Bob Woodward’s new book, “State of Denial,” reportedly describes a White House that ignored urgent warnings from Iraq, dismissed assessments from U.S. commanders in Iraq, and was so dysfunctional that President Bush had to tell Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to return the phone calls of then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
The book also reports that former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card twice urged Bush to fire Rumsfeld — once with the support of first lady Laura Bush. But Bush didn’t do it, in part, Woodward reports, because Vice President Dick Cheney and political adviser Karl Rove told him not to.
More excerpts from the book, which isn’t released until Monday, will appear in the Washington Post this weekend. Woodward is also doing an interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes” Sunday.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
80 Comments
Woodward’s unfettered access to the WH is history. He’ll be lucky if he can escape Terrorist classification.
This should be good… Maybe some of these still loyal BushDaBumb supporters will finally get a dose of reality and realize their horse is long past dead…
Rumsfeld even banned the development of wind power because it hampers his fictional war on terror.
http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2006-06-28.asp
Next thing you know this administration will spend $75 million on a police academy whose ceilings leak piss and feces. Oh wait, that already happened.
This administration is a long litany of failures and only someone who is a bigger failure than the Bush administration would still support them.
Yeah this maybe the smoking gun, but my gut says it will be yesterdays news by this time next week.
The problem is that there have been 300 smoking guns but for what ever reason the American people are so brain washed by the rhetoric of the Repubs, they keep going back for more…
Its kinda like an abused spouse, they know they are getting the shit kicked out of them but they keep getting up and going back for more…
I HOPE THAT THIS WILL OPEN UP THE EYES OF THESE BIG MOUTH SUPPORTERS ON FOX NEWS AND THE INVITED LIBERALS. TO TALK SUCH TRASH DAY AFTER DAY OVER THIS LOOSING ADMINISTRATION. CHENEY,THE WORST VICE AND BIGGEST LIER EVER, RUMSFELD, WARMUNGER COMPLETE IDIOT AND THE BIGGEST JOKE OF ALL RICE, WHAT THE F…IS SHE DOING THERE. AT LEAST THE GUY THAT SHE REPLACED SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE PRESIDENT HE WAS SMART ENOUGH TO WALK, HE SAW THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL. HOW CAN AMERICA LET THIS HAPPEN. WE COMPLAIN ABOUT CUBA , IRAN , N. KOREA, IRAK ETC. LOOK IN THE MIRROR YOU FOOLS. HOW CAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTE SUCH TRASH INTO OUR OFFICES WITH NO EXPERIENCE, NOW THEY WILL PAY FOR THERE MISTAKE. AS 9/11 WAS PLANNED BY THIS ADMINISTRATION WAKE UP AMERICA. SO WE CAN GO TO WAR LIKE ROSEVELT PLANNED PEARL HARBOR. NOW ITS ALL ABOUT PETROLEUM BUSH, RUMSFELD,RICE AND CHENEY ALL GETTING RICHER AND THE POOR ARE LOOSING THERE LOVED, OUR SOLDIERS THAT ARE FIGHTING FOR THIS ADMINISTRATION TO BECOME RICHER.
Lets see…Thousands of troops killed and maimed, and what good has it done? Insurgents still on the loose. Scandal everywhere. The gap widening between the wealthy and the rest of us. Outsourcing, devaluing and exporting of American jobs. After all we’ve seen the last six years, what’s next? I don’t think this administration has a clue what is in the best interest of the American people. It’s all about them and their cronies, not us, KWIM?
I was flipping through the channels tonight and ran across Fox News. Normally i keep on clicking but Ann Coulter was on there…
I have to say, i still dont understand how can as blindly believe what she does… She went off on how the democrats are cut and runners, and she was making excuses as to how Clinton came into office…
She even called Clinton a “Horny Hick” who sunk into office because the GOP didnt have any real candidates…
Even the Fox News anchor (didnt catch who it was but im thinking it was Neal Cavuto) couldnt believe what she was saying…
I’ll see if i can find the video…
I think it highly ironic (& amusing) that after Woodward’s first 2 books about this administration, both flattering to Bush, he hits them with this new one. All I can say is, it’s about time, Bob!
Doug, you can’t talk about piss and shit that way.Hank’s super over-achieving capitilist heroes built that building, so it can’t be a bad thing!
Clinton may have been horny, and he may have came from Hicksville, but he is no hick. Bush is the hick. He chews and talks at the same time.
Door King…
Not only does he chew and talk, he cant even use words with more than 2 syllables… Clinton at least sounds intelegible…
Yet another book! I have read “Against all enemies” and “Scorpion’s gate” by Richard Clarke.I read “The case for impeachment “ and have for the most part stopped reading “The secret history of the war in Iraq”. I have mentioned it before, on the night that G.W. Bush won reelection in 2004. Every copy of “Against all enemies” and the “9-11 Commission report” vanished from the book shelves at Wal-Mart! Both books were slow sellers for the most part, but GONE within a matter of hours. A rush to buy? Hardly I would think, Bush was riding a high at the time and for the most part the majority still had total faith in the President. Hence slow sells, no one care to read anything that might put our leader in a bad light.
So now another book that could tell the behind the scenes going on within the Bush Administration.What good will it do? And since the definition of a enemy combatant is reaffirmed as being open to one man’s view of the act. The mere reading of the book, the checking it out at a library, the purchase at a book store could very well be an act of aggression against America.
Some time ago it was common to throw up the hands and say “Well all we can do is just wait three more years and we will be rid of the bum!”. As we are seeing three more years maybe the rest of the life span of the America you grew up in. But then all we have to do it wait two more years!
Never misunderestimate. HA
Yeah soon Bob Woodward is going to be on the end of that waterboard, or being raped because we’re good ole USA people like that. If you aid the terrorists with your book- we’ll rape you for God.
Can we just make all these laws like an etch-a-sketch and undo every law republicans have enacted in the last 8 years once he’s gone?
So, does anybody know if the repugs have any kind of plan?No, not stay the course.A REAL PLAN?
No matter how many facts come out about this Bush administration, their supporters will never admit they made a mistake – twice!
Bush supporters are either the ones that are personally making a profit off this war or they are just plain too stupid to see the big picture. And yes there are those that truly want this Holy War.
CR, all you have to do is listen to GW’s recent speeches, and it’s obvious that he’s maniacal, and attempting to push a global war between east and west.
Baghdad under curfew over suspected plotMan linked to Sunni leader suspected of planning bombings in Green Zone
US soldiers afraid of being hit by flowers being tossed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15066939/
So if you are involved in a war as the Commander in Chief do you think it’s a wise decision to go on TV and tell the entire world (which includes the enemy you are fighting) your plans?Are any of you sports or football fans? It’s like sending the other team your playbook or gameplan.If you mistrust the President and the administration that’s fine. But to continually throw out “there’s no plan” just because they haven’t told you doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
The report says that we are the cause of the ever increasing violence in Iraq. So, if we left Iraq, we would cause the violence to greatly reduce, plus we could save the 300 billion dollars a week it costs us to be there.
That sounds like a win, win situation for us, our soldiers, the Iraqis, and the 300 billion that we could be using right here at home.
Phelps would be out of the business of hassling families at military funerals.
Leaving Iraq is a good idea.
Unfortunantly Ed! We aren’t leaving. Even if Hillary becomes President.
Mr. KIA–Hey, use some common sense.I never meant battle plans or anything that would aid the enemy.I’m saying the dems do have a plan, and provided the link to that.The repugs here keep saying the dems don’t have a plan which is bullshit, and BTW,WHERE AND WHAT ARE THE GOP’s PLAN?Stay the course?Hmmmm….some plan.
Here ya’ go KIA.Democratic plans, don’t think there’s anything the enemy could use.http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/20060329_realsecurity.pdf#search=%22democratic%20plan%22
I thought Kansas was chock full of hardcore, blinded repukes. Not saying that the dems are any better because I don’t believe that they are.It’s a shame that elections basically come down to the lesser of the two evils that are offered. Wouldn’t it be nice to cast your ballot on someone that you thought really gave a shit about you and your family?The whole political landscape needs flushed and until that happens the normal, everyday people of this country will continue to get railroaded every single time.However it is refreshing to see that there are at least a handful of sane, educated people around here.
writerdog, did you enjoy Scorpion’s Gate? I may be taking a short trip to the library in a few days and am thinking about checking it out.
What bush does to the English language should be outlawed in any civilized society.
Kia is right, there is a plan. It is called ‘Stay the course’. That is all you need to know so move along.
If Bush does not say what his plan to end the Iraq war – then why does he keep asking what plan the Democrats have to end the war? Wouldn’t that be giving away our game plan?
I think he keeps asking that question because he really doesn’t know what the hell is doing in Iraq. Sign of desperation.
Unfortunately, if the November elections do not bring in new blood to the Congress, we will be stuck with George W. gloating and we will be in worse shape than ever.
To keep George somewhat contained – we need to a balanced Congress. That means Democrats will need to get back at least the Senate or the House.
If Beezlebub Bush holds the Congrss our downward spiral on cilil liberties will continue and perhaps accelerate, There may be no 2008 election. By then he’ll have a bill through Congress giving him power to postpone elections if the WOT is still raging.
Steve
I somtimes wonder if that would happen. Im just hoping the smart sane-minded Republicans would not cave in and allow something like that to happen.
That’s kookie talk.I remember some far right of the Republican party were so mistrustful of Clinton that he was going to start a war of some kind so he could do the same thing to stay in office.This kind of talk is just partisan politics at its worst.
If Bush gets to appoint one more of his faithful to the SC, all bets are off. He has the current Congress, The Administration, and if he had the SC any law he wanted to push through would be upheld. It might have bee kookie talk 6 yrs. ago, but America is a different place post 9/11 and current BeezlebubBush. Can you imagine 6 yrs. ago this assault on civil liberties? On a pro Torture Administration, congress and apparently public? I would have said Not in America.
I don’t think it is “kooky” at all.
Given the path we are on, I call it 50/50 as to whether there will be a Presidential election in 2008. This is not the first time I have said so.
Well I really hope the Republicans keep the House because when there is one you won’t be able to say it was because of the Dem House. :-)
Kia the difference between Clinton and shrub is that Clinton has respect for the Constitution where shrub regards is a ink on a paper. Clinton never made a grab for power like shrub has. Clinton never even though about revoking our rights guaranteed by the Constitution. That is why many on the left are wary of what the current administration does and finds reasons to doubt anything done by him is for anything other than to gather more power for the executive.
Article I (defining the powers and duties of the legislative branch) explains the House of Representatives’ power to impeach (essentially indict) and the Senate’s power to try, which is to say convict and remove from office (or decide not to), the President, Vice-President and all civil offers of the United states whom the House of Representatives have impeached.
Article I, Section 2:
The House of Representatives… shall have the sole power of impeachment.
Article I, Section 3 says
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
Here is what Article II, Section 4, defining the powers and duties of the executive branch and grounds for impeachment states:
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Here is the thorny thing. If we apply a strict construction, as has been applied to presidents, it would have to be that no civil officers of the United States can be removed from office, except by impeachment, once they have been appointed.But we know that thousands of civil officers have lost their offices without impeachment. Cabinet officers have been “asked” to submit their resignations. Suppose they refused. Then an impeachment proceeding conducted by the House would have to be undertaken, followed by trial by the Senate. The grounds for impeachment and removal from office would have to be treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.Funny, this has never happened. Cabinet officers and assistant officers, and all other officers who have received presidential appointments, consented to by the Senate, have been removed in droves by their appointing presidents, and especially by successor presidents.
Article II, Section 2 states:
[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”
The Constitution provides no mechanism of termination of civil officers, except through impeachment and conviction. It allows for appointments of all “inferior” civil officers not specified in Article II, Section 2 by the President, courts or department heads, but is silent on termination.
Article III, enumerating the powers and duties of the Supreme Courts and inferior courts, states in Section 2:
“The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”
What is “good behavior”? It’s not specified in the Constitution. Let us suppose that it is defined as good judgment that benefits the citizens of the United States, or judgment that upholds the respect of basic human rights for a nation that says it is the foremost upholder of these rights, ranging from judgments on matters of torture, to allowing innocent convicted criminals to present newly-discovered evidence such as DNA or other probative evidence, to protecting AIDS and cancer victims whose doctors want to prescribe home-grown pot to alleviate their suffering.
Congress has the power to define “not good behavior” as including the votes of certain justices to deny modern human rights to people. The Constitution says nothing about the SC’s having to be bound by precedent, such as Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, or FDR administration’s false imprisonment of innocent American citizens of Japanese (funny, not German though) descent.
When John Roberts was undergoing Senate scrutiny, he said, he respected stare decisis, but let the Judiciary Panel know that he did not believe he would be bound by it, i.e. by the rulings of past SC’s. Moreover, Congress is empowered, under the Constitution, to enact new laws and dissolve old laws.
Congress has the power to enact a law that the Supreme Court cannot overrule, that would require unanimous decision to establish a nationwide law, otherwise the matter is held to be unsettled nationally, and states can do what their citizens want. Any justices who voted against this law could be removed for not-good behavior. They can’t say the Constitution gives justices the power to decide the voting-number terms of decisions, because the Constitution doesn’t say this. They can’t cite precedent as a trump card to overrule Congress, when their own members state they are not bound by precedent, but can dismiss stare decisis as one of their perquisites, and rightfully so, because the Constitution does not remotely indicate they are so bound.
The Constitution neither says nor remotely implies that our framers gave the Supreme Court the sole authority to “interpret” the Constitution. This little fact gives Congress the power to impeach and remove from office justices who claim this power. That can be statutorily specified to constitute not-good behavior, with Congress then removing judges who refuse to acknowledge the Constitutional invalidity this post-Constitutional doctrine.
Ian Santiago,Clinton would have this country heading in a much better direction if he were still pres. Clinton spoke to other leaders, he didn’t sit in his office pouting like a silver spoon hissy fitter like Bush. Clinton lied about Sex, you dumb son-of-a-bitch. He was tried by Henry Hyde, who admitted he had a “youthfull indiscretion” when he was in his 40′SSSS. You dunm son-of-a-bith.Viva my Cock, you asshole.
I was listening to NPR and there was an interview with Frank Rich who wrote the book, “The Greatest Story Ever Sold”.
He blasted on Bob Woodward and his book. (I guess they don’t get along.)
He basically said he was just a slow learning Washingtonite that appears to be ’shocked’ about finding out about the Bush Administration, when everybody knew everything he wrote several years ago.
“It took him three books to do it?” he said!
Great interview!Note: He is not trying to defend the Bush Administration at all.
http://www.notmuch.com/Audio/RAfiles/060930a.ram
(about 7 minutes into the show, Frank Rich comes on.)
9/11! IT’S CLINTON’S FAULT! WMDS! 9/11! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! THINGS ARE GETTING BETTER! DEAD-ENDERS! 9/11! CUT-AND-RUN! STAY THE COURSE! 9/11! CHALABI!
Ian, I have read several (too many really) of your past posts (on several threads) and I have serious doubts that there is anyone in the US that could run against you for the dumbest utterance on this blog or any other.
Jim I don’t know how much you know about Ian but if you don’t know much here is Ian in a few sentences. He is either a troll who enjoys posting thoughtless comments, or he is a complete and utter fucking moron. I skip his comments if I read the poster before I read the post because the ideas and opinions he expresses are not quite as advanced as what I could get from my 4 year old nephew.
k – I think GWB could give Ian a run for dumbest posts.
Heartlander:
Great. Let’s give the president the power to railroad ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. Welcome to tyranny.
Asshat.
My bad. You have to admit it would be a very interesting Battle of the Bozos.
Rd, it had flow and was an easy read. The story plot was clear yet had some surprizes to it. And it is a quick read, leaving the reader with questions at to how much maybe close to the actually events of current day.
Postal, I don’t know if you were calling yourself “Asshat” or me. You’re ambiguous.
Here is my position, to clarify the minds of WEBLOG readers. The CONGRESS is listed in ARTICLE I. Only the CONGRESS has the power to enact laws. They must be consistent with the Consititution, which gives Congress the predominant power to govern the United States. This is why not only is Congress’s power delineated in the FIRST Article, but it is the LONGEST Article. It is why presidents and the SC cannot remove Congressmen from office, but why Congress can remove presidents and SC justices from office.
Now, it is more than apparent that the puppetmeisters of the Repub Party have placed lackeys in Congress to rubberstamp a plutocratic “vision”.
So if you are calling yourself “Asshat”, that’s your prerogative.
The poster who gave the link to the NY Times examination of Pompey, and its present ramifications, understands matters.
My bad. Prez = asshat, and I guess I am guilty of asshattery for posting ad hominems on the fly. But, the closed mouth gathers no foot.
About Miss Tracy, tracyaphillips@yahoo.com, she said “Clinton may have been horny, and he may have came from Hicksville,…”. She probably meant to say “Clinton may be been horny, and he may have COME from Hicksville,…”. Why is it that so MANY people have such trouble choose which verb to use? Came/Come, Seen/Saw, Was/Were, Did/Done, it goes on and on – did anyone else graduate from high school and actually learn something? Come on Tracy, learn to speak.
I’m just waiting for history to repeat itself. Woodward was a part of the team that brought down Richard Nixon.
He might be just the catalyst to get this administration out now.
What are you drunk “Arik”?
Tracy is a guy!
And you’ve little right to pick on his gramar!
” Why is it that so MANY people have such trouble choose which verb to use”???
LOL
One might even think that Aric is spelled wrong but we are too polite to mention it to the person.
Good observation J R! Looks like Aric is the pot calling the kettle black …
Fingers fly. Mistypes are easy. My apologies to ARIC. I only further corrupted your take on eric? by giving you a k instead of a c.Let’s stick to addressing the thread and forgive grammar and spelling Aric. What have you added here except proof of your own judgemental hypocrisy?
Except for Paul F Rosell. One would expect a “journalism graduate” to get things like that right!
“We Have To Defend Our Future From These Predators Of The 21st Century. They Feed On The Free Flow Of Information And Technology. They Actually Take Advantage Of The Freer Movement Of People, Information And Ideas. And They Will Be All The More Lethal If We Allow Them To Build Arsenals Of Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons And The Missiles To Deliver Them. We Simply Cannot Allow That To Happen. There Is No More Clear Example Of This Threat Than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. His Regime Threatens The Safety Of His People, The Stability Of His Region And The Security Of All The Rest Of Us.”-President Clinton
“Saddam Hussein Must Not Be Allowed To Threaten His Neighbors Or The World With Nuclear Arms, Poison Gas Or Biological Weapons.”-President Clinton
“Saddam Hussein Certainly Has Chemical And Biological Weapons. There’s No Question About That.”-Nancy Pelosi
“As A Member Of The House Intelligence Committee, I Am Keenly Aware That The Proliferation Of Chemical And Biological Weapons Is An Issue Of Grave Importance To All Nations. Saddam Hussein Has Been Engaged In The Development Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction Technology Which Is A Threat To Countries In The Region And He Has Made A Mockery Of The Weapons Inspection Process.”-Nancy Pelosi
“The War Against Terrorism Will Not Be Finished As Long As [Saddam Hussein] Is In Power.”-Patrick Leahy
“We Begin With The Common Belief That Saddam Hussein Is A Tyrant And A Threat To The Peace And Stability Of The Region.”-Patrick Leahy
“And, Mr. President, We Have Every Reason To Believe That Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Do Everything In His Power To Further Develop Weapons Of Mass Destruction And The Ability To Deliver Those Weapons, And That He Will Use Those Weapons Without Concern Or Pangs Of Conscience If Ever And Whenever His Own Calculations Persuade Him It Is In His Interests To Do So.”-John Kerry
“[I] Think We Clearly Have To Keep The Pressure On Terrorism Globally. This Doesn’t End With Afghanistan By Any Imagination. And I Think The President Has Made That Clear. I Think We Have Made That Clear. Terrorism Is A Global Menace. It’s A Scourge. And It Is Absolutely Vital That We Continue, For Instance, Saddam Hussein.”-John Kerry
“We Have Known For Many Years That Saddam Hussein Is Seeking And Developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction.”-The Senior Senator from Massachusetts
NBC’s Tim Russert: “Do You Believe We Could Have Disarmament Without Regime Change?”
“I Doubt It.”-Hillary Clinton
What is your point kia? That shrub was able to lie to get the entire congress behind him? Yea he did. And what does that say of you that you are so proud of your president for doing so?
Postal, thanks for the clarification.
We must remember that the framers of the Constitution were legislators. They deliberately assigned the greatest powers of a three-branch goverment to themselves, and to successor legislators.
Who has the ability to interpret laws? Judges certainly, as lawyers. But most legislators are lawyers as well. To posit that members of Congress can write laws, but not interpret them, is a strange proposition.
Of course, an increasing problem is that lobbyists (private lawyers) and administration lawyers have been drafting bills, rather than Congressmen, and it has been alleged that some Congressmen have, at various times, passed bills that they haven’t even taken the time to read. This was reportedly the case for many Congressmen and the Patriot Act, for example, as some admitted after the fact.
But non-congressional law-drafting was never the framers’ intent.
The Congress needs to be re-strengthened to recover its original powers, because it is the only branch of government that is directly elected by American citizens. House elections in particular, occurring every two years, provide the greatest impetus to generate responsiveness to the will of the people.
Fundamentally, however, this process can only work if the people are apprised of facts, and are not manipulated by a continuous barrage of false propaganda that deceives and confuses them, and is intended to whip up emotional hysteria in order to disable Americans’ reasoning faculties.
Well let’s see K, two of those quotes are prior to Bush even announcing he was running for President. Man he’s a hell of a liar.
French Foreign Minister Galouzeau De Villepin: “Regarding the chemical domain, we have evidence of its capacity to produce VX and yperite.” (United Nations Security Council, 4701st Meeting, New York, 2/5/03)
Ambassador Wolfgang Ishinger: “I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they still have – that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction.” (NBC’s “Today,” 2/26/03)
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi: “I believe that the moment has arrived to find out where all the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein said he had, where they ended up.”
Prime Minister John Howard: “Australia’s position concerning Iraq is very clear. We believe a world in which weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of rogue states, with the potential threat of them falling into the hands of terrorists, is not a world that Australia — if we can possibly avoid it — wants to be part of.”
“The Committee Did Not Find Any Evidence That Administration Officials Attempted To Coerce, Influence Or Pressure Analysts To Change Their Judgments Related To Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction Capabilities.” (“The Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq”, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
“The Committee Found No Evidence That The IC’s [Intelligence Community] Mischaracterization Or Exaggeration Of The Intelligence On Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction (WMD) Capabilities Was The Result Of Political Pressure.” (“The Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq”, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
The Chair and Vice Chairman Of 9/11 Commission Report Agree They’re Were “Definitely” Contacts:
Chairman Of The 9/11 Commission Report Gov. Tom Kean (R-NJ): “[T]here Were Contacts Between Iraq (Sic) And Saddam Hussein. Iraq — Saddam Hussein — Excuse Me, Al Qaeda Didn’t Like To Get Involved With States. Unless They Were Living There. They Got Involved With Saddam, They Got Involved Where They Lived.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 6/21/04)
Kean: “[T]here Were Contacts. … We Don’t Know How Shadowy They Are In Some Cases. But They Existed.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 6/21/04)
Kean: “There Were Contacts Between Iraq And Al-Qaida, A Number Of Them, Some Of Them A Little Shadowy. They Were Definitely There.” (Editorial, “La La Pelosi,” Investor’s Business Daily, 7/5/05)
Vice Chairman Of The 9/11 Commission Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN): “[T]here Were Contacts Between Al Qaeda And Iraq Going Back Clear To The Early 1990’s When Osama Bin Laden Was In Sudan And When He Was In Afghanistan. I Don’t Think There’s Any Dispute About That.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 6/21/04)
Hamilton: “I’ve Looked At These Statements Quite Carefully From The Administration. They Are Not Claiming That There Was A Collaborative Relationship Between Saddam Hussein And Al Qaeda With Regard To The Attacks On The United States.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 6/21/04)
The Clinton Justice Department Found Al-Qaeda Reached An Agreement With Iraq:
“The Clinton Justice Department Alleged In A 1998 Indictment Against Bin Laden That ‘Al-Qaida Reached An Understanding With The Government Of Iraq That Al-Qaida Would Not Work Against That Government And That On Particular Projects, Specifically Including Weapons Development, Al-Qaida Would Work Cooperatively With The Government Of Iraq.’” (“La La Pelosi,” Investor’s Business Daily, 7/5/05)
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THOUGHT IRAQ HAD WMD, BRIEFED CONGRESS WHO HAD NO CONCERNS
The 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) On Iraq Stated Iraq Had WMD:
The 2002 National Intelligence Estimate On Iraq: “Baghdad Has Chemical And Biological Weapons As Well As Missiles With Ranges In Excess Of UN Restrictions; If Left Unchecked, It Probably Will Have A Nuclear Weapon During This Decade.” (National Intelligence Council Website, “Iraq’s Continuing Program For Weapons Of Mass Destruction,” http://www.cia.gov, Accessed 9/27/05)
The 2002 National Intelligence Estimate On Iraq: “Iraq Has Largely Rebuilt Missile And Biological Weapons Facilities Damaged During Operation Desert Fox And Has Expanded Its Chemical And Biological Infrastructure Under The Cover Of Civilian Production.” (National Intelligence Council Website, “Iraq’s Continuing Program For Weapons Of Mass Destruction,” http://www.cia.gov, Accessed 9/27/05)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) And Other Dems Didn’t Bother To Read The National Intelligence Estimate:
Stu Cohen, National Intelligence Council Official In Charge Of Drafting The October 2002 NIE: “Over The Past Fifteen Years Our Assessments On Iraq WMD Issues Have Been Presented Routinely To Six Different Congressional Committees Including The Two Oversight Committees, The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, And The House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence. To The Best Of My Knowledge, Prior To This NIE, These Committees Never Came Back To Us With A Concern Of Bias Or An Assertion That We Had Gotten It Wrong.” (Stu Cohen, “Iraq’s WMD Programs: Culling Hard Facts From Soft Myths,” Press Release, 11/28/03)
“No More Than Six Senators And A Handful Of House Members Read Beyond The Five-Page National Intelligence Estimate Executive Summary, According To Several Congressional Aides Responsible For Safeguarding The Classified Material.” (Dana Priest, “Congressional Oversight Of Intelligence Criticized,” The Washington Post, 4/27/04)
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): “Well, You’re Talking About Six Senators, And The Answer Is … If You Ask Me – I Didn’t Read It.” QUESTION: “The Washington Post reported that six senators read the NIE in 2002 before the vote to authorize the war. Did both of you read it?” SEN. REID: “As indicated last week, Senator Levin has worked very hard to make that public. Now everyone has read it. Everyone has read it.” Question: “But before …” SEN. REID: “Well, you’re talking about six senators, and the answer is – the answer, if you ask me – I didn’t read it. But I don’t know who did. But, you know, there’s 100 senators, not six, and some members of the Intelligence Committee may have read it. I don’t know.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Conference, 11/15/05)
“Reid Admitted On Nov. 15 That He Had Not Read The 2002 National Intelligence Estimate Of Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction Programs Prepared By The CIA.” (“Demos Didn’t Even Read Report,” Deseret Morning News, 11/24/05)
“He Wasn’t Alone. Among Other Key Democrats Who Claim They Were Misled But Couldn’t Bother To Read The Report Prior To Casting Their Votes Were Sens. Charles Schumer, Carl Levin, John Kerry, Hillary Rodham Clinton And Dianne Feinstein. According To A Washington Post News Story In 2004, Fewer Than Six Democrats Read The Report Prior To Casting Their Votes.” (“Demos Didn’t Even Read Report,” Deseret Morning News, 11/24/05)flex: DemFacts_PreWar
More vast right wing conspiracy? Talk about made up enemies. (roll of eyes)
Obviously, heartlander, Arlen DID read the law, and utilized his faculties of reason to determine that the new law was unconstitutional. And then, he sold us out by assuming that the Supreme Court would iron it out. It’s either:
A) A hopeful attempt to stop the GWB freight train from running over the country
B) A way to avoid having to have his voting record show a vote cast against the ‘war on terror’ while being able to say, all the while, that he ‘knew it was going to be okay.’
Personally postal I lean toward C) Arlen is a coward who would rather someone else do his job instead of him actually standing up to bush and the rest of the repukes. Makes you proud to be an American when you see our elected officials forsaking the Constitution for their own political ends.
KIA,
Please explain in what way your last post is pertinent to this thread? Other than rehashing the who voted for what debacle.
Senators and Representatives rarely read bills. That’s what their assistants are for. Assistants read the bills and send a summarization to their boss, who then decides how to vote.
KIA is trying to find some cover to hide behind. I agree with him that these idiots should not have trusted BushDaBum’s claims in the first place.
No matter how much finger pointing we have going on now as to who what read and who didn’t read it.
This country is in deep trouble and the American people sit back and let George W. take us down the same destructive path.
Foley thread, please.
Let’s not forget that Arlen was born right here in Doo Dah.
On a CSPAN interview tonight, George Soros said that he subscribes to the theory that Bin Laden brilliantly laid a trap for the U.S. in 9/11, predicting that the U.S. would overreact and invade the Middle East, and thereby galvanize Islamic peoples across all of Asia against America, creating an insoluble conundrum for the U.S. that would force it to cede power over the Middle East. An interesting thought.
I’ve heard that theory as well on Bin Laden. Basically the goal is to bankrupt the US. Not unlike what happened with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.I hope we have more resolve than that.
We are bankrupt by George W. Bush’s policies, both foreign and domestic. We are quickly becoming a 3rd world nation and debtor nations are not usually superpowers.
Bankruptcy for America is in line with the neocon goals. They want to eradicate social programs like Medicare, social security, PBS, heating fuel assistance for the poor and other items that help keep people from going into poverty.
These are the same policies promoted by Reagan and the IMF. Lower taxes for the rich, deregulate utilities, cut social spending or else the country won’t be eligible for a loan. Such policies destroyed the economy of Argentenia but Hugo Chavez pissed off America by paying off Argentenia’s debt so that their economy could recover.
Currently in America half the budget goes towards the military, a remaining third goes to debt payments. The debt ceiling had to be raised numerous times so we have over an $8 trillion debt. The debt leveled off and dropped because Clinton was fiscally responsible, but Bush wanted it to skyrocket. As a result Bush has weakened our national security as more and more of our debt is owned by foreign nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._public_debt
“Bankruptcy for America is in line with the neocon goals. They want to eradicate social programs like Medicare, social security, PBS, heating fuel assistance for the poor and other items that help keep people from going into poverty.”
Doug: You forgot the most important part of the process, viz. when the Repubs get voted out of office (GWH Bush) and a Democratic president takes over and the economy gets better – you then crow how it was really all due to GWH’s policies. You know, some kind of time-lagged benefit was at work.
Which reminds me, never try and convince a paranoid that their food isn’t poisoned by eating part of it to show them. They simply conclude “you got the unpoisoned half!”
Just walk away and shake your head.
And don’t forget that when Democrats have to try to pay the bills the Repukes will howl at them.
Joe!:”I was listening to NPR and there was an interview with Frank Rich who wrote the book, ‘The Greatest Story Ever Sold’.”
I don’t know if we heard the same interview or not — I am thinking not, but in the one I heard, Rich was basically saying that the Iraq war was waged solely for the political benefit of GWB. This effort was master-minded by Karl Rove.
I think the war was waged for whatever reason or multi-reasons and then used as political tool by this administration.
Rich is one of the more liberal NYTimes editors and while I enjoy reading him, I think Woodward has a greater inside track to this administration (probably primarily through Collen Powell) than Rich does. Hence, I am buying Woodward’s book first; if I buy Rich’s, it will be later.
That is definitely right, Ben.
Conservatives are like the parent that let’s their kids do whatever they want. Democrats are the parent who puts restrictions on the kids behavior because they want to promote responsibility. The kids are better off under the Democrat but prefer the conservative because they can identify with the lack of responsibility and lack of maturity.
No matter what the reason for the Iraq war, the Religious Right (Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell) need to share in the accountability of all the bloodshed. It was these two men that put the name of God on George W. Bush’s grandiose theme of going to war.
Good point CR. I’d like to see a thorough investigation into the involvement of AIPAC and CUFI in all this.
WMD: Words of Mass Disinformation
The goal of any small radical group or individual in a terrorist act is to create even greater chaos than their single act by itself. Fire up one side or the other, or in Bin Laden’s case both sides.
It has been reported that this administration cut off access to reporters who weren’t sympathetic to it, so if a reporter was critical, he or she couldn’t get info, except through leakers. I have a hunch that Bob Woodward shrewdly played along, with two administration-favorable books to prove his sympathy, and then, with access, started taking notes and putting damning evidence together. He and Carl Bernstein took down RMN. Bush said he wanted to be like Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, but Cheney and Rumsfeld were Nixon acolytes. Even Henry Kissinger has been a frequent “guest” advisor, as he himself has recently disclosed.
Woodward is a shrewd guy. Condoleeza is denying things reported in State of Denial, but Woodward is far too smart and experienced to make false allegations. He’s got taped interviews and other documentation.
Bushco tried to paint anti-Iraq opponents as traitors, and “cut and run” cowards. Too bad the people he’s pointing his finger at include the Armed Forces top-brass, who are our nation’s top military experts, not to mention our soldiers who want to come home.
It’s not really dems vs. republicans on this war, or the deficit, as much as patriots versus scam artists stuffing their pockets as much as they can at the expense of the American people, until Americans put a stop to it. If Americans have any degree of intelligence, they’ll place a majority of dems in the house in next month’s election, and Bush and Co. will be quacking as they walk around on one foot and flap a broken wing.
10-03-06 Washington Post:”George F. Will | Bob Woodward’s book does not demonstrate that the president is in a state of denial, but it certainly undermines his reputation as a realist.”
Thank you Mr. Will for that distinction which doesn’t point out much of a difference. You have to love the smell of Republican fear in the morning…