Fill me in: What's so explosive about Woodwards Book?

[Homer12]

I've been in self-imposed political exile for the weekend, I needed a break.

Is the RW Echo Lie chamber in full attack mode trying to destroy his character i.e. Clarke, Plame, O'Neil, etc....?

[gristy]

1. Long article on the book here

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml

If you have time to read it, then you can tell me!

[WI_DEM]

2. pure and simply

the rationale for war with Iraq that the administration was selling us was a lie. They intended to attack Iraq from the get-go and were just looking for a reason and they decided to use WMD--the war on Terror and even though there was no evidence to back this up and nothing was found by the weaponds inspectors they launched this war. This is the latest source to reveal this and yet there are no demands for this president to resign or be impeached for lying to congress, the United Nations, The World Community, The American people.

[elfin]

3. Doesn't sound so "explosive" to me

other than it seems to confirm that Iraq was earlier target than Dumbya previously admitted to, thereby in sync with ONeill, Clarke etal.

Sounds like it's much harder on Cheney, Rummy and the gang than on El Stupido and provides a bit of a mea culpa for Powell and paints Tenet as saying the WMD argument was a "slam dunk." Therefore, Flyboy Wannabe himself will be off the hook to the sheeple since he got such bad advice.

They can't go after Woodward like the others because he supposedly is a "respected journalist."

I think we Dems will try to generate excitement, but it will dissipate as Woodward starts hedging his bets so he can have continued access to admin officials.

[BigBigBear]

4. I've said this a couple of times

I just don't see any real gotchas in here - O'Neill already told us that Bush wanted to get Saddam early on in his administration, Wolfowitz already told us that WMD was a just a rhetorical marketing device and Clarke already told us that they cheerfully moved resources away from the Afghanistan operation in order to "do" Iraq.

Everyone knows that Bush swings widely between being hyper-dependent on ideologue advisors like Cheney, or making up his mind in a complete, homework-less vacuum. Everyone knows he derives guidance from his faith. Everyone knows he believes getting Saddam was manifestly the right thing to do, despite what the facts intervened to cloud that certitude.

Let's put it this way; I don't see anything in here that's liable to change many minds about what Bush did. His detractors (like me) see a continuation of this irrational need to go to war, a waste of resources and a tragic waste of international credibility and post 9/11 goodwill, and the commitment of the US to a nation-building experiment he and his people are woefully unprepared for; his supporters will see a man who made a bold geopolitical statement against the advise of the diplomats, the appeasers and the apologists, an act of power after 9/11 (even if against a nation irrelevant to 9/11).

One thing I do see is the moving of $700 million away from the Afghan fight for preparation for an Iraq invasion. This smells distinctly illegal to me, and I think should be looked at.

[skypilot]

5. I tend to agree with you...

...based on what I saw of the interview. The only thing that I will add is that I thought it was disturbing when Woodward said that Bush's response to being asked how history would judge him was, "I don't care. We'll all be dead"--or something like that. That was fucking scary.

[TrogL]

7. Depends on his definition of "history"

The "history" of a presidency begins the moment he waves his last goodbye (perhaps like Nixon) - at the moment we're still in its actuality. If he is taking this view of it, he has no intention of surviving it - he's going down with the ship as Armageddon's trump sounds.

Or, he could simply be taking my view of "history" from high school - everybody's dead, who cares.

[skypilot]

8. "...everybody's dead, who cares."

That's how it sounded to my ear. Maybe I'm just too accustomed to his usual arrogant, unengaged demeanor.

[emulatorloo]

6. GWB stole 700 million from the search for Osama to do Iraq "planning"

Bush violated the constitution by funding his iraq war plan with money earmarked by Congress for Afghanistan.

Bush approved showing top secret docs marked "no foreigners" to Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia.

Bush cut a deal with Saudi Arabia to manipulate gas prices in time for the 2004 election to make the economy appear strong.

Bush doesnt listen to his advisors, nor did he ask Bush I for advice, because he believes that God told him to liberate the people of Iraq, and he is on a mission from God to remake the world.

that is my summary of Woodward's appearance on 60 mins. To me these are big things.

[Unknown Known]

9. Did this money go to Chalabi & Friends?

That's what I want to know - Whose pockets were lined with this $700 million?

[sandnsea]

10. Bush & Saudi's manipulating oil markets

For election purposes. Maybe the Kerry camp went over all of it and really do know this is the thing that is new and will really hit the American people.

But showing maps to the Saudis of the Iraq war invasion plan is really the most treasonous act they've committed thus far.

[Mz Pip]

11. The oil price fix with the Saudis

was pretty damning. The Saudis are going to lower oil prices right before the election to make Bush look good.

One would think that would make conservatives scream. Here we have a foreign power controlling the price of a commodity to influence an American election. Can you imagine the outrage if Clinton agreed to something like that?

MzPip
:dem: