Posted on 09/30/2006 11:22:53 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican
In May, President Bush spoke in Chicago and gave a characteristically upbeat forecast: "Years from now, people will look back on the formation of a unity government in Iraq as a decisive moment in the story of liberty, a moment when freedom gained a firm foothold in the Middle East and the forces of terror began their long retreat."
Two days later, the intelligence division of the Joint Chiefs of Staff circulated a secret intelligence assessment to the White House that contradicted the president's forecast.
Instead of a "long retreat," the report predicted a more violent 2007: "Insurgents and terrorists retain the resources and capabilities to sustain and even increase current level of violence through the next year."
A graph included in the assessment measured attacks from May 2003 to May 2006. It showed some significant dips, but the current number of attacks against U.S.-led coalition forces and Iraqi authorities was as high as it had ever been -- exceeding 3,500 a month. (In July the number would be over 4,500.) The assessment also included a pessimistic report on crude oil production, the delivery of electricity and political progress.
On May 26, the Pentagon released an unclassified report to Congress, required by law, that contradicted the Joint Chiefs' secret assessment. The public report sent to Congress said the "appeal and motivation for continued violent action will begin to wane in early 2007."
There was a vast difference between what the White House and the Pentagon knew about the situation in Iraq and what they were saying publicly. But the discrepancy was not surprising. In memos, reports and internal debates, high-level officials of the Bush administration have voiced their concern about the United States' ability to bring peace and stability to Iraq since early in the occupation.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Ego maniac.
Bttt
They'd have no problem adapting to Islam. When you believe in nothing, you can fake anything."
Excellent! Post of the day indeed...................
Not only that, but the number of attacks against coalition forces is briefed regularly from theater, and is published in an unclassified document by the pentagon on a quarterly basis. BW is just flat out lieing in this book -- it is nothing more than water cooler gossip strewn across 500+ pages with one goal: impact the 06 elections. BW is so transparent. I think at least 4 people have now come forward and said FALSE regarding conversations attributed to them. And that is just SO FAR. The book only came out today; there will be more blowback. BW is just trying to regain is lefty bona fides with this piece of gossip. I would expect his primary sources are those two most distinguished (NOT) gentlemen (NOT) Powel and Armitage.
LOL -- that's great.
So liberals want to wreck the country, wreck the family so they can be free to do anything not moral?
He's simply a mercenary ... nothing more, nothing less.
The moment you enter Bob Woodward's Georgetown home, you realise that he long ago crossed the threshold from ordinary working journalist to something far grander. It has the mansion-like dimensions of a diplomatic residence, and from the salon, a domestic worker can be seen waiting in the kitchen.
Woodward has come a long way from his days as a feisty reporter on the Washington Post's local news desk, whose reporting on the Watergate scandal helped bring down Nixon.
Carl Bernstein, his fellow Pulitzer prizewinner from the Watergate days, has returned to relative obscurity after his marital infidelities were turned into a book and a film (both called Heartburn) by his ex-wife Nora Ephron.
The last time he appeared in the Washington Post, two of his former personal assistants were complaining that he had borrowed money from them and failed to pay them back, and that his cheques had bounced.
(snip)
The book confirms much of what was known or suspected about the dove-hawk rift, but also suggests the division has, at times, become deeply personal - and nasty. When Powell went on a Middle East peace mission in April, Cheney and Rumsfeld attempted to micromanage his diplomacy, insisting he did not meet with Yasser Arafat. Powell, by contrast, saw both Sharon and Arafat as "bad guys", and opted to meet both.
The consequence was a smear campaign against the secretary of state by the Pentagon and the vice-president's office. Powell's deputy, Dick Armitage, monitored the onslaught from Washington and relayed the worst to Powell in Jerusalem."People are really putting your shit in the street," he said.
Bush's instincts are clearly portrayed in the book as being on the side of the hawks, and Powell frequently complains about being left out in the "ice-box", isolated from the White House and the media. But on the question of Iraq, he breaks through, asking for a dinner audience with the president on August 5, to air his concerns over the hawks' gung-ho, go-it-alone approach.
Woodward claims that the August 5 meeting was "one of the most important events in modern Washington history" because it changed Bush's mind and convinced him to go to the UN. In Woodward's eyes, the UN decision, even if it only postpones a US invasion of Iraq, is clear evidence that the president has a firm grip on the helm.
"He's made it pretty clear to me that he's the one who decides. There are advisers," Woodward says, "but they can't do anything without his approval. The responsibility of commander-in-chief resides in one person."
America's best-known investigative journalist has clearly been converted by his time with the president. He even defends Bush's policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which most experts on the region agree has been disastrous.
But asked if he thinks Bush will go down in history as one of the country's great presidents, Woodward demurs. "I have no idea," he says, and quotes Bush as saying that the president has to be the "calcium in the backbone", stiffening the resolve of the government. That's fine if you have the right policy, he argues, "but if you've got the wrong one, too much calcium in the backbone can take you down a dangerous or disastrous road."
Journalistic attempts to look into the future are no more than "predictive nonsense", Woodward believes. His job is to pore over the trail left by the recent past and sketch the first draft.
For all his undoubted admiration for the Bush presidency, his conclusion is as undisputable as it is cautious. Before mounting his imposing staircase to prepare for his next appointment, he says: "It's not clear if it's heading for triumph, disaster or something in between."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Woodward & Powell .. distilled, encapusulated and PWNED in the same article. Egomaniacs, amoral mercenaries .. both. And slip an Armitage in there, too.
That's quite the find. Woodward lives in opulence, huh?
Icon --- a three faced opportunist with no active conscience?
Woodward has come a long way from his naval intelligence/ CIA origins ........... and as a young fellow traveling with Henry Kissinger rifling through dear Henry's briefcase for the JCS.
Look up the word "opportunist" in the dictionary, there Woodward is wearing a crown and a fine satin robe.
He's a pig and a fabricator.
And along those lines, I will post this for about the 1000th time.
****
The socialist/Marxist/liberal media is the most destructive, relentless, and ruthless enemy of this Republic.
****
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.