I had very little beef about 2000, my problem with Bush started when he began talking up Iraq. I am dismayed that you cannot seem to understand this, but I WAS OPTIMISTIC AND PROUD OF BUSH WHEN HE LED OUR COUNTRY TO TAKING OUT THE TALIBAN. I was happy that he did that and became shocked and horrified when he abandoned the hunt for OBL (the man who actually planned and saw implemented 9/11) to take up this vendetta on Saddam. Iraq was not a threat. They were contained. OBL IS a threat and Bush pulled out of Afghanistan before that job was done. Moreover, he did that based on faulty intelligence that the government actually paid people with a vested interest in seeing Saddam ousted for. That is like busting a Mafia hit man and paying him to finger a rival boss. Bush is doing nothing positive regarding the war on terror in Iraq. We were doing the right thing in Afghanistan, but that wasn't enough. He used "intelligence" that had been debunked to make the case for war which has led to us shirking our responsibility in Afghanistan. Whatever. You have no acceptable response for the facts laid out in the article so you are running away.
bama - You do realize that Woodward interviewed 70+ members of the administration on the record, including President Bush, for his book, right? Also, I read somewhere (ABC's The Note, I think, but I can't find the link - sorry) that the White House has actually recommended "Plan of Attack". If you've watched any of the interviews with Bob Woodward (Nightline, Larry King Live, Today...), you'll see that he (and Nightline) pointed out that the assertions in the book are not being refuted by the White House, but that the media is overblowing some points. Anyway - my point (besides saying to read the book) is that you're probably going crazy labeling everything anti-Bush as liberal. In this instance, this book was written with the cooperation of the White House, and yet it's also part of the conspiracy?
The point is that the Woodward book is one reporter's perspective of events that he was allowed unprecendented access to. I think GWB made a mistake allowing him that sort of access, but I guess he was trying to be "open-minded." But now the Woodward book is simply fodder for the liberal attempt to dethrone someone that they hate more than life itself, GWB. Hate only gets you so far.
By all accounts, the Woodward book is far less critical of the Bush administration than you seem to think it is. Certainly some foibles came out, but painting that with the broad stroke of "liberal attempt to dethrone someone that they hate more than life itself" is intellectually dishonest. I know you hate "liberals" more than life itself, but if you would look at the facts, you would see that Bush is not your friend. Who is letting hatred run their lives here, bama? You are the one who is constantly railing with hate speech about the evil "liberals" while they (and I) continue to bring up facts and evidence that show that GWB is not the right leader for our country. I find it hard to believe that I will probably vote for a Democrat this November as it goes against everything I thought I believed for a decade, but facts are facts and GWB is not good for our country. If you open your eyes and use your Libertarian roots, you will see that Bush is not the one who should be leading the US.
Sorry bama - one more thing. The book wasn't meant to be a journalist's perspective. The White House wanted to have a record of what occurred during this important part of history. I really don't think the book is meant to be inflammatory. I hope people will read it before determining that it's liberal propaganda.
And John sKerry, liar and far-leftist, is? Give me a break. Hate speech is such a silly word, but I'm tired of the left in this country attempting to weaken us by surrendering our sovereignty to the "international community" and take away economic freedom in favor of various vote-buying schemes. I'm tired of hearing how the rich are making their money on the backs of the poor. I'm tired of hearing how Bush is a liar and a devil when in fact, he has done a great job leading the war on terror. I'm also tired of Bush trying to go along with these folks by giving them what they want. I'm fed up with the left in this country and their misguided attempt to turn us into a Euro-socialist utopia. If you want socialism, get the hell out! Go to Europe. Leave my freedoms alone.
I heard that The White House website had links to reviews of the book. What is the official White House website link? .org and .com don't get you what you're looking for!!!!!!!!!
bama, if you're so tired, take a nap! Maybe you'll wake up with a tiny bit of perspective on what's really going on. Or not.
Having seen the massive amounts of damage done to this country by GWB and his crew, Kerry simply cannot do any worse. WHO IS TRYING TO SURRENDER OUR SOVERIGNITY?!? Wanting the United States to work with the international community regarding the war on terror is not surrendering anything. We NEED their support to fight this war and we are thumbing our noses at every country that does not kowtow to our demands. As far as "vote buying schemes," there is no way for me to defend what ALL politicians do. GWB has been far, FAR worse with these schemes than any other president that I can remember. These schemes are a great drain on taxpayers and should be eliminated, something that is guaranteed not to happen if GWB and his crew get another term. Another term for Bush would be seen as a blank check to continue raiding the coffers. I have never accused them of making their money "on the backs of the poor," but they do use their power, money, and influence to buy lower tax rates and preferential treatment. In the past 60 years, the wealthy have seen their tax bill drop by 2/3 while the rest of the country have had no tax reduction whatsoever. The tax system is broken and another Bush term will see another massive giveaway. I note that as tired as you are of hearing about Bush's "lies," you have no problem teeing up on Kerry as a "liar." This is where you need to start looking at facts and evidence. I agree that he did a great job after 9/11 and in the action in Afghanistan. It is truly sad that you cannot see how idiotic the action in Iraq is and it is distressing that you cannot see how Iraq is detracting from the war on terror. WHO WANTS SOCIALISM?!? Not me, and not the people you call "liberals." Some of us want social justice, but I am sure you will use that term as a talking point to rail against the "evil liberals." Face it, your hate for liberals has overcome your Libertarian leanings and has clouded your judgement. You hate so much that you cannot see the damage that GWB has done in foreign affairs and I can only conclude that you just don't care about his domestic agenda. Wake up and smell the fiscal irresponsibility. GWB and crew have done more to roll back your freedoms than any liberal ever has. Again, your seething hatred for anything left of Limbaugh or O'Reilly is extremely limiting and becoming dangerous. You aren't a Libertarian anymore, you have become a dittohead.
If Bush didn't lie please tell me when we found WMD in Iraq. That was what Bush claimed to the Polish while visiting that country. If Bush didn't lie which report was Bush referring to when he said that he read the IAEA report saying that Iraq was six months away from a nuke. Please explain that to me since no report of that kind ever existed. Then on top of that in trying to cover the lie the administration committed several other lies. First they said it wasn't that report but an eariler one, which it turned out also never said that. Then they tried to cliam it was a different agency's report which they sited. The only problem was that the report they now claim Bush was referring to wasn't even released on the date that Bush made his initial statement. These are two bold faced lies. I'm all ears.
But the NIE report did say if he aquired materials he would be six months away from having a nuke. It also said he was actively seeking to acquire nukes. Are we just to wait until he gets the materials and creates a bomb before we attack? He showed 3 things 1) Desire to aquire WMD's in the form of nukes (breaking UN Resolution) 2) Past hostility towards other nations 3) Crimes against humanity What are our motives for attack? A warmonger president? Oil? Those aren't good enough. Sorry.
For bama and giddyup about the White House recommending the book (read the rest of the article and learn how the government is deleting sections of transcripts that are unfavorable - how "1984"): From the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28729-2004Apr20_2.html): "We're urging people to buy the book," White House communications director Dan Bartlett said. "What this book does is show a president who was asking the right questions and showing prudence as well as resolve during very difficult times. This book undermines a lot of the critics' charges." An official involved in the negotiations said the administration cooperated so completely that Bush asked Cheney to grant Woodward an interview, which Cheney did, although he is not named as a source. Woodward writes in the book that information came from "more than 75 key people directly involved in the events," most of whom spoke on the condition that they not be identified.
Meanwhile, back to Bush, the Messiah. To be correct Bush doesn't actually view himself as the Messiah; he just views himself as God's messenger. ************ With God on his side By invoking a higher power, Bush sidesteps pesky constitutional issues So it was a holy war, a new crusade. No wonder George W. Bush could lie to Congress and the American public with such impunity while keeping the key members of his Cabinet in the dark. He was serving a higher power, according to Bob Woodward, who interviewed the president for a new book on the months leading up to the Iraq invasion. Of course, as a self-described "messenger" of God who was "praying for strength to do the Lord's will," Bush was not troubled about shredding a little secular document called the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution reserves to Congress the authority to allocate funds and to declare war. Thus it would seem to be an impeachable offense to misappropriate $700 million that had been earmarked to restore order to Afghanistan and put it toward planning an invasion of Iraq -- in a secret scheme hatched, according to Woodward, only 72 days after 9/11. But not only has the president rejected the checks and balances installed by the nation's founders to avoid the "foreign entanglements" George Washington warned us about, he again is shown to have pursued a foreign policy that stands as a sharp rebuke to his more worldly and cautious father. During the first Gulf War, George H.W. Bush wisely heeded the concerns of Congress, as well as a broad coalition of regional and international allies, and kept to clear, limited and sound goals. In contrast, the younger Bush vocally disdains world opinion and international bodies like the United Nations, seeming instead to relish his role as an avenging Christian crusader who seeks -- under the guiding hand of the Almighty -- to cleanse the Arab world of "evildoers." Asked by Woodward, an assistant managing editor at the Washington Post, if he had ever consulted the former president before ordering the invasion of Iraq, Bush replied that "he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength; there is a higher father that I appeal to." Reading the elder Bush's books and even his speeches before the latest Iraq war, one finds that the former president at least seems to understand that diplomacy, international cooperation and patience are not just the tools of naive do-gooders but in fact are far more effective at advancing global stability and American aims than reckless adventures like the current quagmire in Mesopotamia. Religious crusades are often counterproductive; they tend to end up in unsustainable occupations of people who -- surprise! -- believe they have their own pipeline to the Almighty. Thus, if George W. had consulted his father, he probably would have heard the message that he didn't want to hear from Secretary of State Colin Powell about the "Pottery Barn rule" -- the idea that you own what you break. What Powell meant is not that you own Iraq's oil and the lucrative contracts that you parcel out to your friends at Halliburton and Bechtel. Rather, it is that if you occupy a failed state, you are stuck with the difficult, costly and lengthy task of nation-building. That Powell and the first President Bush did not break more forcefully with the current president over their apparent differences on Iraq is not excusable, despite their party and familial ties. As both men seem to have expected, what we have now is a deadly mess that has weakened us in the war on terror, both as a distraction and by inflaming the Muslim world's latent mistrust of the West. After the bloodiest month of the entire war and occupation, we are told by the nation's media and political elites that we must "stay the course," "get it right" and, in the words of the president himself, "honor the fallen." How do we honor the fallen by sending more soldiers to die in a war based on lies now amply documented by insiders? Surely the best way to honor them is to right our course and turn to the United Nations, not as a fig leaf to conceal an ongoing disaster but to admit that it was wrong to undermine the best mechanism we have for international cooperation. An honorable retreat from this calamity requires U.N. supervision of an orderly withdrawal. The president conceded to Woodward that he had the good sense not to "justify war based upon God" but would ask for forgiveness if he took the wrong path. It is time he found God's grace in the exercise of humility rather than plunging deeper into this madness. For more, please see the Robert Scheer archive. link
Oh my name it is nothin' My age it means less The country I come from Is called the Midwest I's taught and brought up there The laws to abide And that land that I live in Has God on its side. Oh the history books tell it They tell it so well The cavalries charged The Indians fell The cavalries charged The Indians died Oh the country was young With God on its side. Oh the Spanish-American War had its day And the Civil War too Was soon laid away And the names of the heroes I's made to memorize With guns in their hands And God on their side. Oh the First World War, boys It closed out its fate The reason for fighting I never got straight But I learned to accept it Accept it with pride For you don't count the dead When God's on your side. When the Second World War Came to an end We forgave the Germans And we were friends Though they murdered six million In the ovens they fried The Germans now too Have God on their side. I've learned to hate Russians All through my whole life If another war starts It's them we must fight To hate them and fear them To run and to hide And accept it all bravely With God on my side. But now we got weapons Of the chemical dust If fire them we're forced to Then fire them we must One push of the button And a shot the world wide And you never ask questions When God's on your side. In a many dark hour I've been thinkin' about this That Jesus Christ Was betrayed by a kiss But I can't think for you You'll have to decide Whether Judas Iscariot Had God on his side. So now as I'm leavin' I'm weary as Hell The confusion I'm feelin' Ain't no tongue can tell The words fill my head And fall to the floor If God's on our side He'll stop the next war. BD
They are urging people to buy the book. Is that version edited? It's not surprising that the Administration is not linking to the entire text if they consider parts to be inaccurate or whatever. Someone acting in their self-interest is not necessarily criminal.
Oh nononono. I'm sorry. I guess my parenthetical comment was confusing. The White House recommends people read "Plan of Attack". My comment about the "rest of the article" relates to how the White House transcripts of Rumsfeld meeting with Woodward on the record had portions removed. Self-serving, yes. Criminal, no. However, I think it's a little flaky because I'd like to hold our government to a high standard. Oh, the other thing to mention relating to Woodward - he's generally regarded as a conservative, so the liberal-bashing is especially inappropriate.
That's not what Bush claimed though. The NIE report also said he could be months to two years away. Maybe I'm confusing it with something else. Either way none of that is what Bush claimed. Bush claimed that a report(which one depends upon which effort to amend the Presidents 'error' we are talking about) said they were six months away. No I don't think we should just wait until they had a Nuke. I would have jumped at the chance to move the thousands of CIA and FBI agents on the ground that was offered in the peace deal that Bush wouldn't even consider.
