the debates, and the votes. I guess the constituents are rapidly becoming the unneeded factor in this equation. ( ...and us Conspiracy Theorists are crazy, right? )


This is why I am so fervently against both the Republicans, and Democrats. They both use the same Bag-o-Tricks to to conceal their true agenda, and they play off of each other in some sort of perverted good cop, bad cop routine. Once I was able to see through that, I recognized they were virtually all complicit in the crimes against the people, and that they all need to be held accountable.


The problem is, somebody keeps voting these crooks into power, and they remain conveniently above the law.


I also heard on C-SPAN this morning that the Bush administration was never able to procure those needed flak jackets for the troops, and there is going to be another flap about that breaking in the press soon. ( Nevermind that Fatherland Security was able to provide flak vests for all of Ohios K-9 Units, dogs included. I guess the real danger is here at home. :rolleyes: )


I guess all of these billions invested into The War on Terror are really proving to be paying some handsome dividends. I'm seeing measurable progress. ( in the wrong direction...)


...and to think you can still turn on the TV, and here the talking heads parroting the Neocon talking points.


This is why Libertarians can at times seem radical to the uneducated observer. We have already decided that we can't stand any more of this crap. When will you guys who teeter on the edge be coming around?

[bishop]

speaking for myself, i've definitely had enough of the establishment and am ready to vote third party - particularly at the national level... unless, however, fiengold wins the nomination in which case i'm very inclined to support him.

in massachusett's upcoming gubernatorial election, however, i plan on voting for republican kerry healey.

HealeyPresentation_7

[Fonceai]

Too often, I think, people vote the party and not the candidate.

And those people are, unfortunately, the least educated on the issues... both the candidates and the voters.