Posted on 03/14/2003 9:16:56 AM PST by Sir Gawain
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:01:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
"Start with bin Laden," Bush said, "which Americans expect. And then if we succeeed, we've struck a huge blow and can move forward." He called the threat "a cancer" and added, "We don't want to define [it] too broadly for the average man to understand."
Bush at War, p. 43
As for Saddam Hussein, the president ended the debate. "I believe Iraq was involved, but I'm not going to strike them now. I don't have the evidence at this point."
Bush said he wanted them to keep working on plans for military action in Iraq but indicated there would be plenty of time to do that. Everything else, though, had to be done soon.
"Start now," the president said. "It's very important to move fast. This is the new way."
Bush at War, p. 99
Rumsfeld raised the possibility that weapons of mass destruction could be used against the United States. "It's an energizer for the American people," he said. "It's a completely different situation from anything we've ever faced before." Should the president address the issue in his speech?
"I left it out," Bush said flatly. "It could overwhelm the whole speech. At some point we have to brief the nation, absolutely. But I took it out. It's going to stay out. I thought long and hard about it."
Bush, clearly fearful of alarming people just nine days after the shocking attacks, said they would address it later, perhaps when they had better information.
"Do it in the context of an overall strategy," he said. "Need to be sure. Need to be honest," he added, "but I don't know about being brutally honest."
Bush at War, p. 106
They turned to the hot topic of anthrax. The powder in the letter mailed to Senator Daschle's office had been found to be potent, prompting officials to suggest its source was likely an expert capable of producing the bacteria in large amounts. Tenet said, "I think it's AQ" -- meaning al Qaeda. "I think there's a state sponsor involved. It's too well thought out, the powder's too well refined. It might be Iraq, it might be Russia, it might be a renegade scientist," perhaps from Iraq or Russia.
Scooter Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, said he also thought the anthrax attacks were state sponsored. "We've got to be careful on what we say." It was important not to lay it on anyone now. "If we say it's al Qaeda, a state sponsor may feel safe and then hit us thinking they will have a bye because we'll blame it on al Qaeda."
"I'm not going to talk about a state sponsor," Tenet assured them.
"It's good that we don't," said Cheney, "because we're not ready to do anything about it."
Bush at War, p. 248 (describes NSC meeting, October 17, 2001)
Lemme see. He claimed to get a hospital bed interview with William Casey - at a time that Casey was in a coma. He claims to be able to know what various figures are thinking. But, other than that, I have no reason to question the veracity of his books. /sarcasm
BTW, the White House has no need to refute Woodward's claims. To those who swallow Woodward's creative writing as fact, their denials won't matter, and to those who understand how thoroughly Woodward is discredited, no denial from the WH is needed.
Why do you think he claims to have interviewed William Casey when Casey was in a coma? Why do you think he claims to know what Nixon was thinking during Watergate? Maybe half of what he writes is accurate and half is B.S. - but how do you know which half is which? That's the problem, and that's why I don't claim to know who Bush thinks is responsible for the anthrax attacks - because I will formulate an opinion when I see information from a reliable source, not from a discredit hack journalist who claims to be able to read minds.
So, while we are waiting for the war to start, it has been going on for a while. We'll only see the overt part.
Remember that Turkey waffled for some time before finally turning us down, so we've had to re-deploy some assets and probably have had to change war plans significantly from a two-front to a one-front war. That kind of change isn't carried out overnight. Bush is dabbling with the UN, IMO, because the pieces aren't quite in place yet. If he fails to move by early April, then I'll join you in questionining what the heck is up. But there have been sufficient events to explain the delay.
Excellent points. I wouldn't be surprised if, as in Afghanistan, Special Forces are providing the framework for an indigenous uprising, and the primary function of the troops will be to occupy what has already fallen. The Iraqis aren't fanatics, they strike me as the most sane people in the Middle East who are stuck with a horrific dictator. And they have reason to be gunshy - the opposition was hung out to dry after the post Gulf-War uprising. Once they are convinced that we are serious about backing them up, IMO the dominos in Iraq will tumble very quickly.
Fred Barnes: "Publication of any book by Woodward is a major event in the Washington political community--and not only because some top government players are boosted, others not. A question always lurks: Who talked to Woodward? The rule of thumb is that those who talk extensively and leak riveting information come off better than those who don't. Maybe, maybe not. But it's clear Woodward had, in writing "Bush at War," impressive access to the people he promotes--to Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, to Tenet and much of what his agency was doing, and to what went on in the meetings of the National Security Council, the realm of the president, Rice, and Hadley. Rumsfeld and Cheney were less helpful. Rumsfeld provided only an on-the-record interview, according to an aide. Cheney was not interviewed for the book."
"There's plenty of evidence of Woodward's reporting prowess in "Bush at War"--the inside details (Bush bench presses 205 pounds), the hidden fears (Bush aide Karl Rove worries Powell is protecting his moderate credentials at Bush's expense), the private conversations ("I hope you'll never lie to me," Bush tells Senate majority leader Tom Daschle on September 12, 2001), the interior conclusions of the players (Hadley "thought" Rumsfeld didn't take the CIA seriously enough), and so on. Woodward, famed for his investigative reporting that cracked open the Watergate scandal, is the best pure reporter of his generation, perhaps ever. He uncovers more things than anyone else in journalism--important things as well as trivial, and all interesting. For example, in "The Commanders," his book about the Gulf War in 1991, Woodward revealed the strong reluctance of Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State James Baker to go to war with Iraq."
I don't agree with Woodward's politics. But, as Barnes says, he's a crack reporter. And I don't think the WH would be silent on a book that is featured at EVERY major bookstore in the country if it was full of lies, on the assumption that "well, everyone knows Woodward is a liar anyway".
Once again, oh worshipper of the great mind-reader Bob Woodward, peel yourself away from the fiction section long enough to read the news. Turkey waffled for weeks before denying us basing rights for a Northern Front. It takes time to re-deploy troops. March 17th is a full moon, so there are a couple of weeks to play with. Summertime heat doesn't kick in until late April. Plenty of time to shatter the brittle support for Saddam and roll into Baghdad.
There is a good debate to be had here - but not with someone who cites Bob Woodward as a primary source.
And Saddam nearly lost control of the country immediately after the Gulf War - had we made good on our pledge of support to the uprising, it would have been easy to turn support. I would imagine that all Iraqis, save for a small number of Saddam's inner circle, have their moistened fingers thrust firmly up in the air, waiting to see what way the wind blows - and once it starts blowing from Kuwait, they will abandon Saddam.
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.