Bob Woodward Says George Bush Lies About Iraq Outlook (Well Duh!)
I'm shocked, I tell you! Just shocked! (Not!)
Veteran journalist Bob Woodward (who of course helped uncover the Watergate scandal) says that George W. Bush is lying to the American public about the insurgency in Iraq.
In an interview to air on 60 Minutes, Woodward, who is releasing a new book about Bush called State of Denial, says that "The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], 'Oh, no, things are going to get better. Now there’s public, and then there’s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know."
Woodward says the Administration has thus far kept secret the fact that in Iraq, so-called "insurgent" attacks against our troops occur an average of every 15 minutes. He says "It’s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That's more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces."
No wonder I didn't believe Dick Cheney when he said the insurgency was in its "last throws."
Bob Woodward: Bush Misleads On Iraq
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/28 @ 07:01 PM — (Reply)
Bob Woodward is not making this stuff up out of his a@s. The information is from the intelligence community, and he's reporting it in his book.
Bob Woodward is not some partisan, anti-Bush hack. In fact, Bush gave Woodward access during his first "Bush at War" book. He interviewed bush for that first book.
It's really sad, Barry, that you choose to not deal in the facts, especially when they don't fit your preconceived notion of how things should be.
Comment by SMillard— 2006/09/28 @ 07:04 PM — (Reply)
I'll bet Barry will take his partisan hat off if you will....like that would happen.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/28 @ 08:50 PM — (Reply)
No amount of Clinton protecting spin doctoring changes the FACTS. Who better than Clinton's own favorite expert/source to verify that Clinton NEVER had a PLAN and a PLAN was NEVER passed on to the Bush Administration.
WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
ANGLE: OK.
QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?
CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.
QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?
CLARKE: There was no new plan.
QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...
CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.
QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...
CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.
ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
CLARKE: You got it. That's right.
QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?
CLARKE: That's right.
More details on this can be found in the detailed article published on my blog on this subject. My suggestion would be to publish opinion as opinion not fact as you did with the Condi is a liar stuff. Your opinion was 180 degrees dead wrong and without accurate supporting facts. Now you have the facts, so now is the time to retract the statement regarding Condi. Your opinion is up to you, but you are not the arbiter of facts. Facts speak for themselvers and on the Condi issue the facts do not support your opinion.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/29 @ 02:53 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/29 @ 02:54 AM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/09/28 @ 07:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/28 @ 07:30 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/09/30 @ 07:41 AM — (Reply)
he's a rino jim
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/30 @ 07:59 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/30 @ 10:19 AM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/09/30 @ 02:54 PM — (Reply)