Let's stop this blaming of the neocons for the Iraq war. Bush wanted the war from his first days in office.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain612067.shtml

quote:

From CBS.com (60 Minutes): Journalist Shares War Secrets Woodward: War On Iraq Bob Woodward reveals secret details of the White House’s plans to attack Iraq in an exclusive interview with Mike Wallace. (Photo: CBS) (snip) In the interview, Woodward talked about how the administration was able to finance secret preparations for the Iraq war. "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq?' What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret," says Woodward. "...The end of July 2002, they need $700 million, a large amount of money for all these tasks. And the president approves it. But Congress doesn't know and it is done. They get the money from a supplemental appropriation for the Afghan War, which Congress has approved. ...Some people are gonna look at a document called the Constitution which says that no money will be drawn from the treasury unless appropriated by Congress. Congress was totally in the dark on this."

Bob Woodward will be on 60 Minutes this Sunday, so don't miss it.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/boo...d.ap/index.html

quote:

Woodward book: Bush secretly made Iraq war plan Friday, April 16, 2004 Posted: 1:14 PM EDT (1714 GMT) President Bush secretly ordered an Iraq war plan, says a new book by Bob Woodward. WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush secretly ordered a war plan drawn up against Iraq less than two months after U.S. forces attacked Afghanistan and was so worried the decision would cause a furor he did not tell everyone on his national security team, says a new book on his Iraq policy. Bush feared that if news got out about the Iraq plan as U.S. forces were fighting another conflict, people would think he was too eager for war, journalist Bob Woodward writes in "Plan of Attack," a behind-the-scenes account of the 16 months leading to the Iraq invasion. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the book, which will be available in book stores next week. -more-

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Apr-17-2004 at 03:32

ahh I thought this was going ot be "behind starcraft"

... and I always wondered how they made that game...

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

It's nice to see all these politicians and political "reporters" making money and a name for themselves off of 9/11 and the Iraq conflict. Keep 'em coming boys...you know the media will keep lapping it up.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono It's nice to see all these politicians and political "reporters" making money and a name for themselves off of 9/11 and the Iraq conflict. Keep 'em coming boys...you know the media will keep lapping it up.

If the media had done its job in the first place, they wouldn't be necessary.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ If the media had done its job in the first place, they wouldn't be necessary.

Yes, because the media is an excellent source of unbiased, truthful and comprehensive reporting and investigation. Just like I'm sure these books are 100% factual and unsensationalized in order to sell better.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Yes, because the media is an excellent source of unbiased, truthful and comprehensive reporting and investigation. Just like I'm sure these books are 100% factual and unsensationalized in order to sell better.

Boy, I sure didn't hear any conservatives say this when Woodward's 1st book on Bush Jr. came out ("Bush at War"). I wonder why?

It's also funny to hear an interview on NPR from a former Nixon official (name escapes me ATM), telling how fumed he was about Woodward's book on Watergate, then realizing years later how incredibly accurate Woodward was.

Considering how many folks who've had access to the inside and highly secretive politics of the Bush Admin. come out and expose this Admin. in a negative light, could someone explain why we shouldn't believe Woodward's recent insight?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 could someone explain why we shouldn't believe Woodward's recent insight?

We've all heard the standard conservative line ad nauseum, if anyone is receiving money then you can discount what they say. That arguement doesn't make sense, but to their credit they never let logic stand in their way. Does this mean we must discount anyone who publishes for profit? I thought the conservatives were the ones who have always exponded the vitues of capitalism and free enterprise? How does getting paid to do your job discredit you. Journalist and authors have just as much right to earn a living as any of us. Back when the media was scrutinizing Clinton and books about white water and monica were being published, I don't remember the Republicans complaining that they were untrustworthy. Since the bush administration is trying to get re-elected I would find it more likely they might be lieing than a journalist.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

Last edited by igottaknow on Apr-20-2004 at 03:04

I'm not Bush insider. Although I do consider myself as a "bush" insider nudge nudge.

All I can say is Powell and Cheney have been friends and colleages for over twenty years. To say that there is a dynamic between them is probably an understatement, especially concerning something as serious as the things that are shaping this world now and back then.
From the interviews I've heard from insiders and outsiders, the president fosters heated exchange of ideas within his cabinet to get all the facts and opinions out in the open. Healthy. The book will sensationalize. Thats why its a book and not a memo.

The way I see it, sure, the administration had more than just a contingency plan for Iraq. From the outset, the prez. did have a strategic outline for combating terrorism through stabilizing the entire region via Saddam Hussein and Afganistan. Grandiose? maybe. Difficult? F**kin a. Impossible? No.

The book is sensational, thats all. The media pigs have a lot to do with that. I'm not gonna get sucked up by it's superficialness (is that a word?)

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow We've all heard the standard conservative line ad nauseum, if anyone is receiving money then you can discount what they say. That arguement doesn't make sense, but to their credit they never let logic stand in their way. Does this mean we must discount anyone who publishes for profit? I thought the conservatives were the ones who have always exponded the vitues of capitalism and free enterprise? How does getting paid to do your job discredit you. Journalist and authors have just as much right to earn a living as any of us. Back when the media was scrutinizing Clinton and books about white water and monica were being published, I don't remember the Republicans complaining that they were untrustworthy. Since the bush administration is trying to get re-elected I would find it more likely they might be lieing than a journalist.

If Bush stabbed someone in the back on live TV, people would still shill for him, and he'd get over 40% of the vote.

It's not that these people are coming out with books, or that they are making money off of them, its the timing of their release. If these individuals have known since the onset of Bush's administration that he was war mongering, why only now, almost four years into his presidency, while the Iraq issue is at fever pitch have so many people come forth?

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ If Bush stabbed someone in the back on live TV, people would still shill for him, and he'd get over 40% of the vote.

well did the the guy deserve to get stabbed?