corroborating Woodward?

[welshTerrier2]

Woodward's been everywhere promoting his book and the incredibly damning testimony about bush is oozing out of every possible media outlet ... and, of course, the usual smear campaign ("Woodward had an agenda") is in full bloom as well ...

what seems kind of weird to me, on matters of such importance, is that there's been very little corroborating information ...

one would think, for example, that those in attendance at the July 10, 2001 meeting where Tenet told Rice that a major attack on the US was in the works, would be pursued by the MSM for a comment ... the point is NOT to make a case for a widespread, coordinated suppression of Woodward's disclosures but rather just to point out that the current news environment seems a bit odd ...

where are the interviews with Richard Clarke, George Tenet, Cofer Black and others? are they laying low? are the media disinterested?

right now it's Woodward versus the big rovian machine ... Woodward is out there all by himself with very little if any backup ... i, for one, would like another source on all these stories ...

btw, the July 10, 2001 meeting has been confirmed by the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/03ricecnd.html

[Donna Zen]

1. I've seen a few people

...including Andy Card who cannot refute any of what was written. The man who wrote JarHead was just on and corroborated the meeting. America doesn't like rummy, so I'm not worried about the public perception. Clarke and Tenet are not granting interviews as far as I know. The guy from JarHead said that the people who are coming back from Iraq said that the reporters have it wrong. It is not just bad, it is like a scene out of MadMax.

Are you worried that this will just push bush into bombing Iran?

[welshTerrier2]

3. Iran? not based on Woodward ...

i'm VERY worried about an attack on Iran but i can't imagine the Woodward book would be a catalyst for it ...

i watched Woodward on Larry King tonight ... he was going on about how bush should "bring in the Democrats" to develop a bipartisan, national strategy on Iraq ... it would be an interesting, and unexpected to say the least, political ploy ... the Democrats would have to play along ... i think this would make life better for the republicans in November ... i see no way whatsoever bush or rove would ever go for this ...

frankly, i don't know what to make of Woodward ... sometimes i feel like his Watergate fame far exceeds his competence ... i really didn't have an ulterior motive in calling for corroborating sources ... i just consider it good reporting ... i'm uncomfortable with such potent components in our national dialog, including the associated political implications, being reported by only one source ...

it seems clear the July 10, 2001 meeting did take place but if the "on the record testimony" is all coming just from Woodward, there's tons of "plausible deniability" ... someone could suddenly come forward who "remembered the meeting" and could say that the topic of terrorism inside the US was discussed but that there was no immediacy attached to it ... i can just hear: "we always talked about global terrorism and the possibility of an attack inside the US" ... with testimony like that, the whole case against bush relative to the meeting becomes pretty weak ... it would be nice to hear from Tenet ... i wonder if he would tell the truth ...

btw, the politics surrounding rummy are very interesting ... on one hand, he could become the sacrificial lamb if things get really bad ... bush could say that, although rummy took us through the first difficult years of this war and successfully toppled Saddam with a brilliantly executed invasion, the nature of the resistance and the fight in the global war on terror have necessitated that a "fresh perspective" is warranted to bring the war to the conclusion we all have been hoping for ... so rummy becomes the boogeyman for Iraq and bush shows that he's adaptable ... it's risky though ... doing this BEFORE the election could easily be perceived as an acknowledgment that Iraq is all screwed up ... my "based on almost nothing" guess is that rummy goes AFTER the election ... the current Iraq strategy CANNOT work; somebody has to take the hit for it ... "staying the course" into 2008 is NOT a viable option politically ...

and finally, in response to your comment about the people coming back from Iraq, check this out: http://www.altweeklies.com/alternative/AltWeeklies/Story?oid=oid%3A171735

[Donna Zen]

7. From NYT select

Records Show Tenet Briefed Rice on Al Qaeda Threat
By PHILIP SHENON and MARK MAZZETTI
Published: October 2, 2006

The account by the spokesman, Sean McCormack, came hours after Ms. Rice, the secretary of state, told reporters aboard her airplane that she did not recall such a meeting and said it was "incomprehensible" she ignored dire terrorist threats two months before the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. McCormack also said the Bush administration had determined that the Sept. 11 commission had been briefed about the meeting, even though no mention of it appears in the commission's report.




also

Time 2002

In mid-July, Tenet sat down for a special meeting with Rice and aides. "George briefed Condi that there was going to be a major attack," says an official; another, who was present at the meeting, says Tenet broke out a huge wall chart ("They always have wall charts") with dozens of threats. Tenet couldn't rule out a domestic attack but thought it more likely that al-Qaeda would strike overseas. One date already worrying the Secret Service was July 20, when Bush would arrive in Genoa for the G-8 summit; Tenet had intelligence that al-Qaeda was planning to attack Bush there. The Italians, who had heard the same report (the way European intelligence sources tell it, everyone but the President's dog "knew" an attack was coming) put frogmen in the harbor, closed airspace around the town and ringed it with antiaircraft guns.

******

About Iran: I don't trust this bunch of crack-heads. They may think Iran can get them out of their current mess. Also, there are certain Gulf region pressures weighing heavily for them to do something about Iran. The biggest problem is that they are who they are: weak, hated, and incapable to negotiate with Iran.

Fallows is scheduled to be on Dobbs tomorrow night. The last time I saw him, he said that there are no longer any "good" plans. None. He's one of the few people who have called this war since the beginning.

I heard Woodward about the Dems meeting. I guess they want the Dems to provide cover for them now...talk about a two-edge sword. And what Dems? Biden? OMG, please no. As you know, there are Dems. who are quite willing to go along to get along with a "little" bombing of Iran.

[welshTerrier2]

8. Clarke and others refute Woodward's key point re: warnings?

i posted this lower down in this thread ... i just found the article ...

what do make of this statement:

source: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/15662785.htm

Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief, Ben-Veniste and the former senior intelligence officials all challenged some aspects of Woodward's account of the briefing given to Rice, including assertions that she failed to react to the warning and that it concerned an imminent attack inside the United States.

[Donna Zen]

11. Clarke made noises yesterday

Something about how it doesn't matter...there is plenty of blame to go around. I think it was in that article that he declined to be interviewed.

[Old and In the Way]

2. It is strange....also, why was this cleared for publishing before

the election? Why not vet it, under the guise of nationalsecurity, until after the election? Hows does Woodward get unfettered access without Karl covering point for dimson?

[snowbear]

4. If that's the case -- Woodward is WINNING

He was incredible tonight on Larry King - great answers to every one-time doubter that had questions.

[Mr_Spock]

5. Seem too good to be true eh?

I think others will be booked for interviews after he finishes his book tour.

[welshTerrier2]

6. Richard Clarke raised questions about parts of Woodward's book

i just found this online ... note that Clarke appears to be a highly credible character based on his previous public statements ... i trust the guy more than i trust Woodward ... all i'm saying is that we should be careful with some of Woodward's disclosures ... let's look before we leap ...

source: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/15662785.htm

Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief, Ben-Veniste and the former senior intelligence officials all challenged some aspects of Woodward's account of the briefing given to Rice, including assertions that she failed to react to the warning and that it concerned an imminent attack inside the United States.

[Donna Zen]

10. Clarke's statement

doesn't conflict with the 2002 Time report. The meeting was sure of an attack, but not where. Rice focused only on off-shore possibles. Ben-Veniste was part of the 911 commission that decided to eliminate the meeting. The Clarke mention is not good reporting, and Ben-V has been sounding all day as if they are in CYA mode.

I don't necessary favor Woodward, but the man has been rumored as x-CIA. There are wheels within wheels here.

[welshTerrier2]

12. thanks, DZ ...

that's good info you provided ...

i think we need to be very cautious about this ... i don't want my entire case on this issue to be based on Woodward ... too many undisclosed sources ... if the Dems overplay this and it blows up, there could be a serious backlash just before the election ...

i believe the reports are probably accurate but i don't like all this fuzzy back and forth, i'm certainly not totally comfortable with Woodward and it still seems like we could use some confirmation on the key points ...

Ben-Veniste may be in CYA mode but the 9/11 commission must have concluded the meeting wasn't critical to suppress it ... unless they had some other agenda for doing so ... if the character of the meeting was reported to them as Woodward described it, it's beyond unimaginable that reasonable people would not include a write-up of the meeting in their report ...

[Donna Zen]

13. You are more than welcomed

And you are correct: they will go after Woodward; however, at this point, the press is holding firm (except for fox) about one of their top-dawgs. The Dems from what I can see, haven't said squat. The media has implied that Dems are running with this, but I haven't read much. I expect the usual suspects will now make overly nuanced speeches, and this should produce a few Sunday morning grand-standers like Biden, but until then nada.

I probably won't read this one since most of what is there is well-known. Nevertheless, this complicates matters. Strangely enough, the weaker bush appears, the more difficult it is to get out of Iraq. Not just because bush is an asshole, but because we loose leverage in any negotiations. I'm concerned that bush is going drag the Dems in, the wrong Dems, without actually granting anyone any power to do something. We have too many huge egos running around and running for president to make me feel good about this.

Right now we need to have a regional dialog with Iraqi political reform to pave the way home. What we've got is a mess...a huge mess.

[kentuck]

9. They're all "sources" for the book ?

:)