Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

USAToday's Keen says WH refutes idea that $700m was restricted to Afghan

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 10:21 AM
Original message
USAToday's Keen says WH refutes idea that $700m was restricted to Afghan
Credibility and competence and ta President that has neither.

USAToday's Keen via a "a high-ranking Bush adviser" says Woodward book debunks idea that Cheney and Pentagon officials concocted and exaggerated intelligence, and refutes a portion of Woodward's book.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-woodward-book_x.htm

• Military funding approved by Congress after 9/11 put no restrictions on how it could be spent, and Congress was aware of changes, one of the administration officials said. Woodward says that in July 2002, Bush allowed Army Gen. Tommy Franks to use $700 million that had been authorized for military use in Afghanistan for Iraq-related expenses instead. "Congress was totally in the dark on this," Woodward told CBS.


Meanwhile the WSJ's Greenberger and Rogers are worried that Woodward has shown that Mr. Bush "misleads his secretary of state about his own planning for a war."

And this Morning on the Today show we discussed the top White House official who defended the $700 million diversion of funds from Afghanistan to Iraq by saying the White House didn't want to disrupt "the karma of Congress." Woodward was asked if Gen. Tommy Franks' public denial that he was not planning war was a lie, and said "Well, it wasn't the truth."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. Unfiltered is using the *I* word...
...yeah, I know, it's AAR, but it's quickly becoming acceptable, as is discussion of LIHOP, since the damned facts seem to be making the case on both...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apnu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. don't forget in the 60 minutes interview...
... they showed footage of Gen. Franks on this issue... seems to me, regardless of AAR slant, that this is open an shut case based off that testimony (and probably an avalanche of other media footage in storage somewhere), the fact that 60 minutes publicly verified Woodward's data, and the truth Woodward's data.

Anyone who says tht Woodward's book is a partisan attack is flat out lying and a cry baby, IMO. Woodward has always been true and pure to the ideals of journalism, and that's made him an extreme rarity in the feild of journalism for the past 30 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC