Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15051776/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15 051776/</a> Gadzuux posted this in another thread, but given Bob Woodward's extensive Washington inside contacts, I think it deserves its own thread. Woodward's new book details a systematic campaign to deceive the American people on the worsening state of Iraq. So much for "last throes" and "turning a corner." Whether the administration lied about Iraq is up for debate; I personally think they're just delusional. But Woodward details pretty clearly that they're lying to us now.
Originally Posted By gadzuux They lie all the time. Some people think that by saying that, I invalidate my own opinions and positions. Obviously, I disagree. Witness just this past week where the white house mouthpieces fanned out across the media to refute the NIE report, saying that it isn't true - that the iraq war has not increased the terror threat to the U.S. - when the report is clearly supported by every fact available. Woodward's facts are in a row. He's a top flight journalist who wouldn't publish such contentions without verifying every last detail. But it's predictable what the righties will say - "it's not true", "he's just trying to peddle his book", "he's aligned with the drive-by media", etc. You cannot be a bush supporter without ignoring or disputing mountains of evidence that you're being lied to and led around by the nose. Iraq is going south, and even to this day the bush supporters around here deny it. Why? Because they cannot allow themselves to believe that their own government would lie to them. So who do you believe? Bush and his administration? Or every other source of information that says the opposite? Your choice.
Originally Posted By DlandJB Off topic, but has anyone other than me noticed that Bob Woodward and William Kristol could be brothers? Maybe Kristol is Woodward's doppleganger.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Keep hope alive, gadzuux. << This has become the douglas equivalent of "so's yer mother". I post cogent and salient points that are well supported by published documents, and all I get back is a flip response. Of course, if I were in douglas's shoes, and trying to support contentions that iraq is improving, I don't know what I'd say either. I feel your pain.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I post cogent and salient points that are well supported by published documents, and all I get back is a flip response.> You post the liberal talking points, which are only well supported by other liberals opinions. Since they are only opinions, I can't prove them wrong, just as you can't prove them right. And I simply don't have time to point to the refuting evidence which would undermine all of them.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda <<<I post cogent and salient points that are well supported by published documents, and all I get back is a flip response.> You post the liberal talking points, which are only well supported by other liberals opinions. Since they are only opinions, I can't prove them wrong, just as you can't prove them right. And I simply don't have time to point to the refuting evidence which would undermine all of them. >> Seems to me that BOTH of you (as well as most of the others here) are providing opinions based on published documents. That's all any of us can do, is form opioions based on what information we have been given. That doesn't mean that one side is necessarily right or wrong. Most likely parts of both sides are right, and some are wrong. I base my opinions on what I read, watch on TV, hear from others, my past experiences and past world and U.S. history. I try to weigh what everyone is saying or writing and then form my opinion. I don't base my opinions on any one source, such as Rush, or the New York Times, I use sources from all sides. Frankly if more people would form their own opinions in the same or similiar ways, we'd be better off as a society.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "And I simply don't have time to point to the refuting evidence which would undermine all of them. " << Why post at all then? Unless someone is paying you by the post, there is nothing wrong with simply skipping over a thread if you don't have time to write up a reasoned response. I read this section a great deal more than I reply, mainly because I frequently don't have the time available to write up responses with the depth and detail that the issues being discussed here really demand. That means that I read quite a bit that I disagree with, sometimes pretty strenously. I just simply think that no response at all is better than just an empty one. I really think quite a few of the posters here would benefit from taking the same approach. -Jeff
Originally Posted By friendofdd The wonderful thing about Woodward is that he can't possibly have any political agenda. Well, that is if you don't consider that he might be wanting to relive the glory days of bringing down a president in the 60s. Or possible anti-Bush bias. Or the disire to sell lots of books and make lots of money. Perhaps we should get Ann Coulter's opinion of the book.
Originally Posted By woody >>Denial is not just a river in Iraq.<< You mean Egypt. "The Nile, longest river in the world, located in northeastern Africa. From its principal source, Lake Victoria, in east central Africa, the Nile flows north through Uganda, Sudan, and Egypt to the Mediterranean Sea, a distance of 5584 km (3470 mi). From its remotest headstream in Burundi, the river is 6,695 km (4,160 mi) long. The river basin covers an area of more than 3,349,000 sq km (more than 1,293,000 sq mi)."
Originally Posted By gadzuux From today's SF Chronicle ... <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/30/MNG28LFTUO1.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/30/MNG28LFTUO1.DTL</a> >> On Friday, [Bush] accused opponents of advancing an argument that "buys into the enemy's propaganda.'' The day before, the president accused Democrats of being the party of "cut and run.'' Earlier in the week, Bush said he considered it "naive'' to believe that going to war was a mistake. [keep talkin' george.] The antagonistic posture is being undermined, however, by the assessments of his own intelligence agencies, disagreements with members of his own party and a book to be released Monday by longtime Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward. The new book, called "State of Denial," reportedly depicts a White House in turmoil, ignoring pleas from officials in Iraq to send more troops in the first months after Baghdad fell and an urgent warning from then-CIA Director George Tenet about potentially imminent terrorist attacks two months before Sept. 11, 2001. According to a summary of the book in the Washington Post, where Woodward is an assistant managing editor, former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card twice tried to persuade Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. <<
Originally Posted By ecdc Bob Woodward was a Republican when he exposed Nixon for what he and his administration was. No one brought down Nixon but Nixon. Woodward's first two books on Bush and war were rarely critical. But the Republican Shoot the Messenger campaign will no doubt roll forward.
Originally Posted By gadzuux More from the above link >> A Field Poll released today found that Bush's approval rating in California has dropped to 29 percent from 32 percent in July and that support for the job he is doing in Iraq has declined among the state's voters to an all-time low of 26 percent. Even among California Republicans, the poll found that nearly 4 in 10 disapprove of Bush's performance in Iraq. "National polls seem to be a little blip up. We just don't see that in California'' said Mark DeCamillo, director of the Field Poll, which surveyed 739 registered voters from Sept. 14-24. "His pronouncements, his rhetoric, his trying to improve his standing with voters by taking a strong stand on the war and criticizing his opponents -- it doesn't have an effect in California.'' <<
Originally Posted By woody >>I guess woody didn't get it.<< I did get it. The joke was about Egypt. It is a common cliche.
Originally Posted By DlandJB Bob Woodward was a Republican when he exposed Nixon for what he and his administration was.>>>> Can you show a source for this? I've never heard that Woodward was a Republican. I thought he was one of the cadre of journalists that didn't vote because they didn't want to be painted as being biased for one side or the other. I'm not saying you are wrong, I've just never heard this before.
