Why does the WH like the Woodward book? BEWARE!

[Th1onein]

Two reasons: The first is that it show their "leader" in a favorable light to the right wing fundies. While the rest of us might shudder to think of our leader talking to God, the fundies fully believe it, and it makes their support stronger.

Second and most importantly, it contains a basic assumption. As always, when you're dealing with right wing con artists, watch out for those "catch phrases." In this case, it's the "Pottery Barn rule," where if you break it (Iraq), you own it. Therefore, of course, you have to 'stay the course' (another catch phrase Bush is trying to pound into our heads).

Watch out when you accept these right wing con artists' assumptions. The "Pottery Barn rule," (or assumption is a more apt term--and we all know what assumptions do--ie., make an ass out of you and me) no longer applies to Iraq, since the Sunnis and the Shiites have joined together.

Think for a minute about what we have done in Iraq. We have lied about the reasons to go to war, and when it was found out that we lied, we said, "Well, we didn't like Saddam anyway." In other words, "Fuck you, we'll do what we want to do." We are up to our elbows in the blood of these people, and if we allow the right wing con artists' assumptions to rule, then we will be viewed as conquerors throughout the world.

Not real good when you know that most of the rest of the world has nuclear bombs aimed at you. And especially not good when you know that just four of them landing here would cause a breakdown of civilized life as we know it, that would send us back to the eighteenth century.

[nodictators]

1. On Meet The Press yesterday, Bob-boy Woodward told us that...

...his book makes Bush look like he was engaged and is a strong leader. These remarks make his statements on 60 Minutes a week earlier look like doubletalk or even outright lies. Indeed, most of Bob-boy's claims have been contradicted by the likes of Colin Powell and Saudi Prince Bandar. What we are left with is a he-said, they-said debate.

Also, Bob-boy pushed the date of Bush's decision to invade Iraq up into 2002. Thus, Bob-boy wipes the slate of claims by Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke that Bush and his neocons were hot to invade Iraq in Jan. 2001.

Of course, Jan. 2001 is BEFORE 9/11. Thus, we can see that Bush's claim that he invaded Iraq as part of the "war on terror" is another massive lie.

Little wonder then that Bush has Bob-boy's book #1 on the suggested Reading List at his Campaign 2004 web site.

Peculiarly, some of the activist web-sites that did not sell Ron Suskind's excellent book about O'Neill, are happily (or haplessly) selling Bob-boy's "Plan of a Flack," or whatever it's called

[leetrisck]

2. Am I misreading this book? Some may think

it makes bush look like he's making all decisions. I think it makes him look totally silly. "I looked into his eyes", "he looked into bush's eyes" - "bush's muscular body" - "Yep", "Yup" - and that's how the decision was made to go to war.

[grasswire]

3. NYT says..

...that the white house just decided to make cherry pie out of a cherry bomb and pretend like that they like the book, so it will go away sooner.