Simon & Schuster plans to publish the book on Oct. 15
Posted on 10/09/2024 9:13:22 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
So much outrage (including from Vice President and Democratic presidential contender Kamala Harris) about the claim in Bob Woodward’s upcoming book that Donald Trump during his presidency sent some test kits to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin at the height of the Covid pandemic when they were scarce in the United States. And about the famed journalist’s report that the former president called Putin seven times since the former left the Oval Office in January, 2021. (See, e.g., here.)
And so little about by far the biggest outrage described in War (if true, of course – as with the above revelations): that President Biden may have pushed the United States, and the world, to within a coin flip of nuclear war in Ukraine.
Think I’m kidding? Here’s the description by CNN – which broke the news about Woodward’s book – his account of a crucial moment in U.S. policy toward Russia’s invasion. It’s worth quoting in full:
By September 2022, US intelligence reports deemed “exquisite” revealed a “deeply unnerving assessment” of Putin — that he was so desperate about battlefield losses that he might use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
“Based on the alarming new intelligence reports, the White House believed there was a 50% chance Russia would use a tactical nuclear weapon — a striking assessment that had skyrocketed up from 5% and then 10%, Woodward reports.
“’On all channels, get on the line with the Russians,’ Biden instructed his national security adviser, Jake Sullivan. ‘Tell them what we will do in response,’ he said, according to Woodward.”
That’s the key phrase: “Tell them what we will do in response.”
It doesn’t necessarily mean that Mr. Biden had decided to use a nuclear weapon against Russia itself, or even against Russian forces inside Ukraine, or was considering such actions. Nor does it necessarily mean that the president had decided to deploy U.S. military forces in Ukraine in response.
But it’s difficult to imagine what else President Biden might have been thinking of that would deter the Russians from a step like tactical nuclear weapons use, or that would have convinced them to abandon this policy after firing one nuclear shot.
Simon & Schuster plans to publish the book on Oct. 15
And the real outrage here – again, if Woodward has the story right – is that Mr. Biden actually was prepared to run such a catastrophic risk on behalf of a country whose fate Washington had never officially considered to be a remotely vital American security interest even at the height of the Cold War — and still hasn’t.
It’s one thing to threaten nuclear weapons use to protect a country or region that has been deemed a vital interest by U.S. leaders – like Western Europe or Japan. Or to do so when adversaries try to place nuclear weapons close to the American homeland (as was the case with the Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962).
But even to contemplate Armageddon in a situation meeting absolutely none of these characteristics? How can that be viewed as anything but needlessly reckless and even suicidal?
Bob Woodward reports that at one point Biden believed there was a 50% chance of Russia using nukes over Ukraine
He chose to escalate the war anyways and lied to the American people about the risk
pic.twitter.com/Ce8IMAST9w — Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) October 8, 2024
Keep that in mind the next time you hear that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is too dangerously off his rocker to be fit for the presidency (in particular that his warnings about the current administration bringing World War III closer are nothing more than fear-mongering). And that the aforementioned Kamala Harris, when asked what she would have done differently from Mr. Biden, responded, “Not a thing that comes to mind.”
(President Biden may have pushed the United States, and the world, to within a coin flip of nuclear war in Ukraine.)
THIS
🔝🔝🔝
That he got paid for this garbage!
Bkmk
Woodward is 81 years old. I think he is conducting his last mission as a CIA sheep-dipped creep, and disinformation outlet
Who knows how much crap is mixed in with half-truths for this book?
100% agree.
This article is as idiotic as Woodword’s crap.
Garbage in garbage out.
The problem with Bob Woodard is he is a liar. He says he interviewed Bob Casey the ex director of the CIA on his death bed. On his death bed Casey said many things derogatory of President Reagan per Bob Woodard.
Casey was in ICU and comatose. In ICU are numerous people caring for the patient and access to a patient is only by approval by the staff, and is mostly family. Some dude walking in and saying I want to talk to him without good reason would not happen. No staff remembered his presence.
When Bob Woodard lies he often speaks some truth. He does this as the truths gives confusion and legitimacy to his lies.
Bob Woodard is a political activist and not a reporter. He lies for political purposes.
Bob Woodard is simply a liar of the highest degree. But I must admit he is a very good liar.
Don’t they have any younger authors at the Pickle Factory, they have to pull this idiot out of mothballs?
I think your question is rhetorical and extends across a swath of political and historic publications.
While I write this, Steven Ambrose is on my mind.
Woodward is an ass. Like Putin would need to have Trump send him test kits. Hasn’t this idiot ever heard of Russian embassies around the world. I am sure if Putin needed test kits, the order would go out to all embassies to procure them and they would be sent to Moscow in a diplomatic pouch.
Bob Woodward putting out a book weeks before the election bad mouthing Trump is such a surprise, I mean who would have thought he would do such a thing? /s
Bob has been one of the Deep State’s most useful idiots for decades. They feed him the dirt and he makes sure it’s timely release helps to accomplish whatever their agenda is at the time.
And what if he did?
Only dumb democrats would think it’s a sin to keep on good terms with the leader of the world’s largest nuclear stockpile by sending a few hundred bucks of COVID tests.
Money well spent in my opinion.
If some miserable NRP guttersnipe journalista asks Trump why he called Putin, Trump should reply: "Because a much better man than you, great man - terrific - not like you fake news people with your nasty questions - once said 'It is better to jaw jaw than to war war.'"
All of the dildoe’s books are worthless. The boy is a fraud. A real jackass. Anybody live through his era of Watergate knows that.
I wonder what % of the the average low info voter actually understands what would happen to our country in a nuclear exchange?
"When you actually look at the substance of what this administration has done, not the rhetoric but the substance, this administration has been much tougher on Russia than any in the post-Cold War era," said Daniel Vajdich, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. Take military spending: Trump sought to add $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2018 to the European Deterrence Initiative — a military effort to deter Russian aggression that was initially known as the European Reassurance Initiative. That's a 41 percent increase from the last year of the Obama administration.
The president also agreed to send lethal weapons to Ukraine — a step that Obama resisted. And Trump gave U.S. forces in Syria more leeway to engage with Russian troops... "Those loosened rules of engagement have resulted in direct military clashes with Russian militants and mercenaries on the ground, actually resulting in one incident in hundreds of casualties on the Russian side," Vajdich said.
The administration has also imposed sanctions on dozens of Russian oligarchs and government officials... tough policies...have to be weighed against Trump's rhetoric, which is consistently friendly to Putin. ."There's a real disconnect between the president's words and the underlying policy," said Richard Fontaine, president of the Center for a New American Security. - https://www.npr.org/2018/07/20/630659379/is-trump-the-toughest-ever-on-russia
And from from 12/26/17 there is
Trump Sends Tank-Killing Missile To Fight Russia in Ukraine, But What Can It Do? By John Haltiwanger On 12/26/17 at 5:53 PM EST The decision to sell the Javelin missiles also comes not long after the Trump administration approved a limited weapons sale between American manufacturers and Ukraine of Model M107A1 sniper systems, ammunition and associated equipment...It's fired from the shoulder and tracks targets via infrared (heat signature). Instead of targeting the front or sides of tanks, which are thick with armor, the missile flies in an arc and hits the top of tank where the armor is weak..
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko defended the move in a Facebook post, thanking President Donald Trump for his support. Poroshenko further described the arms sale as "a transatlantic vaccination against the Russian virus of aggression." - https://www.newsweek.com/trump-tank-killing-missile-fight-russia-ukraine-759745
And as reported by abcnews.go.com om Dec. 23, 2020,
"Previously, as reported by ABC News – Breaking News, Latest News, Headlines & Videos om Dec. 23, 2020, "Trump admin approves new sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine.." ,The new package included Javelin anti-tank weapons, 150 missiles and two launchers, which came after a first sale, completed in March 2018, which included 210 Javelin missiles and 37 launch units.. ,
"The Trump administration first approved the sale of Javelins to Ukraine in December 2017 -- a step that former President Barack Obama never took.... ..
Before that, "Russia's Putin praises Obama's missile defense decision" to "cancel a radar installation in the Czech Republic and ground-based interceptors planned for Poland," LA Times Sep 19, 2009
And those who protest NATO's overall spending of only about 3% of its GDP are opposing Trump. For contrary to being a Putin puppet as the Left prevaricates - and who were blaming him in Feb. 2020 for this invasion,
4/3/19
July 11, 2018 U.S. President Donald Trump told NATO leaders on Wednesday they should increase their defense spending to 4 percent of their country’s economic output, double the group’s current goal of two percent/
October 21, 2020 NATO spending has increased for the sixth consecutive year thanks to new contributions from allies, Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in prepared remarks Wednesday...Canada and European countries' spending increased this year at a rate of 4.3 percent...Russia and China's aggressive behavior during Trump's term is one reason for the allies' increased spending.
It’s worse than Watergate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
