0
   

Here is the transcript of the Woodward interview

 
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 08:35 pm
Sofia wrote:
Why isn't Tenet the source of the questions and criticisms in this case?


He is...or will be.

I agree with you, and further, I don't think that Tenet survives this account.

After reading Clarke's book I came to the conclusion that Tenet well understood the serious threat posed by al-Qaeda, but failed to communicate it up the chain seriously enough, failed to mobilize the Agency to address it, and basically did exactly what he said he did: run around with his hair on fire.

How he managed to get no one to notice his alarm seems to be as much his fault as theirs.

And after hearing this "slam-dunk" crap, I'm convinced he needs to go.

I'll be surprised if he lasts to the end of the week.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 08:38 pm
Sofia wrote:
Does it seem likely to anyone that if your CIA director tells you Its A Slam Dunk that Saddam had WMDs, and the consensus is sure SH is aiding al-Quaida, the best move is to take war to SH?


JFTR...no.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 09:31 pm
The bit about the slam dunk thing was more about what they could they show the public than convincing Bush of something he was already convinced of.

But 10 days later, the vice president said Saddam already had weapons of mass destruction. And 12 days after that, the president too had apparently been persuaded: "A lot of people understand he holds weapons of mass destruction." Three months later, on Dec. 21, 2002, Woodward says CIA Director George Tenet brought his deputy, John McLaughlin, to the oval office to show the president and the vice president their best evidence that Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 11:21 pm
Bookmark, dude.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 11:26 pm
revel

Yes, that is correct, the slam dunk seems clearly to have referred to convincing joe public.
0 Replies
 
suzy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 11:52 am
interesting...
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 11:56 am
note...most commentators are reading the 'slam dunk' line differently than did I and revel.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 05:10 pm
Quote:
(3) Bush illegally diverted funds $ 700 Million, without Congress knowing (Woodward pointed out that a little document called the Constitution plainly states this is illegal.


Turns out this money was for discretionary spending on the war on terror, not exclusively Afghanistan.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 05:26 pm
OOPS
Selwynn

Quote:
Woodward is completely on board with the Bush agenda


- his book is being promoted on the Bush campaign site as "required reading"

- he received unprecedented support and access, given full cooperation, with 75 different officials and face time with Bush. I'm sorry people but NO ADMINISTRATION does this unless they are dealing with a shill for their interests.

- The things that we consider big deals are NOT the things the public will consider big deals. Bush is a spiritual man, that will make him shoot up 5 points, not hurt him at all. The public will hear that tenet was the one who said the evidence was a sure thing, so bush isn't to blame for that, and the rest of it is probably supported by the White House for the sole reason that it muddles the picture and comes off as an apology for Bush.

- It also leads people to think that planning for Iraq started shortly after 9/11, and we know this is a lie. Planning for Iraq had been on the agenda since day one.

Anyway, I don't lump Woodward in with O'Neil or Clarke as a man of conscience helping to expose Bush's insanity. I consider him a tool of the dark side, a wolf in sheep's clothing...


*Looks like the spin is in. Woodward's book is not a slam on BushCorpse after all. It was a psy-ops sort of venture. The NeoFascists should never be underestimated. These people are diabolical and work hard at staying in power. Democrats are weak and ineffective in comparison. The battle for the hearts and minds of Americans is not for the feint of heart.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 05:33 pm
Over the top and down the lane there, pistoff.

I was disappointed by Woodward's last book, finding in it rather too much 'transcript' and not nearly enough critical analysis. But access has its rewards, and this book is wounding.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 06:50 pm
Another bookseller fluffing up the story.

Quote:
Powell denies Saudis knew Iraq war plan before him
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell denied as "silly" on Monday that he learned of President George. W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq after Saudi Arabia was informed, as journalist Bob Woodward has said.

Despite questions raised by a new Woodward book "Plan of Attack" that Powell had misgivings over the invasion, the retired general also said he knew he would support a war if he failed to find a diplomatic solution at the United Nations.

"I knew that it might happen, and I knew that when he (Bush) took that second road, I'd be with him for the whole way. I don't quit on long patrols," Powell said on the Sean Hannity radio show.

"I believe it was the right decision at the time (to go to war), and I believe it is the right decision now," he added.

The book has fueled election-year claims of rifts in the administration and that Bush was eager to invade Iraq despite warnings over an occupation that has turned out to be far more deadly for U.S. troops than the war.

Powell, who has been perceived as the most reluctant among Bush's key advisers to occupy Iraq, sought to defend his positions on the war after Woodward said he tussled with other top officials and was out of the loop on the final decision.

"When I told the president, 'This is going to be difficult, especially in the aftermath, and we are responsible for Iraq,' then I was doing my job," Powell said.

Bush told national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld first about his decision to go to war in January 2003, according to Woodward. A detailed plan was also shown to Saudi Ambassador to the United States Prince Bandar bin Sultan before Bush told Powell of his final decision, Woodward said.

"That's silly because I participated in the development of the plan. I commented on the plan when it was being developed, and I knew when Vice President Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld and General (Richard) Myers were going to go brief Prince Bandar on a plan, a plan that I was intimately familiar with," Powell said.

Powell said he did a couple of telephone interviews for the book after the White House asked Cabinet officials to cooperate with Woodward, who first won fame by helping to break open the Watergate scandal that led to President Richard Nixon's resignation.

Powell also denied another aspect of the book that said he had become estranged from Cheney because of their views on Iraq. He said they remained "friends" and had known for years how to air their differences.


Source
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 06:55 pm
Nope
No character assassintation of Woodward. Some plausible deniability by Ms Rice and Powell. This book and the revalations will melt away in a week. No damage done.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 06:57 pm
Dys, when you spout Firesign, does that mean you're having a flashback?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 07:03 pm
well panzade, aren't we all bozos on this bus?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 07:59 pm
There's a cabby in San Francisco who got flashbacked recently.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.68 seconds on 06/11/2024 at 03:21:14