Posted on 10/01/2006 9:30:00 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
Bush 'kept Blair in the dark over Iraq' by SHARON CHURCHER Last updated at 22:00pm on 30th September 2006
An explosive new book claims that Tony Blair pleaded in vain with George Bush to share vital combat intelligence about the Iraq war.
The author, Watergate journalist Bob Woodward, paints a devastating portrait of Bush as an incompetent pawn of his chief advisers and the Pentagon's war planners.
He says that, with Bush locked in a desperate battle to win re-election in 2004, they were more interested in hiding the truth about the failures to thwart the September 11 attacks and find weapons of mass destruction than running a competent military operation.
The book, State Of Denial, which is released tomorrow, reveals that the Prime Minister repeatedly complained to Bush after discovering Britain was being denied access to key information on the grounds that it was a 'foreign' nation.
The attempt to bluff the Prime Minister involved a highly class-ified database called the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) which the Pentagon used to store and communicate years of potentially embarrassing intelligence, as well as technical information about combat operations in Iraq.
Woodward says that top Pentagon officials took the decision to deny Britain access to it, apparently with the backing of America's Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
"The classified information had a caveat - NOFORN - meaning no foreigners were allowed access, a restriction that included even the British troops fighting alongside Americans in Iraq,' Woodward adds.
In July 2004, Bush assured Blair he had signed a directive saying the NOFORN rule would no longer apply to the British on military operations.
But the book says the Pentagon ignored it, hatching a scheme to hoax the British into believing they were being kept fully informed.
This just keeps getting better and better.
Which means the story's title is incorrect.
It is inevitable at some point in time, both the US and
GB will be hit with devastating assaults by Al Quaeda
using tactical nuclear weapons. This weapons will kill thousands and crash our respective economies. It will be interesting to see what all these liberal pundits have to say, then, especially if it oocurs 3-4 years into Hillary or John K's presidency....
It is inevitable at some point in time, both the US and
GB will be hit with devastating assaults by Al Quaeda
using tactical nuclear weapons. This weapons will kill thousands and crash our respective economies. It will be interesting to see what all these liberal pundits have to say, then, especially if it oocurs 3-4 years into Hillary or John K's presidency....
They will promptly pull out tons of stories tell how it is Bush' fault, and how Bush' war with Iraq diverted vital funds to prepare for Homeland Security. They will also add details on how hard at work Democratic President was at work fixing Bush's mistakes, and how this gargantuan effort still can't make up for all the Bush screw ups!
Anyone going to take a bet on that one?
This is utter BS. If the run-up to the Iraq war proves anything it's that British intelligence was better than ours.
It was way before that. There was an EO in the fall of '03,weeks if not days after 9/11. Thats when the formal documentation was done in '04, after the fact.
Aussies, Brits and Canadians always enjoyed a special relationship with us and still do. Lots more cooperation than is published. THey have played as equals in JCS exercises way before that. Their relationship is almost as an equal partner; we buy their planes, they buy ours too.
Woodward is full of it.
"In July 2004, Bush assured Blair he had signed a directive saying the NOFORN rule would no longer apply to the British on military operations. But the book says the Pentagon ignored it"
Should have said '01 instead of '03. Got my years mixed up.
what strikes me as so funny is that Woodward seems to have a problem with Kissinger as advisor on foreign affairs to President Bush ... as opposed, say, to Madeline Albright .. because (in Woodward's view) Kissinger is refighting Vietnam ... but Woodwards is forever ressurecting Watergate.
People often forget that Blair was warning the world about Saddam long before Bush was in office, so I am always suspicious of these stories about Bush deceiving Blair.
The sequel is never as good as the original
Aussies aren't foreigners anyway. Their just like Americans, only more so.
Read this. The Brits were partners as far as the USAF was Concerned.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/uscentaf_oif_report_30apr2003.pdf
Woodward, a legend in his own mind.
Woodward is a two bit intellectual with no loyalty to anyone but is desire to get in the news every election year with some half @ss book that is basically a he said she said trip.
I think the 60 minutes interview tells me that Bush is very Trumanesque in his resolve over the war on terror. Woodward sees that as weakness. I personally see it as a strength.
Believe me after reading the Daily Mail (or Daily Fish Wrap as it should be called) for three weeks while on a trip to Britain, that rag will print any negative thing they can dredge up concerning Bush and the U.S. After perusing their daily fare of sensationalist and lurid "news", I regard the rag as almost on a level as the Weekly World News.
Given his role in Chile in the 70's, we should ALL have a problem with Kissinger advising Bush on foreign affairs.
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.