It was in the papers yesterday and on the news last night that Colin Powell takes strong exception to the way Woodward has charcterized him and adamently denied that he was kept out of the loop in any way or that he did not completely agree with and support the president at all times. The Saudi Arabians are also adamently protesting that Woodward has completely misrepresented their discussions with President Bush and the Americans and there is absolutely no 'deal' re oil production or prices.
It's sort of like so much of Richard Clarke's book being debunked by witnesses to the 9/11 commission. Of course some people will believe what they want to believe.
infowarrior wrote:Bush's dismissive remark to Bob Woodward that he "travels in elite circles" made me laugh out loud when I heard it retold to Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes.
After all, Bush was born into the upper tier of the elites. The "aw shucks" schtick may make him seen like a man of "Joe Public" but nothing could be further from reality.
Bush is a New England blue blood and a graduate of Yale. He's about as elite as you can get in this country.
infowarrior
This is a particularly revealing comment from Bush, and about american mythology.
At first hearing, one wonders "What the HELL is this man talking about?"
- His father was the President of the US, and earlier, director of CIA, plus holding other senior posts, and as such, Bush Jr was raised in a household where the political and economic leaders of the nation (the world?) traipsed through regularly over a period of many years.
- His family had great wealth, and he attended the sorts of elite schools available only to such families.
- His father's position as president afforded him connections and opportunities open to what percentage of americans? 1 in 20 million? 1 in 50 million?
So, what the hell is he talking about? What 'elite' does Woodward represent to Bush and to which Bush felt he had no membership?
A good clue comes from his presidential debate where he answered the "Who is your favorite philosopher?" question. One wishes the questioner had followed up with "Name four, and give a sentence on their importance to western thought."
Another clue comes from the period when Bush was running for the nomination, and in a visit to Florida, he was pulled away from his (ever present) handlers by a very bright young Canadian satirist who inquired of Bush what he thought of Canada and of Canada's Prime Minister Jean Poutine. Bush went on to talk about how much respect he had for Prime Minister Poutine (the name, of course, was Jean Chretien...poutine is a french canadian concoction of fries, cheese, and gravy).
The part of America which Bush has never felt he held membership with is that large community of the well educated and intellectual-minded. The life of the mind has never been his strong suit. The priviledge, connections, and wealth haven't helped him much here, though they could have, if we were a different sort of person and if he were more talented.
Yet, there are many people on this board and elsewhere who have or will contend that the above is far less curse than blessing. And that is a strain of thought which comes up through American history from the very beginning - a mythology which has served certain purposes and individuals, but which is simply a story.
Blatham
Blatham, the story changes day to day. This morning on CNN, the Prince admitted that Woodward's story was correct. The Prince said the Saudi-US oil price policy just follows a long standing pattern of serving mutual interests.
BBB
Todays AP story re-stating that the Saudis deny Woodward's account.
http://ap.washingtontimes.com/dynamic/stories/S/SAUDI_WOODWARD_BOOK?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
Why is it you suppose that some refuse to accept information other than that they have decided to believe?
Powell: We were instructed to talk to Woodward
Powell: We were instructed to talk to Woodward
President's campaign site calls book 'suggested reading'
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Secretary of State Colin Powell and other administration officials Monday disputed some points raised in journalist Bob Woodward's provocative new inside account of the march to war in Iraq -- a book that nevertheless appears to have earned the White House seal of approval.
In an interview Monday in which he disputed suggestions by Woodward that he was out of the loop and dragooned into supporting President Bush on the war, Powell confirmed that the White House had told administration officials to cooperate with Woodward's "Plan of Attack."
"We all talked to Woodward. It was part of our instructions from the White House," Powell said. "It was an opportunity to help him write a contemporary history of this period."
Unlike the hostile treatment accorded recent tell-all tomes from former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and counterterrorism adviser Richard Clark, Woodward's book received a generally positive reception at the White House. The president's campaign Web site even listed the book as "suggested reading," providing a direct link to order a copy from Amazon.com.
Debate continues over timing of war decision
Bush was one of 75 people interviewed by Woodward, who reported that the president ordered up secret plans for an invasion of Iraq in November 2001 and made the decision to go to war on his own, without soliciting the opinions of his vice president or secretaries of defense or state.
"It is, in a sense, the story of his presidency. This is the decision he made, he made it all alone. There was no committee vote," Woodward told CNN's "Larry King Live" on Monday. "He's the one who thought this story should be told."
But just when Bush made the fateful decision to go to war is one part of the book that is being disputed by the White House. Woodward said Bush made up his mind that war would be necessary in early January 2003 and then began telling his top advisers.
Both national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card have said that the final decision to launch military action did not come until March, after Powell went to the U.N. Security Council in early February to make the administration's case for military action.
Woodward said he agrees with Card that the decision to go to war was not absolutely final until it became irrevocable as the March 19 invasion approached. But he told King that the source for his assertion that the actual decision was made earlier was the president himself.
Woodward said Bush told him that when he met in the Oval Office with Powell on January 13, 2003, it was "not a meeting to have a discussion. This was a meeting to tell Colin Powell that a decision had been made and that the president wanted his support."
He also said that when Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met on January 11 with Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan to go over war plans, they made it clear to Bandar that they planned to depose Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, with Cheney telling the prince that once the war started, Saddam would be "toast."
However, both Powell and Prince Bandar insisted Monday that they did not come away from their respective meetings with the impression that Bush had made a final decision to go to war.
Bandar, who joined Woodward on "Larry King Live," said Woodward accurately reported that both Cheney and Rumsfeld told him that if war came, Saddam would not survive. But the ambassador said both men "told me before the meeting that the president had not made a decision."
Earlier, Bandar told CNN's "Paula Zahn Now" that he found out about the decision to launch military action the night before the invasion began.
Powell also said that during his January 13 meeting with the president, Bush "did not convey to me" that he had made a final decision to invade Iraq.
"He sent me back to do my diplomatic work," Powell said.
Pentagon says war funds properly spent
In another matter related to the book, the Pentagon Monday was forced to explain Woodward's charge that in the summer of 2002, Bush approved spending $700 million to prepare for war in Iraq -- money that was diverted from an appropriation for the war in Afghanistan -- without telling Congress.
Woodward suggested the diversion might have been illegal. But after reviewing the expenditures Monday, Pentagon officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the money was properly spent on projects to support the global war on terrorism that were "not specific" to war planning.
The Pentagon carefully reviewed a request from the head of the U.S. Central Command, Gen. Tommy Franks, for $750 million in "improvements" he wanted as part of the contingency planning for possible war with Iraq, officials said.
A senior budget official said "nothing Iraq specific" was authorized and that $178 million in funds were reprogrammed to cover fuel, additional humanitarian rations and improvements to CentCom's forward operating headquarters in Qatar. Those expenditures were "fully consistent" with the requirements of the supplemental funds provided by Congress in 2001 and 2002, the official said.
The rest of projects in CentCom's request -- which actually cost about $800 million -- were not approved until after October 25, when Congress had voted to authorize the war, the official said.
While some Democrats in Congress called for a full accounting, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett disputed Woodward's contention that the money might have been illegally diverted.
"The letter of the law was followed in this case, as we have in every case spending taxpayers' dollars," he told CNN's "Inside Politics."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said earlier in the day that both the Pentagon and the Office of Management and Budget would review the expenditures, but he noted that "in emergency spending there is broad discretion in how those funds could be used in the war on terrorism. And Iraq is part of the war on terrorism."
McClellan also said that the White House was "confident" that members of Congress were "fully informed of all expenditures."
In his book, Woodward suggested that Powell was kept out of the loop in decision-making before the war and only reluctantly went along with a policy he strongly opposed.
But the secretary of state told reporters Monday that "when the president decided that we had to go down the road of military action, it was a road I knew was there all along, and I was as committed as anyone else to see the end of this [Iraqi] regime."
"My support was willing, and it was complete," Powell said, although he also conceded that he "will always plead guilty to being cautious about matters having to do with war and peace."
Powell also took issue with the impression left by Woodward's characterization of the meetings on January 11 between Cheney, Rumsfeld and Prince Bandar, during which they discussed war plans, and his own meeting with Bush two days later in which the president is quoted as telling Powell, "I really think I'm going to have to do this."
Powell said the idea that Bandar was given information that was not being shared with the secretary of state is incorrect.
"I was included in all of the military planning preparations. I was briefed on a regular basis," said Powell, a retired Army general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "I was intimately familiar with the plan. I was aware that Prince Bandar was being briefed on the plan."
But Woodward insisted that while Powell may have indeed seen the war plans, Bandar learned of Bush's decision from Cheney and Rumsfeld before Powell learned about it from Bush.
"The issue is not the plan. The issue is the decision," Woodward told King, adding that Rice urged Bush to tell Powell quickly because of concerns the secretary might first hear the news from Bandar.
Powell says relationship with Cheney 'excellent'
Powell also disputed Woodward's contention that he and Cheney were so estranged by their differences over the war that they barely speak, insisting that his relationship with the vice president is "excellent."
"When the vice president and I are alone, it's Colin and Dick," he said.
But Woodward insisted his characterization of the friction between the two men is correct.
"Powell is the diplomat. He is the reluctant warrior. He is the cautious person, and Cheney is much more hard-lined, believes that with someone like Saddam Hussein, you can't play patty-cake, diplomacy doesn't work," he said.
----------------------------------------------
CNN's Jamie McIntyre, John King and Ted Barrett contributed to this report.
Re: Blatham
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Blatham, the story changes day to day. This morning on CNN, the Prince admitted that Woodward's story was correct. The Prince said the Saudi-US oil price policy just follows a long standing pattern of serving mutual interests.
BBB
Yes. Is there anyone on the face of the earth who would expect the Prince to say anything at all except the above?
Excerpt from Woodward book re Tony Blair's war support:
Excerpt from Woodward book re Tony Blair's war support:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28710-2004Apr20.html
From 60 minutes last week:
Quote:But, it turns out, two days before the president told Powell (of the decision to go to war), Cheney and Rumsfeld had already briefed Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador. Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election - to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.
To recap: President Strong-on-Terror passed state secrets to the ambassador of a nation
known to support terrorism. Said ambassador of foreign power agreed to manipulate oil prices in an attempt to influence the November election.
A couple of imponderables:
Why isn't any of the right impugning the patriotism of journalist Woodward with the same vigor they did career civil servant Richard Clarke?
I recall a certain spider's use of 'traitor'.
And secondly:
Why is Bush not facing impeachment proceedings?
Not necessarily a rhetorical question.
Presidents have faced impeacment for much less...
PD...have you read Alterman's book "What Liberal Media"? Exceptional read...it was recommended by Timber, if I recall correctly.
I truly have trouble imagining what it might take to actually get impeachment procedings started on Bush. My legal knowledge here is very lousy, and I can't make the argument that impeachment is called for. But just in terms of the sea change that would be necessitated in the media, and of course, in government.
For starters, how about diverting $700 mil from an appropriations bill passed by Congress for Afghanistan and put instead, mostly in Kuwait, into construction projects to further or make possible the anticipated war in Iraq? How about not telling Congress about it? How about violating the principle of the separation of church and state? How about violating the principles and perogatives of the separation of the three branches of government? How about....?
Eric Alterman's book was one of the first to reveal the deception played on the public impression of media bias.
It really was seminal, and unleashed what is now a tidal wave of exposés about the Bushes, the Republicans, their CEO cronies, the hoodwinked fundamentalist Christians who validate the GOP by summoning their foot soldiers to the crusades, the vile hatred of the Limbaughs and Hannitys and Coulters and the vast corrupt ideology that is the modern American political right.
No Lord but the dollar, and no King but Jesus.
*whew* I feel dirty just listing them all together there.
(p.s. can't wait for Kitty Kelley's book, due this summer, on the Bushes. Oughta be a real dandy.)
It's going to take the desertion of some of the real Republicans -- the ones who believe in fiscal sanity, for example -- to finish off this cabal in charge. It's
building:
Quote:Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, charged that the president is playing political games by postponing further funding requests until after the election, to try to avoid reopening debate on the war's cost and future.
Weldon described the administration's current defense budget request as "outrageous" and "immoral" and said that at least $10 billion is needed for Iraqi operations over the next five months.
"There needs to be a supplemental, whether it's a presidential election year or not," he said. "The support of our troops has to be the number one priority of this country. . . . Somebody's got to get serious about this."
The quickest way the bloodshed stops is to make the money run out.
So how 'bout it, Prezdint Bring 'Em On?
What's it gonna cost to keep running your quagmire?
