Why are people upset about that Woodward piece???

[malachibk]

Here's what came across:
(1) Cheney is an evil mastermind who runs the WH
(2) Tenet is inept
(3) Bush illegally diverted funds without Congress knowing (Woodward pointed out that a little document called the Constitution plainly states this is illegal.
(4) Bushco shared top-secret intel with the House of Saud BEFORE THEY EVEN TOLD POWELL
(5) Bush and the Saudis have a deal to lower oil prices in the late summer/early fall to help Bush win the election.
(6) MOST DISTURBING = BUSH BELIEVES HE WAS CHOSEN BY GOD TO SPREAD DEMOCRACY AND FIGHT EVIL. (He listens to this "other father" instead of his "own father (Bush I)".

Scary, creepy impeachable, treason-ish shit. So the timeline contradicts Oneill and Clarke -- whatever. Between the manifest destiny shit and the "Who cares about history because we'll all be dead then" shit, Bush is in TROUBLE.

So why are people pissed at Woodward??

Bush's goose is cooked. (Even the repubs are freaked out on their blogs)

[Soup Bean]

1. I agree. Woodward's book is very damaging.

It can't hurt Kerry. Plus, it helps that the right has to spend all its money debunking people that they've trained and trusted! It would be funny if it weren't so serious. The whole thing feels like we're caught in an episode of "Dallas".

Yeeeeesssh.

[malachibk]

2. Dallas?

More like Twin Peaks!

[wuushew]

3. I think item #3 is the best chance at impeachment yet

while all BFEE's actions have been evil and immoral they have not been viewed as illegal enough to warrant impeachment by the Congress.

[Hamlette]

4. doesn't contradict Clarke or O'Neill

What happened the day before Thanksgiving 2001, according to Woodward, is Bush asked Rumsfeld about his plans for the Iraq invasion and told him to draw up those plans.

Doesn't mean he wasn't planning to invade in January 2001. I don't think it was a contradiction at all.

I wish my bookstore was open. After hearing everyone here say it would be a whitewash I wasn't gonna read it. First thing tomorrow. . .

[malachibk]

6. Great - so there's no reason to be unhappy with him

All signs point to Bush is out -- of office and of his mind

[Media_Lies_Daily]

25. Actually, the NeoCons have been planning for a war with Iraq...

...since before they took control in December 2000. Additionally, the Pentagon always has updated contingency plans for anywhere in the world, especially the Middle East. By placing the date the way he does, Woodward provides cover for the rest of the NeoCons that were involved in the war planning.

Also, Rumsfeld told his direct reports the DAY AFTER 911 to get ready for a war with Iraq. That further cements the idea that the war plans were ready to go when Junior supposedly asked Rumsfeld to draw up his plans for Iraq.

[RamboLiberal]

35. NYT review of the books says it supports Clarke and O' Neill

In addition "Plan of Attack" ratifies assertions made in two recent controversial books. It corroborates the observation made by the former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill (in Ron Suskind's book "The Price of Loyalty") that Iraq was high on the Bush administration's agenda before 9/11, in fact from its very first days in office. And echoing accusations made by the former counterterrorism czar Richard A. Clarke (in his book "Against All Enemies"), it contends that prior to 9/11 Mr. Bush was focusing on domestic issues and a large tax cut and had "largely ignored the terrorism problem."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/19/books/19KAKU.html?pagewanted=print&position=

[Stephanie]

38. But what about the accusations against Tenet?

Woodward has Bush questioning the strength of Tenet's evidence and Tenet asserts it's good. They are placing the blame for the bad pre-war WMD evidence squarely on Tenet.

Is this a red herring? Will we find out in the next installment that Bush lied when he blamed it on Tenet? Because don't we already know that they got their cooked intelligence from the stovepiping cherry-pickers under Feith over at Defense?

[annagull]

5. I have quit trying to figure out some people

Here we have Bob Woodward, one of the most respected investigative journalists of our time laying out high crimes, once again, from a republican president. Yet some people here saw that interview and conclude Woodward is letting Shrub "off the hook". Woodward could release a videotape of Shrub and Prince Bandar engaging in a love act and some people here would accuse Woodward of going soft on Bush*!

[Wonk]

7. I'm upset because I didn't get to see it all yet. I got tornado warnings.

At least they'll be rebroadcasting it later tonight, or so they said.

[seabeyond]

27. i forgot

and was painting husbands new business. i am so bummed. gonna have to find the info from this place

and i was one thinking he would soft coat it, not trusting him. but more than willing to say i was wrong, if this is the case

[Stephanie]

39. It's strange - he really adheres to convention when he refers to Bush

It drove me crazy. He speaks of "The President" in a deferential if not reverent tone.

It's like they're all speaking in code. They maintain the fiction that Bush might have actally made a decision, or had a plan or a goal in mind, when we all know that's impossible. Their language and their tone assert that the Emperor is fully clothed. Why?

[Imperialism Inc.]

8. I fail to see how this messes up any time-lines.

This is the point Bush escalated the preparations. That doesn't mean they weren't talking about it already.

[Failure]

9. You've got a way with words.

n/t

[malachibk]

12. ????

How so?

[Failure]

14. Well..

are you asking me to stroke your ego?:toast:

You're pragmatic, and you get your point across convincingly...you remind me of me.


Failure.

[malachibk]

26. Oh...

I thought you were being sarcastic (so perhaps I do need the stroking) Thanks.

[Failure]

28. no worries...

I just tell it like I see it.

[pa28]

10. The damage is uncontained

The media has been unforgivably sycophantic. But, they are starting to turn on * because, in the end, nobody wants to be stuck with a loser.

[pacifictiger]

11. so, who is taking bets on

when the attack dogs will begin to go after woodward? I wonder what tactics they'll try this time - he was their darling after his last book.

[napi21]

13. Im sure the dogs are already out of the coop.

Unfortunately, my mind isn't evil enough to guess what tactics they will use this time.

If this stuff continues, pretty soon even THEY will run out of plans, don't ya think?

[emulatorloo]

18. They will say he is lying - Clever of CBS to discuss the tapes he has

re interviews and how they listened to them and how the people interviewed do indeed say what woodward said they say.

[lapfog_1]

36. I'm sure

that this will be spun as a Viacom plot to a) make money and
b) discredit the president.

Notice that CBS immediately disclosed that woodwards book is
published by Simon and Schuster, which is owned by Viacom which
also owns CBS... hence a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy to bring down
GWB is underway. Same set of players did the Clarke book too.
So that proves it!

[skooooo]

24. Hahahaha...I think they can't touch Woodward!

No way!

[chookie]

15. Bad news

The only way I see Woodward's book covering George W's wacky ass is by providing a post-Sept 11timeline to the planning of the war in Iraq. Clarke and O'Neill both claim it was being planned as early as Jan 2001.

In reaction, the WH has HAD to float a trial balloon of revealing that His Chimperial Highness had been planning an attack on Iraq as part of his "comprehensive strategy to eradicate terrorism permanently from the earth instead of swatting flies." I hope people understand that he means he intends, and has intended all along, to take our nation into a prolonged, bloody regional war in the Middle East that is going to dominate our national life for the foreseeable future.

The country is 50-50% towards the upcoming election, and I know that the RNC plan is to register more evangelicals to vote, but I am not sure that there are as many totally religiously insane people out there that they haven't already got voting for them. Americans are religious people, and many in fact hold profound religious faith, BUT that does not mean that they do not additionally possess solid powers of judgement and rational thought. I predict that Sane Americans, regardless of creed, will be repelled by the thought of a White House run according to the Book of Revelation. They might admire a president who has deep faith as the moral underpinning of his moral judgement and leadership, but not one who is more and more obviously religiously insane.

[LoZoccolo]

16. Yeah, the timeline is irrelevant anyways!

You could perhaps find that what constitutes a "plan to attack Iraq" between Oneill and Clarke and Woodward may be defined differently. An idea that we should do it and a blueprint for doing it are two different things that you could call a "plan".

[Samantha]

17. People in Washington have speculated Woodward is a CIA asset

for some time. After watching that interview, I am beginning to wonder. Was that effort by the CIA to plant reporters at important newspapers, i.e., The Washington Post and The New York Times, as well as the major broadcasting networks, called the Mockingbird Project?

It looks like there is a major power struggle going on between Bush* and Tenet. If each is thinking of taking the other out, I will put my money on the CIA. If Woodward is indeed a CIA asset, the book he has written will polish Bush* and Cheney off politically permanently. Washington runs off power and money. For Woodward to assert that the Bush* siphoned off 700 million dollars earmarked by Congress to fight the war on terror in Afghanistan to make preliminary preparations for a war in Iraq, a war which Congress had not approved, will start a major, major investigation. Important Republican Senators such as Warner will immediately distance himself from Bush* and Cheney. If Woodward's assertion can be proven, and I think by virtue of the fact it is Woodward saying it, the allegation can be proven, Bush* and Cheney are political history as we post on this thread.

Further, if the allegation that the Saudis offered to lower the price of gas one month before the election is true that is simple bribery. The ramifications -- if that is true -- of a Middle Eastern Government offering a United States President (sic) a polotical incentive to start a war, and that Government is one which is interconnected with the binLaden family, the fall out from that act is mindboggling. Senators such as Graham have implicitly suggested Saudia Arabia is the government redacted by the White House in the 16 pages dealing with the subject of the 911 and the terror attacks. For a sitting United States President (sic) to hear these words from a Middle East Government representative and not immediately decline the offer has implications the likes of which I would be foolish to post here. However, once again, by virtue of the fact it is Woodward making the allegation, I think we can assume an investigation started this evening. If Woodward does in fact have tapes of the interviews, I believe Bush* and Cheney will be tendering their resignations before their terms expire. They will not be on the ticket in November. They will face charges.

Score this CIA 2, Bush/Cheney 0.

[peacetalksforall]

19. If there is a war between the House of Bush and the CIA, don't

forget that the military will be on the side of the House of Bush and they want or have their own intelligence system.

[napi21]

23. I don't see that as a problem. Remember the CIA IS covert operations!

I personaly would be more afraid of the CIA & FBI being after my A** than if the military were. Military is by nature open warfare, the other 2 are covert.

It will be interesting to watch.

Wonder what Kerry is doing right now?:bounce:

[seabeyond]

29. i dont think military is on bush side

they didnt want the war, some spoke up and got fired and bush hasnt done a good job and taken care of the troops

[TruthIsAll]

31. Very well stated. Very logical. I have always felt that BushCo

would never last out his term.

If there is any justice left in this world, he is done.

And the BFEE crimes will finally come to light.

[emulatorloo]

20. excellent summary - It was mindblowing. . .

especially the oil price fixing for the election and the "God Told Me To" aspects.

[Stephanie]

40. If the Saudis were artificially inflating oil prices now...

In preparation for the October Surprise of lower prices, then that would be an Enronesque twist to it. Any way to check this?

[osaMABUSh]

21. Only the Tenet "Slam Dunk" comment is upsetting to me

in that it portrays Bush as saying that there is not enough evidence to go to war until Tenet says that WMD are a "slam dunk".

Tenet could now be the fall guy for the Iraqi War. We'll see how that plays out. I assume all the RW talking heads (Hannity, Limbaugh, Dennis Miller) will be playing that up real loud.

All the other highlights are damaging to * especially Bush illegally diverted funds ($700 million) without Congress. This in itself is probably an impeachable offense.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

32. Except that Tenet has a number of people backing his version of...

...events on how he advised the NeoCons that there were no Iraqi WMDs. If I remember corectly, Richard Clarke is one of those people.

[Stephanie]

41. So I think this is the red herring

I think they put that in so that later they can expose Bush in the lie.

[atre]

34. Bush was a source for this... "Slam dunk," I bet, comes from Bush

nm

[lapfog_1]

37. YUP!

I don't believe Bush* would say "Joe Public" either... he would
say "Joe Sixpack"... guaranteed.

[Kadie]

22. Well I just watched the interview

before I was :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

now I am :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

30. All is not what it appears to be when reading anything written by...

...Woodward. He is connected to the intelligence community, and IMHO, it is obvious that he has been directed by some group behind the scenes to participate in taking down another occupant of the White House.

My reponses to you post are as follows:

(1) Cheney is an evil mastermind who runs the WH

He runs more than the White House:

The Armageddon Plan
<http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0318-14.htm>

(2) Tenet is inept

Not hardly. There is something here that doesn't meet the eye. Clarke and others have indicated previously that Tenet has been steadfast against the idea that Iraq had WMDs. Tenet himself advised Junior and Powell against any public comment about Iraqi WMDs. That does not square up with Woodward's version that indicates that Tenet stated that it was a "slam dunk" that WMDs had been found in Iraq.

(3) Bush illegally diverted funds without Congress knowing (Woodward pointed out that a little document called the Constitution plainly states this is illegal.)

Agree 100%. This is an impeachable offense.

(4) Bushco shared top-secret intel with the House of Saud BEFORE THEY EVEN TOLD POWELL

The key here is that not only was the data marked "Top Secret", but it was also marked "NOFORN". "NOFORN" means that the information could not be shared with ANY non-American. That's also a REAL problem.

(5) Bush and the Saudis have a deal to lower oil prices in the late summer/early fall to help Bush win the election.

Not suprised by this ploy at all. I'm firmly convinced that the oil companies raised prices during late 1999 and all of 2000 to influence the 2000 election against Gore.

<http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html>
<http://caag.state.ca.us/antitrust/publications/gasstudy/charts.pdf>

(6) MOST DISTURBING = BUSH BELIEVES HE WAS CHOSEN BY GOD TO SPREAD DEMOCRACY AND FIGHT EVIL. (He listens to this "other father" instead of his "own father (Bush I)".

Yep...gotta admit, that's a good one. There have been a couple of recent cases where the women involved believed that God told them to kill their children. I'm hoping that the guy that carries the "football" (the briefcase containing the nuclear codes) around werever Junior goes has been assigned to follow someone else around.

[Stephanie]

42. (2) Tenet is inept

I think Tenet's side will easily prove this is another Bush LIE. I assume Bush himself is the source for this. Right?

[amandabeech]

33. Okay. Bandar offered to lower oil prices in time to help Bush

get re-selected. Why did he do it? Long-standing family ties? I haven't read "House of Bush, House of Saud." Maybe someone who has will chime in here. In exchange for the U.S. taking out Saddam? I think that the PNAC folks had been waiting to do that since the end of Gulf I. I'm wondering whether Bandar did it to gain a pledge that Bush would not be spreading democracy to Saudi Arabia, whether God told him to or not. I'm more troubled by a deal with the Saudi's to throw the election, which I'm sure violates election laws and may constitute treason, than I am with misuse of appropriated funds.

I knew that Bush is a very, very religious man heavily influenced by fundamentalist Christian thought. I am not surprised that he prayed more than many Presidents for guidance from on high, but I thought that he also consulted experienced advisors and tried to form a logical, rational basis for his actions. Apparently, its Bush, Condi, Karen and Dick. Does he think that the latter three are saints?