It would be too much of a stretch to believe that Bob Woodward is in cahoots with the Democrats and has timed the release of his new book State of Denial for any other reason save the fact that political books are best published during the political season.
That said, it is fascinating to see the Democrats and the press leap upon this book like ravenous beasts, eagerly pointing out this little tidbit and that in order to “prove” something. What they are trying to prove is a mystery since from what I can gather from this story in the New York Times, there are absolutely no factual revelations contained between its covers. Instead, we have a typical Woodward book that gives us all the gossipy details of history in the making; what were people thinking and feeling as the Iraq War went to hell in a handbasket.
In fact, as is Woodward’s wont, he has relied on unsurpassed access to policymakers who for one reason or another, spill the chatty details about who they like, who they hate, why someone is strange or weird or just plain awful. They highlight their little stories by illustrating their points with vignettes of what goes on behind the scenes when high matters of state are being decided. Dishing dirt on co-workers may not be very elevating but it makes for damn fine reading.
Woodward then takes this raw material and fashions a narrative that is at once both gossipy and historical – an instant classic inside the beltway where people are always interested in gossip about politicians and their fellow travellers.
In this respect, Woodward will always be a highbrow Kitty Kelly, never quite descending into the personal muck that Kelly eagerly wallows in but at the same time, giving us the same angles and views of the high and mighty that Kelly so relishes. Both writers expose the powerful in ways that bring them down to the level of the rest of us by ripping aside the mystique of high office to reveal the petty, the quirky, the personality conflicts, and – dare I say it – the humanity of our national leaders.
The problem is that once you’ve read one Woodward book and the technique becomes familiar, most intelligent readers will start asking basic questions. How does he get those long, extended quotes from conversations between principals? How can he possibly know this particular detail of what someone else was thinking? Woodward’s books are usually riveting affairs because he has a reporters eye for important details and a novelist’s flair for making those details interesting. The question ultimately arises then; does he ever get his two personae confused? Does he try and logically extrapolate what was said or thought from known facts? Or does he truly have people on record revealing such intimate details of their thoughts and reactions?
Here’s Woodward himself on how he is able to write the way he does:
Woodward says that people talk to him because they know he has the time to get it right—which is also part of the reason these seemingly unattainable sources show him a little leg. “I have the significant luxury of time, which enables me to really look at something in depth,” he says. “I can go to people and then go to other people, and then go back and track and try to develop a documentary trail. I have time; most reporters don’t have time. Like you, for instance,” he said to me, “when you called me you said you had a tight deadline [for this story]. I don’t have that.”
It sounds plausible but it doesn’t answer some critics who believe he has actually fabricated some of the more noteworthy incidents in some of his books. Perhaps most famously, his 1987 book Veil which chronicled the extraordinary exploits (and crimes) of William Casey’s CIA, Woodward claims to have visited Casey on his deathbed in a hospital and gotten a confession from him that he knew about the transfer of funds from Iran to the Contras in Nicaragua. Casey’s widow stated that Woodward could not possibly have gotten access to her dying husband at that time – especially with a cadre of FBI agents guarding the Director’s door.
Somehow, this kind of thing has never damaged Woodward’s credibility. His eye opening books on the Clinton presidency – the towering rages by Clinton, the fights with Hillary, a cowed and brutalized staff – made for fascinating reading. But again, there really were no earth shattering revelations regarding policy or world events. Instead, the reader was treated to a front row seat at the greatest show on earth – how the powerful behave in various circumstances and the fact that they truly are no more or less human than the rest of us.
Woodward’s latest effort in this regard happens to arrive on book shelves at a very inopportune moment for the Administration. Just as the Republicans are making some headway in focusing attention on the fact that voting Democratic in November means handing the reins of power to politicans who have yet to annunciate anything approaching a policy on Iraq, the War on Terror, or homeland security, people are reminded once again what a truly botched effort the Iraq War has been and that the principals involved either through overweening hubris or tragic miscalculation quite simply blew it.
This hasn’t stopped the New York Times (who apparently got an advance copy – even before the Post was able to serialize the book prior to publication) from breathlessly reporting as “news” those facts which are already well known and whose only shock value will be in the way they are reported not that there is anything revelatory about them. In this respect, the Times and other news organs do the Democratic party a favor by going “green” and recycling – not to conserve but rather to destroy.
For instance:
- Did we know the White House was warned that we would need hundreds of thousands of more troops in Iraq in order to get control of the country following the invasion? Perhaps we should ask General Shineski who testified before Congress and sounded that very warning.
- Did we know that Rumsfeld mismanaged the occupation and reconstruction? One need only look at Iraq today in order to draw that conclusion.
- Did we know that Rummy had lost credibility with the Generals by last fall? I guess the Times doesn’t read their own newspaper very often because that fact has been widely reported.
- Did we know that the Administration was in a state of denial about the insurgency? This is a little trickier because again, the Times would have to read their own newspaper to see the 180 degree change in policy regarding how we were fighting the insurgency in the spring of 2004 compared to the previous summer.
What we are treated to and told is “news” are all the little gossipy details like the fact that Rummy hated Condi and wouldn’t return her calls unless the President told him to or that Cheney was obsessed with proving that WMD’s existed in Iraq by going so far as calling David Kay, who was in charge of finding Saddam’s weapons, in the middle of the night to give him satellite coordinates of a place to look for them. (Now what does that do to the moonbat theory that we absolutely knew there were no WMD’s in Iraq and invaded anyway?)
As an inside look at the Bush Administration, I have little doubt that Woodward’s book will be an entertaining read. But its political utility will be to block the small amount of momentum that Republicans had been gathering this month in their efforts to keep control of the House and Senate not by revealing anything new but by dressing up old news in the latest anti-Bush couture.
UPDATE
Allah describes the impact of the book in much more apocalyptic terms and is filled with “heart-ache.”
I hadn’t read the Daily News blurb about Tenet coming to Rice in July of 2001 begging for funds to go after Bin Laden. If true, all it does in my mind is add to the ongoing argument about how responsible Bush or Clinton was for 9/11. And, of course, going after al-Qaeda at that point would not have stopped the 9/11 plot which was ready to step off, only needing a the Saudi muscle guys to show up in America and a firm date (the date was set in early August).
As for the descriptions of Rummy, this again is nothing new. He’s an incompetent fool and Republicans on the Hill who didn’t join with Democrats in getting this guy kicked out should be ashamed of themselves. When the investigations into what’s gone wrong in Iraq begin, we will not have to look any farther than Rumsefeld’s extraordinary mismanagement of the entire occupation. One disasterous decision after another while going before the American people and telling us how rosy things really were.
The gossip dished on Rumsfeld in the book will reveal nothing we didn’t know about him already. And I will reiterate what I said above; the impact of this book will not be in anything new but in how it is being reported. In that respect, it may, as Allah thinks, be something of an earthquake. More likely, it will stall the Republican comeback and cost some GOP representatives their seats. And in a close race like this one, that may be enough to tip the balance toward the Democrats in the House.
12:57 pm
[...] Update: Gossipy electioneering from cover to cover, pronounces Moran. [...]
1:50 pm
Hey, if Bush is stupid enough to give Woodward access to his Administration, he deserves whatever Woodward dishes out.
1:53 pm
It can’t be easy being a Bush apologist these days. All I can tell you is be prepared to feel the ground give way beneath your feet during the month of October. GOP poll numbers are falling again (see Rasmussen today if you don’t believe me), and the “I stood firm on torture” talk coming out the of White House now is not exactly a winning message with the voters. We are stuck with two wars that we cannot win and cannot leave, and people are just tired of all the bullshit.
2:12 pm
Salty
We can win. It will require a greater commitment of troops and resources. I’m hoping the Democrats will step up and take the lead on this issue and push for more troops for Iraq and Afghanistan.
we can leave. If this is the option that is chosen, we should invest more heavily in border security. This is a good idea any way. Since we are unwilling to make the necssary commitment, we will be withdrawing most of our forces from Iraq and Afghanistan very soon. This will happen no matter who wins the House or the Senate.
I’m hoping a Democrat will step up and take the lead on getting more troops for us for Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately this does not seem likely to happen. I don’t think either party is as serious about this as they should be.
2:30 pm
If the Republicans had gained any momentum it was not been because of how they have handled Iraq or how they have fought the GWOT. It is becuase of declining gasoline prices. Actually I think any so called momentum is wishful thinking on the part of Republican partisians and does not reflect reality.
2:36 pm
Poster:
Disagree. The trends were turning positive for the GOP - right track/wrong track as narrowing as was the generic ballot.
That plus issues started to turn the GOP way like terror and social issues. Mr. Snax is whistling past the graveyard when he thinks the detainee bill helps dems. If it is, how come so many dems voted for it? Ditto on the surviellance bill.
No – the momentum was real. And the real problem for the dems is that just about now the American people are turning to them to see what they’re going to do about terrorism, Iraq, Iran, and other security issues.
And the Democrats don’t have a damned thing to offer – no coherent policy and the general feeling that they are squishy on the issue.
Does this mean the GOP remains in control? Not hardly. But it does make the dems position incredibly vulnerable to the 50 million dollar ad blitz the GOP is planning for the last 2 weeks of the campaign.
3:03 pm
We shall see, won’t we. I just can’t see how a rash of TV ads proclaiming how rough and tough the GOP likes to think of itself as being is going to move the needle very much. How much free press and publicity did Bush get during his 9-11 media blitz? Beyond making people more conscious of Osama bin Laden’s continuing freedom, it didn’t change a thing.
People are sick of the war in Iraq, and are tired of hearing about it. A bunch of malarkey from the people who got us into this mess in the first place isn’t going to exactly light anyone’s fire.
And besides, the Democrats got some cash of their own to burn. Please do not forget that.
3:35 pm
woodward is the democrat’s October Surprize.
They are already starting to drible out bits and pieces of it on the shows.
spitting chrissy matthews, alan devil eyebrows colmes is grinning over it, God knows what oldberman fired from sportcasting will do with it.
The thing about this book is its OLD NEWS and wooward has no named sources in the entire book.
How lame is this …. duh, let me guess.
3:51 pm
[...] This book is a gossip novel spewing out stories from anonymous sources that will make the biggest gossip hound salivate. Rick Moran details the NEW news Woodward is supposedly the first to chronicle: This hasn’t stopped the New York Times (who apparently got an advance copy – even before the Post was able to serialize the book prior to publication) from breathlessly reporting as “news†those facts which are already well known and whose only shock value will be in the way they are reported not that there is anything revelatory about them. In this respect, the Times and other news organs do the Democratic party a favor by going “green†and recycling – not to conserve but rather to destroy. [...]
3:53 pm
Hey, pretty nice job of poo-pooing the content of Woodward’s new book. I also would like to commend you for not trying to call his integrity in to question, although there was a moment when it looked like you were going to go down that road. I agree with you, the content probably is not that earth shaking, but the title says it all. “State of Denial.” Great title and it will be shown ever 5 minutes on cable news for the next four or five days, not mention the nightly network news, the local news and radio talk shows.
We all know this whole business is not about the truth and facts. No, rather it is all about perception and the Republicans have been the masters of manipulating perception for a long time. While there may not be anything new in Woodward’s book nothing shapes perception like repetition. Reinforcing the dysfunctional and incompetence of the administration with new nitty-gritty detail coupled the charge that they are hiding the truth from the American public can’t be good for Republicans.
Tell me, am I reading you right in your statement, “When the investigations into what’s gone wrong in Iraq begin…” that you are conceding the congress will turn over to the Democrats. Or was that a Freudian slip? It’s probably just weakness from the pneumonia.
3:55 pm
Isn’t this the same Woodward that snuck into a guarded hospital room of the dying CIA chief (completely unobserved by the wife, who was constantly at bedside) and somehow managed to extract tons of information? Hmmmm, methinks Mr Woodward is related to the Clintons…much air, little pressure. The guy is a dork, plan and simple.
3:56 pm
oops, that’s “plain and simple” ...as in the intellectual ability of the entire Clinton crew… a set which includes Woodward.
4:04 pm
That’s Bob “I see dead people…” Woodward!
By the way, what type of psychosis is it, that someone names themselves “Salty Party Snax”???
What happened? Did you get abused by a bowl of Chex Snacks as a kid?
4:23 pm
Dale – Nah. It refers to President Bush’s life and death struggle with a pretzel.
And you? As a boy you decided you wanted to be Dale Evans?
6:17 pm
“did you get abused by a bowl of Chex Snacks as a kid” -Dale LOL! Seriously though, a hit job? Those are strong words.
6:37 pm
Rick
Thanks for the reply to my post. I remember reading some information about trends turning positive for the Republicans. I did not see the internals to the polls or anything like that. I just don’t see how issues such as terrorism or Iraq can be helping the Republicans in any way. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going well right now. In a long war, such as this, there will be ups and downs. Things can be turned around but it will likely require changes in strategy, furthermore, the Republicans have largely allowed the Democrats to define the debate on Iraq, Afghanistan, the interogation bill, and the survellience bill.
If the polls are to be trusted, the only thing that could possibly be helping the President or the Republicans is the price of gasoline. Contrary to what some people believe the war in Iraq is not the most important issue to most people. For better or worse most people are worried more about “will I keep my job?” “Can I buy school supplies?” “Can I pay the home heating bill this winter?” “Can I pay the kid’s college tuitiion?” “How much will it cost to fill the gas tank this week?” In other word’s, economic issues are the most important to America’s voters. The irony of this is while lower fuel prices may be helping the Republicans and the President this is the issue they probably have the least control over.
Salty
You are right some people are sick of hearing about the war in Iraq and they are tired of hearing about it. The news media is not tired of hearing about it. After all I think the saying goes “if it bleeds, it leads.” If we withdraw from Iraq, it will likely bleed even more profusely than it is now. This will give the media plenty to talk about.
The way not to hear about it is to commit more troops. This will get security under control. There will be much less for the media to talk about. They will lose interest. Also, we will be able to disarm the militias much sooner. This will end the war quicker.
As I’ve said before, we are going to completely out of Shia and Sunni areas by mid 2007. The only thing that can change that dynamic would be another terrorist on the American home land. When this happens, the Iraqi civil war will turn more violent. This will give the media plenty to talk about. If we don’t want to hear about Iraq any more, commit the resources to get it done and give Democracy a chance to succeed but alas we are not going to make the commitment necessary hence the prediction. Btw, if my prediction is wrong, I will come here and admit it.
7:25 pm
Salty: “And you? As a boy you decided you wanted to be Dale Evans?”
Ah, as you may know, Dale can be both a female or male name; I just happen to be a lady, so you’re not really insulting me, if you think that’s what you were doing?
7:47 pm
B Poster: You mean to say that the half a trillion dollars in resources for Iraq turned over to Donald “Captain Queeg” Rumsfeld wasn’t enough? Damn. How much do we have left on our Bank of Beijing Master Card any way?
That Iraq is turning out to be one very expensive date.
7:48 pm
Dale: I’m very sorry to hear that. I’ve always held women in the highest regard.
8:29 pm
Salty
Like you I’m concerned about how much we are borrowing from China. We can move away from borrowing money from China by cutting most of the social well fare programs we have. We are trying to run a quasi nanny state and trying to fight a war on multiple fronts. Also, the pork barrel spending needs to go.
We spend much more money on fruitless social programs than we have on the Iraq war. The country should be placed on a war footing as soon as possible, much like in WWII. This should happen even if we withdraw from Iraq. We still have Afghanistan, Venezueala, and other threats to deal with. Also, we need to have a “Manhattan Project” of sorts to achieve complete energy independence. Alternatives to oil are not feasible, in the short term. So we will have to develop more of our own oil and gas resources. The enviro-whackos will need to take a long hiatus.
Apparently some folks thought we could run the war on the cheap so to speak. They thought wrong. You are right about Donald Rumsfeld. If the Democrats will put forward a replacement, they can probably get Rumsfeld out. I suggeest General Eric Shinseki. At a minimum, to win in Iraq will require more resources. Congress which includes the Democrats need to excersize the proper over sight to make sure that Don Rumsfeld or who ever is Sec of Defense does what they need to do.
Given the current domestic political situation, we will not be commiting the resources to this that it needs. As such, we will be withdrawing soon. The bottom line is the mission never got the resources it should have. It is unlikely it would have gotten the resources it needed had they been asked for from the beginning. This is up to Congress. Even if the Republicans wanted to do it, which I don’t think they did, the Democrats would have filibustered it. After all, we can’t take money from the children. We must continue the nany state. If we don’t continue the nanny state, the media will shriek like stuck pigs.
By withdrawing to Kurdish areas this will give us some flexibilty to intervene to prevent the formation of terrorist bases. I hope and pray this works because it will be the strategy of choice. If it fails, we will have to go back into Iraq in masse.
What no one really wants to address is an Iraq war that began as a war of choice may have morphed into a war of necessity due to horrific mismanagement. I prefer to commit the resources that would be necessary to get this done properly now. It will only be even more difficult later, should we have to go back into Iraq later. We can do it. It just needs the proper commitment from the Government, the American people, and the news media.
8:44 pm
While, in an ideal situation, I would like to commit more troops and financial resources to Iraq, which we could do, if we wanted to, it may not be consistent with American national security interests. We need to remain flexible enough to handle threats from Russia, China, and Venezuela.
This government won’t even actively work to secure the borders. Both Republicans and Democrats are fundamentally unserious about national defense, at this time.
9:13 pm
Salty Party Snax Said:
7:48 pm
“Dale: I’m very sorry to hear that. I’ve always held women in the highest regard.”
Sigh….........
The juvenile is back…....
Sigh…...........
Say more, go ahead; you’re neck deep in the crapper, and furiously try to flush yourself down….......
Sigh….........
10:22 pm
Well if that doesn’t do the trick, this should:
As the icky-email scandal broke wide open, Mark Foley quickly resigned his House seat. But he’s left some big questions behind. Foremost among them: It looks like his activities were known by others, including leaders in his party, for months before they became public—so why didn’t they do anything?
The AP brings new details about how senior Republicans received the news months ago that one of their own appeared to be soliciting a minor, and apparently did little to intervene.
Kaboom
Say goodnight Gracie.
10:46 pm
Ricahrd
Why was this not stopped? Thats a very good question. If these activities were known about for months by Republican leaders before they went public, they would have also been known about for months by Democratic party leaders. Given how closely Democrats monitor Republicans and how closely Republicans monitor Democrats Democratic party leaders would have also known about this for months to. If they could not have prevented this through regular channels, they could have leaked it to the press. Neither Republicnas nor Democrats acted to stop this. The reason is becuase both parties are corrupt and need to be removed from power.
This assumes that the details of this were known for months, which is probably correct. Bo one acted to stop this. Trly disgraceful.
11:11 pm
Rick:
You favorably cite several “facts” regarding things like Shinseki’s fantastically unrealistic calls for 400,000 troops and the fact that Rumsfeld had lost credibility with “the Generals” among others.
All are open to serious debate and lest one has actually reconstructed a country on their own (let alone simple government contracting), overconfident assertions of “mismanagement” are unwarranted.
11:24 pm
So does Foley prove that GOP stands for Grand Old Perverts?
11:47 pm
Okay, first the preemptory stuff: Every American is afforded the right to be presumed Innocent before proven Guilty!
Okay, that’s the Legality; the court of public opinion, of which I’m a member says:
He’s a paedeophilic scumbag hypocrite, and he deserves everything he gets!
And, since these original charges were referrd over a year ago; the Republican leadership of the House, is negligent, IF they knew, for NOT forcing him to resign a year ago!
IF this incident, causes some type of voter rebellion, and the Republican’s lose the House now, as a result, despite the timing of this now is clearly a Leftist hit-job, then, they deserve it!
11:51 pm
It is going to take a lot more than $50 million dollars in
Republican ads to overcome Foley.
What do you think, boy f*ckers and torture.
Pattern? Anybody?
Squeal like a pig? Boy?
12:03 am
Umm not so much.
Heh.
12:12 am
Book Says Top Aide Urged Bush to Fire Rumsfeld
Former White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr. on two occasions tried and failed to persuade
1:40 am
Richard
She might want to ask her fellow Democrats why they did not inform her of this before now. Republicans monitoring Democrats and Democrats monitoring Republicans is a full time job. Both parties spend more time monitoring each other than they do looking after the interests of the nation’s citizens.
Either the Democrats who are over seeing the actions of the Republicans did not inform her, she was not paying attention when they did inform her, the Democrats who are over seeing the Republicans are so incomptent that they somehow missed this, or Ms. Pelosi is lying.
I’m not one to accuse people of nefarious activities without proof and I don’t level the charge of incompetence lightly. I am going to assume she and the leadership simply were not paying attention when the leadership was informed. For each party, watching what the other one is doing is a full time job. It seems unlikely they would be so incomptent to have missed this.
The point is both Republican and Democratic Congressional staffers would have known about this for a very long time and an investigation was not started until now. Oversight by both parties of each other is, to an extent, a legitimate function of Government.
As I said earlier, I generally don’t like to accuse people without clear evidence but it looks like this is a case of partisian politics. Oversight of each party by the other is a full time job. If we assume the Democratic party leadership somehow missed this, this requires us to assume they are completely incompetent. They clearly are not. They would have known about this. Staffers in both parties and probably the leaders would have known about this but it is only being reported during an election season. It leads one to believe that if this were not an election season both parties would have allowed a suspected pervert to go scott free. This does not reflect well on the Government as a whole.
If the roles were reversed and the Democrats controlled more seats in the House and Senate and it was a Democrat being accused and this was just now coming forward, I would ask the same questions. Why are the Republicans just now bringing this forward? If they say they did not know, this would mean that even though oversight of the Democrats is a full time job and always has been they were somehow so incompetent they missed it. People don’t rise to the level of Representative or Senator by being incompetent.
In other words, it is highly unlikely that top offfials in both parties did not know about this. Given that they had to have known, they did not come forward with this. Either both parties are to incompetent to have known or they are both corrupt. Either way you look at this, both parties are unfit for the offices they hold and should be voted out.
Finally. Mr. Foley is innocent until proven guilty. This should be investigated and the chips should fall where they may. If he is guilty, and it looks like he is, he should have to pay steep consequences in prison time.
3:46 am
Who gives a damn if it’s poltics, your guys are toast. Your Jedi mind tricks won’t work any more.
Hastert is going to spend the next month explaining why he allowed this to happen, and just maybe why he should remain as Speaker of the House.
Please pass the popcorn.
8:08 am
Most plastic tight face in the nation, nancy polosi, will NOT be the majority leader, get you collective heads outta the sand guys.
8:11 am
OH, AND ABOUT FOLEY, GLAD HE IS GONE, SOUNDS LIKE A REAL SLEAZE BALL TO US REPUBLICANS, BUT IT IS O.K. FOR BARNEY FRANKS TO BE RUNNING A PROSTITUTION RING OUTTA HIS BASEMENT AND THERE HE STANDS, IN ALL HIS RIGHTOUS INDIGNATION, talk about your double standards, we do something wrong, we resign, yall screw up, well ….....
8:30 am
The Rumsfeld Narrative continues on botching post-war Iraq. He may have done many things wrong but after Bush appointed Brenner, disasters multiplied. In June 2002, President Bush appointed Ambassador Bremer. Ambassador usually are not part of DoD? I would consider General Garner (served maybe two months) as a DoD person, started with a plan opposite of what the politicians approved. After June 2002, the DoD was hardly in control and went to a supporting role. After Brenner’s momumental mistakes, as approved by the politicians (can you say Powell), the course was set as we now see it being played out. Does anyone recall the debate that kicked Garner out? Wasn’t it something about not having the military in charge, needing the State department, the politics of getting “partners” for reconstruction, and a host of other reasons?
Below echos most of the critics pointing to Brenner’s decisions as the cause of where we are now and, interestingly, point to Garner’s plan as what should have been done. But how one morphs all this to Rumsfeld as the scapegoat is a mystery. He should have resigned or, as Franks, just retired, and maybe that’s his crime.
“The first committee formed to oversee the reconstruction effort was the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), led by Jay Garner who had been involved in humanitarian efforts in Northern Iraq after the first Gulf War. Garner, who began drafting plans for post-Saddam Iraq in early January, arrived in Baghdad at the end of April 2003. His objectives included food delivery, emergency assistance, reestablishing electricity and other basic services, reshaping the Iraqi military, safeguarding Iraq’s infrastructure and uncovering weapons of mass destruction. One of Garner’s most vital objectives was to retain the Iraqi army to utilize it in the reconstruction process as well as to avoid massive unemployment.
Unfortunately, L. Paul Bremer III, who was appointed to lead the newly formed Coalition Provisional Authority (CPO), which ORHA was dissolved into, replaced Garner. Upon his arrival Bremer began a process of “De-Baathification” of the Iraqi army. The Baath party was Saddam Hussein’s former political party. According to The Council on Foreign Relations, Bremer made two “sweeping” orders: one outlawed the Baath party and dismissed all senior officials from their posts; the other dissolved Iraq’s 500,000-member military and intelligence services. Bremer’s actions crippled the reconstruction effort and made it impossible for American troops to withdraw from Iraq. The stage was set for a long, violent and expensive occupation.”
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/790/60/
12:48 pm
Richard
I’m sorry I have trouble making myself clear. The Republicans are not “my guys.” Personally I can’t stand Republicans and I would not know which Jedi mind tricks you would be referring to. Both parties will flat out lie when it serves them and they think they can get away with it. I will not be voting for any Republicans this time around. I will be voting for third party candidates. I’m leaning toward the Constitution party.
The question I suggested that the Aemrican people should pose is why was this not exposed sooner by either Republicans or Democrats. Both parties almost certainly would have known about it.
I could be persuaded to vote for Democrats, if they will make a commitment to allocate the appropiate resources to Iraq to do the job properly and they if will drop the various lies that say “Bush lied” and the variations of these diatribes.
The Republicans have lost all credibility. Right now I am unable to see a situation where I could be persuded to vote for Republicans in November. I say vote for a third party. Give someone a shot at power who currently does not have it.
With the Foley case the important thing is to bring the pervert to justice, if he is commited. Right now he looks very guilty. Also any politician rather they are Republican or Democrat who aided or abeeted him should be brought to justice. No one should use this situation to play partisian politics.
6:31 pm
You know it is real tempting…
To say I told you so. The current mia culpas coming from the right almost cry out for it. I could point out that all of us who criticized this war were called traitors, Bush Haters and worse. But not…