Bob Woodward book shits all over Bush

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 5:33 pm

New Woodward Book Details Multiple Bush Cover-Ups Over Iraq

President Bush is absolutely certain that he has the U.S. and Iraq on the right course, says Woodward. So certain is the president on this matter, Woodward says, that when Mr. Bush had key Republicans to the White House to discuss Iraq, he told them, “I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.”

Clicky

Post by **R00k** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:05 pm

Ol' Woodward is milking his access perfectly, isn't he.

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:20 pm

I was wondering the same.

I have to seriously question the motives - and morality - of a journalist that sits on this kind of information only to release it months or years later in a book.

FFS...if you're a reporter you report. You don't sit on it until a book deal comes along.

Post by **R00k** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:37 pm

Yep, the timing is ridiculous - getting all he can out of it. It could be argued from different sides too, I guess. Like, if he had released the damaging stuff long ago, noone would have believed him, and he would have lost his access. Still, I think it's nasty.

But the info they're talking about in the link there is pretty damning in its own right. It's even nastier.

Post by **SplishSplash** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:09 pm

I think the timing could only be better if it was released 1 day before the midterms.

Post by **Deji** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:23 pm

So certain is the president

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:44 pm

so what the fuck? did woodward just turn around and plunge a knife into Bush's back after giving him a free pass the last 5 years?

Post by **R00k** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:55 pm

Well, we've only heard about 5 paragraphs of the whole book, but that's pretty much the way it sounds so far.

Post by **Foo** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:56 pm

What would have been the point in having his access revoked only to reveal a limited amount of information? Wouldn't it make far more sense to take time and gather the information then release it all at once, as he has done? I think you're painting that which is just a sensible move as some kind of falseness?

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:01 pm

Foo wrote:What would have been the point in having his access revoked only to reveal a limited amount of information? Wouldn't it make far more sense to take time and gather the information then release it all at once, as he has done? I think you're painting that which is just a sensible move as some kind of falseness?

Correct.

He held out info on the Plamegate issue. That alone indicates he tends to protect himself instead of doing his job...which is government watchdog and protecting the citizens. I think this is something 99% of all journalists have forgotten.

I agree that access would perhaps be an issue here but when the leader of the free world is shitting all over everything his country stands for it's time to stand up and be counted.

Compare that to France's "good summaritan" law...if you will...however helping save one accident victim doesn't compare to helping prevent the slaughter of thousands of civilians for political purposes.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:46 pm

wow he does indeed shit all over Bush and the administration in this one. he's timing is impeccable.

i just wonder how he can reconcile this with his past portrayals of the administration. did anyone here read those first two books?

edit: almost forgot to put my ever popular link to an article in my post

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/books ... r=homepage

Post by **R00k** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:42 pm

"Mr. Woodward writes that on July 10, 2001, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism coordinator, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice to warn her of mounting intelligence about an impending terrorist attack, but came away feeling they’d been given “the brush-off” — a revealing encounter, given Ms. Rice’s recent comments, rebutting former President Bill Clinton’s allegations that the Bush administration had failed to pursue counterterrorism measures aggressively before 9/11."

Yea, hey, this is only 5 years old - it must have taken him that long to write it all down.

At this point, any reason he might give for withholding all this will be nothing more than an excuse IMHO.

Post by **R00k** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:49 pm

There is one possibility I can see: Woodward may have kept quiet long enough to make Bush think he was a loyal supporter, so he could gain access to information that he normally wouldn't have.

He was only a biographer, so he had no de facto access to any real war planning information or anything else, except what Bush told him or allowed him to see.

For instance, could he have had access to this kind of information, if he wasn't thought of as a trusted and loyal follower?

A secret February 2005 report by Philip D. Zelikow, a State Department counselor, found that “Iraq remains a failed state shadowed by constant violence and undergoing revolutionary political change” and concluded that the American effort there suffered because it lacked a comprehensive, unified policy.

[...]

He reports, for instance, that the Vietnam-era Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger “had a powerful, largely invisible influence on the foreign policy of the Bush administration,” urging President Bush and Vice President Cheney to stick it out. According to Mr. Woodward, Mr. Kissinger gave the former Bush adviser and speechwriter Michael Gerson his so-called 1969 salted peanut memo, which warned President Richard M. Nixon that “withdrawal of U.S. troops will become like salted peanuts to the American public; the more U.S. troops come home, the more will be demanded.”

Post by **R00k** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:02 pm

The end of that article makes me want to cry.

It is really like the whole scene in Washington was nothing but a great, big, American reality TV show. Or like an episode of The OC.

I have Woodward's Plan of Attack on my bookshelf, but I've never bothered to read it after reading some of the excerpts and reviews. Now I'm curious to compare it to this new one.

Post by **mjrpes** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:59 pm

Et tu, Brute?

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:10 pm

Woodward comes off as very self serving throughout all this

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:53 pm

It looks like the White House if fighting back against Woodward's book.

Myth/Fact: Five Key Myths in Bob Woodward's Book

They go on to attempt to debunk 5 reported facts in Woodward's book with quotes from various speeches...which was released two days earlier than scheduled due to all the press it's getting.

The Washington Post has done a short article on the White House's "retort".

Clicky

The White House went on the offensive yesterday against a new book that reports President Bush resisted demands to boost U.S. troop numbers in Iraq and misled Americans about the level of violence there.

The book, "State of Denial," by Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward, went on sale yesterday, two days ahead of schedule, after a storm of publicity.

The White House responded with a document titled "Five Key Myths in Bob Woodward's Book ." It cited speeches over the past year in which Bush acknowledged problems, and it quoted officials including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, defending troop levels.

Post by **Ryoki** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:41 pm

R00k wrote:There is one possibility I can see: Woodward may have kept quiet long enough to make Bush think he was a loyal supporter, so he could gain access to information that he normally wouldn't have.

*nod*

I think / hope this is the case.

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:59 pm

Ryoki wrote:
R00k wrote:There is one possibility I can see: Woodward may have kept quiet long enough to make Bush think he was a loyal supporter, so he could gain access to information that he normally wouldn't have.
*nod*

I think / hope this is the case.

Considering the fact that the White House uses him when he's writing "fluff books" to further their agenda I think it would be appropriate to use the White House when he wants to further his own.

Tit for tat.

Post by **R00k** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:39 pm

Wow, check out Woodward's interview on 60 minutes about this.

I don't think anyone on this forum has seen this - at least it wasn't linked in this thread, which seems like the most reasonable place to post it:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/0 ... of-denial/

Post by **prince1000** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:50 pm

the freak beat you

Post by **R00k** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:04 pm

really lol?

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:05 am

wow this whole thing is exploding in the Bush Admin's collective face.

I'm bemused at how they placidly continue with blatant lies in an effort cast doubt on the truth...

JIDDA, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 2 — A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday.

The account by Sean McCormack came hours after Ms. Rice, the secretary of state, told reporters aboard her airplane that she did not recall the specific meeting on July 10, 2001, noting that she had met repeatedly with Mr. Tenet that summer about terrorist threats. Ms. Rice, the national security adviser at the time, said it was “incomprehensible” she ignored dire terrorist threats two months before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. McCormack also said records show that the Sept. 11 commission was informed about the meeting, a fact that former intelligence officials and members of the commission confirmed on Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washi ... r=homepage

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:26 am

haha read huffington on woodward.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-h ... 30769.html

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:41 am

looks like congress got briefed by tenet in feb 2001. he told them that the single greatest threat to the United States was Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network.