Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 29, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

SLEEPWALKING THROUGH HISTORY....According to the New York Times, Bob Woodward's sources in his latest book, State of Denial, are now telling him that the Bush administration was not quite the well-oiled machine that he reported earlier:

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is described as disengaged from the nuts-and-bolts of occupying and reconstructing Iraq a task that was initially supposed to be under the direction of the Pentagon and so hostile toward Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, that President Bush had to tell him to return her phone calls. The American commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, is reported to have told visitors to his headquarters in Qatar in the fall of 2005 that Rumsfeld doesnt have any credibility anymore to make a public case for the American strategy for victory in Iraq.

....[In September 2003] Robert D. Blackwill, then the top Iraq adviser on the National Security Council...concluded that more ground troops, perhaps as many as 40,000, were desperately needed....The White House did nothing in response.

....The book describes a deep fissure between Colin L. Powell, Mr. Bushs first secretary of state, and Mr. Rumsfeld....[Andrew] Card then made a concerted effort to oust Mr. Rumsfeld at the end of 2005, according to the book, but was overruled by President Bush, who feared that it would disrupt the coming Iraqi elections and operations at the Pentagon.

There's more, and the Washington Post has its own book plug here, with presumably more extensive excerpts planned for Sunday. Bottom line: Powell didn't get along with Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld didn't get along with Rice, Cheney didn't get along with anyone, the war was going to hell the entire time, and Bush was sleeping through the whole thing. Cheers!

Kevin Drum 11:48 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (84)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

This can be blamed on Clinton, right?

Posted by: keptsimple on September 29, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

The ability of the Washington Post to put a negative spin on serious policy debates within the administration is truly mind-boggling, particularly in light of the usual liberal criticism that Bush surrounds himself with people who think just like him. Is this the Stepford administration, or one with constant infighting? Could liberals at least keep their lies consistent?

Posted by: American Hawk on September 29, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

I'm sure Thomas1 will manage to do so, keptsimple.

Posted by: Ace Franze, specific lunatic on September 29, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

American Hawk keeps his lies consistent, after all.

Posted by: Ace Franze, specific lunatic on September 29, 2006 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Woodward writes what he thinks will sell books. Period.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 29, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

So we're left with the inevitable question: where was this reporting when he was writing "Bush at War" and "Plan of Attack"? Why didn't he come out with this information before the 2004 elections WHEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE COULD USE THE INFORMATION?? Saying "hey, everything is totally mismanaged now is frankly a bit late.

Posted by: IMU on September 29, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with American Hawk. Either this is the Stepford Administration, -or- everyone who disagrees with Rumsfeld leaves for some reason. You can't have it both ways.

Posted by: adam on September 29, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

IMU-- He's already sold books with the truth in them. Now he's shamelessly exploiting liberals by publishing lies they want to hear. SEE ALSO: Inconvenient Truth, An.

Posted by: American Hawk on September 29, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks, Global Citizen. You've just answered the question I was going to ask: how could Boobie have come up with such flatly contradictory views about the same administration during about the same period?

Posted by: Altoid on September 29, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Is this the Stepford administration, or one with constant infighting? Could liberals at least keep their lies consistent?

I don't understand it either AH. But that's the trouble with lying as much as liberals do. It's hard to keep the story consistent. That's why liberals always sound confused and incoherent.

Posted by: Al on September 29, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Not really adam. They can be (and are) in lock step in public pronouncements and are uniformly "on message" in the media, but constantly stab each other in the back behind closed doors.

It's like an abusive family who all insist that everything is just fine to anyone who asks.

Posted by: IMU on September 29, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

This Woodward seems pretty good at writing books that confirm the conventional wisdom. It takes a special talent to be able to find the sweet spot early enough to meet a publishing calendar but not so early that the book is received as "kooky."

Nice racket.

Posted by: Model 62 on September 29, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

It's like an abusive family who all insist that everything is just fine to anyone who asks.

In other words, these jokers take the fun out of disfunction.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 29, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Seems like Woodward is just another disillusioned conservative trying to avoid coming to terms with the fact that his earlier support for the Bush administration and, in fact, his political philosophy as a whole, are and were morally and intellectually bankrupt, and lead inevitably to this sort of fiasco.

No, obviously there was stuff going on that he hadn't been told.

It's the "sensible man" version of the wingnut's "Bush is actually governing as a liberal" bullshit. Still bullshit, just more plausible.

Posted by: S Ra on September 29, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

You have to hand it to my wittle Ally-kins. He is the most consistent person on the planet: George W is God and nothing can possibly shake or contradict this Truth.

Posted by: Al's Mommy on September 29, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, we're having trouble keeping track out here. Bob Woodward is on the "credible" list again?

Posted by: dnc on September 29, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

Woodward's new book will also reportedly recount how both Tenet and counterterrorism head Cofer Black wanted to kill bin-Laden prior to 9/11 but were given the cold shoulder by the White House.

Great story, if true. Maybe Bill Casey told it to Woodward...via his car radio.

Posted by: cynic on September 29, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Wittle Ally-kins just hollared up from the basement to correct me:

George W would reveal himself as not the Second Coming if King George rebuked the idea that RU-486 was evil murder, and/or that all the gays who want to marry my wittle Al should be shipped off to camps.

Posted by: Al's Mommy on September 29, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Sounds as if Woodward just earned himself a designation as Enemy Combatant and a one-way trip to Room 101.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on September 29, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Time to start compiling examples of right-wing praise that were heaped on Woodward's earlier books. The smears about his integrity, politics, political leanings, and choice of tailor are going to start coming fast. It would be nice to be able to document the hypocrisy.

Posted by: MadLad on September 29, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with American Hawk. The administration is both the Stepford administration, and constantly infighting.

Posted by: George UU on September 29, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

"Nice racket."

Ha!

Posted by: Lucy on September 29, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Doesn't matter a ball of dung. They still rule, and unfortunately, might still continue to rule us for a long time.

Unless there is a titanic shift in how the opinion-givers and opinion makers view this bunch of idiots, they are in DC for the long haul, and none of us can do anything about it. So long as the analysis by pundits like Kevin is based on the assumption that these are rational actors interested in the best interests of the country, these guys will continue to fool a majority of us.

Posted by: gregor on September 29, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

These couple excerpts from Woodward's new book would seem to suggest that demanding Rumsfield's resignation would do a lot of good because whoever replaces him would be more engaged with the things that matter than Rumsfield. Also it would be a shot across Bush's bow that he can't have everything his way.

Posted by: beb on September 29, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

Those Brits are all Fish n Chip Eatin Surrender Monkeys!!

Oh wait... wrong thread.

Bob Woodward is a pen-pushin Surrender Monkey!!

Posted by: Determined to Strike on September 29, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

Well, the 72-73-74 Oakland A's were constantly fighting amoungst themselves and they won three World Series.

Posted by: fake fake Al on September 29, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

"These couple excerpts from Woodward's new book would seem to suggest that demanding Rumsfield's resignation..."

Bush is The Decider, and he wants Rumsfeld to stay.

Posted by: Lucy on September 29, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Woodward writes what he thinks will sell books. Period.

Exactly. When GWB's ratings are above 50%, he writes hagiographies. When they are below 50%, he doesn't.

Posted by: Disputo on September 29, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

The only reason Rumsfeld hasn't been booted out yet is that, whenever someone new tries to do that, Rumsfeld BEATS HIM AT SQUASH (as you might remember from the front page of NYT).

. . . or was it raquetball?

Posted by: Stepford wife on September 29, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

obviously Woodward is lying because the war in Iraq has gone exactly as planned and no one argues about success.

Posted by: JIMMYO on September 29, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin writes:

Powell didn't get along with Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld didn't get along with Rice, Cheney didn't get along with anyone, the war was going to hell the entire time, and Bush was sleeping through the whole thing.

Yes, but now that GWB can legally disappear people, he'll be able to whip his dysfunctional executive team into shape.

Posted by: Disputo on September 29, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Powell didn't get along with Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld didn't get along with Rice, Cheney didn't get along with anyone, the war was going to hell the entire time, and Bush was sleeping through the whole thing. Cheers!

Isn't this approximately what liberal bloggers were saying at the time?

Posted by: anandine on September 29, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm

New book.

It says:
#1. Bush is disengaged from government, sleepwalking through his own history.

#2. Rumsfeld and Cheney dominate government, and both dislike it so it operates quite dysfunctionally.

#3. The Rove-Bush Republican election machine continues to operate quite well (if frewquently illegally and always immorally), with the media avoiding exposing #1 & #2 above, even sweeping them under the rug quite effectively.

Besides an occasional new vignette, what's new?

Posted by: Rick B on September 29, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

The spin from the righties is maling me sick.ahhaggg.

Posted by: Mann Coulter on September 29, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Gonzalez is laying the groundworkl to disenfranchise the Judicial Branch. As proof I submit the following:

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is defending President Bush's anti-terrorism tactics in multiple court battles, said Friday that federal judges should not substitute their personal views for the president's judgments in wartime. He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief and the Supreme Court has long recognized the president's pre-eminent role in foreign affairs. "The Constitution, by contrast, provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during wartime," the attorney general told a conference on the judiciary at Georgetown University Law Center.

"Judges must resist the temptation to supplement those tools based on their own personal views about the wisdom of the policies under review," Gonzales said.

And he said the independence of federal judges, who are appointed for life, "has never meant, and should never mean, that judges or their decisions should be immune" from public criticism.

"Respectfully, when courts issue decisions that overturn long-standing traditions or policies without proper support in text or precedent, they cannot and should not be shielded from criticism," Gonzales said. "A proper sense of judicial humility requires judges to keep in mind the institutional limitations of the judiciary and the duties expressly assigned by the Constitution to the more politically accountable branches."

Wasn't the judiciary establish in the manner it was to keep politics out of judicial authority?

Dude, where's my country?

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 29, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Woodward writes what he thinks will sell books. Period. Posted by: Global Citizen

While this may be true, you didn't need the kind of "access" Woodward has in Washington to know that the Bush administrations are perhaps the worst in history.

Posted by: JeffII on September 29, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

I read the first two books by Woodward on the Afghan & the Iraq campaign. Im in the middle of Fiasco right now. I recommend all of them to any serious student of events. I will buy this latest one today. They represent the thinking middle inasmuch as the present a rational understanding of the contingent nature of a campaign like Iraq. They tend to illustrate how one course of action leads to certain problems while the opposite course leads to others.

To that end I must highly recommend this article in yesterdays Journal.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009007

Its by BY FOUAD AJAMI a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins, is the author, most recently, of "The Foreigner's Gift" (Free Press, 2006). He is a recipient of the 2006 Bradley Prize.

He Seems to know the working of internal Iraq politics and culture (which is the real prize in this Endeavour rather than U.S. domestic politics)


Posted by: Fitz on September 29, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Prehaps the worst in history? I think that die is cast, jeff.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 29, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

The Keystone Kops take over the U.S. government.....

Pathetic.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on September 29, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

There isn't anything that Woodward reports that hasn't been widely reported elsewhere for years. Woodward's just late to the party.

There's nothing in there, either, that contradicts the widely reported fact that Bile in the Shape of a Man surrounds himself with Yes Men. That Rumsfeld didn't like Rice or whatever doesn't mean spit in regards to what kind of news filters through to Bile in the Shape of a Man.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on September 29, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

The real significance of this is that Woodward has, for years, been the official stenographer of the Washington insiders. As far as I can tell, he never investigates anything or interposes any analytical intelligence between what the bigshots on his rolodex tell him and what he writes. That Woodward would write the stuff he now writes, after all the fluff he wrote before, tells us that something big is happening.

Posted by: CJColucci on September 29, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Global Citizen(by the way, no such animal- the Nation State remains pre-eminent)

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (said)
He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief and the Supreme Court has long recognized the president's pre-eminent role in foreign affairs. "The Constitution, by contrast, provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during wartime," the attorney general told a conference on the judiciary at Georgetown University Law Center.

& you respond
Wasn't the judiciary establish in the manner it was to keep politics out of judicial authority?

Yes it is, and the reverse is also true. Keeping the Judiciary out of political authority. (separation of powers) Gonzales is exactly right. The courts have ALWAYS maintained a respectful distance from foreign policy matters. They have neither access to the intelligence, nor are accountable to the public, nor given the authority to set U.S. policy.
There are a number of countries were they dont. This tends to cause multiple problems. If your for letting the judiciary co-opt more power in these matters, it may be because you feel unrepresented by the political branch. The solution is to get your elected representatives to assert their will (and get elected). We do real damage to the separation of powers when you short circuit this process with a Supreme Court traditionally and constitutionally prohibited from operating in this arena.

Posted by: Fitz on September 29, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Besides an occasional new vignette, what's new?

The new book shows Woodward's current sense of what will sell the most copies. The moneygrubbing son of a bitch is only interested in writing "history" when it will sell well, rather than when it might be relevant.

Posted by: sglover on September 29, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Read you Hume, jackass.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 29, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, isn't Rumsfeld's hard-headedness something we've all pretty much known here? Funnily enough, I may have to side with American Hawk. Woodward may just be publishing what he thinks will sell; he figuratively put his finger in the political winds and decided to write something based on which way the winds were blowing. Furthermore, his book isn't exactly a revelation---more of a confirmation.
And replacing Rumsfeld at this point would accomplish, what? What's done is done in Iraq, Bush and Company have roughly two years left in the White House, so sacking Rumsfeld at this point is cold comfort.

Posted by: Johnny Tremaine on September 29, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

--Bertrand Russell

Thats explains Bush's, American Hawk and AL's world view in a nutshell

Posted by: OXYMORON on September 29, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

They Think you all are stupid Part 4213497

"It is shocking and deeply disturbing that this admitted and proven liar ripped off his clients by over-billing and over-selling his supposed influence with any number of policymakers," Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary, said Thursday.

(In response to the revelations that Abramoff had many many more contacts with the WH than they previously acknowledged.)

Posted by: gregor on September 29, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

That russell quote sure sums it all up, doesn't it. Oh - and this one - "All movements go to far."

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 29, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

He's already sold books with the truth in them.

Oh, yeah, Chickenshit? Like the part in Bush at War when Booby details Bush misappropriating funds earmarked for Afghanistan to Iraq? You know what that is, Chickenshit? Illegal. Only Congress can appropriate funds.

Since you are so certain that Booby was telling the truth then, you'll agree to start the impeachment hearings, right?

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 29, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

True indeed. It seems that Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld are determined to secure their place in history by the application of J.K. Galbraith's maxim that "If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error."

Posted by: Stefan on September 29, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Woodward. Feh!

If Woodward were to see a man trying to strangle an old woman to death, he wouldn't intervene to save the old woman, nor would he publish an article in the newspaper about what he had seen. Instead he would include it in his next book, published months to years later, when it was far too late to stop it, or even catch the murderers.

Rormerly 'dogged Watergate reporter', now 'Enabler and Scribe, by special appointment to the Crown.'

Posted by: biggerbox on September 29, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

Not exactly.

Posted by: Descartes on September 29, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

I made the effort yet again of wading through Fouad Ajami's turgid prose. It seems all this excitement over the NIE was an overreaction to a document remarkable for its "navet". (Hey! Sounds familiar...)

If I may cherry-pick:

"Few will read this report; fewer still will ask why a virtually incomprehensible Arab-Islamic world that has eluded us for so long now yields its secrets to a congressional committee."

Um, wasn't this report the consensus of the entire US intelligence apparatus and not, in fact, of a "congressional committee"? And is the Arab-Islamic world so incomprehensible? Bin Laden, for example, tends to be pretty specific about his grievances.

"No Iraqi agents had to slip into hotel rooms in Prague for meetings with jihadists to plot against America. The plot sprang out of the deep structure of Arab opinion."

But to listen to the cons heap scorn on the idea that winning the hearts and minds of the Arab world is paramount to the fight against Islamic extremism, you'd never know one of their own intellectual heavyweights admits as much. And now that it's established that Cheney's beloved "intelligence" that there was an Iraq link to Qaeda turned out to be false, Ajami shrugs off the whole affair.

"It is idle to debate whether Iraq is in a state of civil war. The semantics are tendentious, and in the end irrelevant."

Unless you think civil war is an important factor as to whether or not the US should withdraw from Iraq.

And so on.

Incidentally, at the end of his apppearance before the House Government Reform Committee on National Security Ajami shamelessly flattered Christopher Shays, assuring him of Ajami's sons' absentee votes (they're in the military), and offering Shays a signed copy of his new book. Poor form, in my opinion.

Posted by: Lucy on September 29, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Er, Cheney's beloved intelligence "proving" that there was an Iraq link...

Sorry.

Posted by: Lucy on September 29, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Just keep spinning, Al, Amurican Hawk and all the other idiots. Just keep denying reality. It's worked OK up to this point, so why change now? Reality will never intrude on your little fantasies, no sir.

Posted by: 101st Troll Division on September 29, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is defending President Bush's anti-terrorism tactics in multiple court battles, said Friday that federal judges should not substitute their personal views for the president's judgments in wartime.

Someone should remind Torture Al (and his apologist Fitz) that this is not wartime. Only Congress can declare ware, and this congress has never issued an official declaration of war. Sorry, Alberto, but you can't make the "expansion of powers" argument if there has never been a war declaration.

But I'm sure Fitz thinks that this requirement is "quaint" and "unimportant".

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 29, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

damn liberal media

Posted by: grytpype on September 29, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Not according to Tony Snow, who says that Woodward is simply a shill trying to make a buck because he was on the losing side.

Now, when Woodward wrote favorably about Shrub, well, he was a highly respected blah, blah, blah

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 29, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Sleepwalking Through History by Haynes Johnson


"Washington Post columnist Johnson here presents a stunning indictment of the Reagan administration that details its impact on social, economic and political life in America. He reviews abuses in the S&L institutions, in HUD, in the National Security Council, on Wall Street, in religious broadcasting and, most impressively, reveals how the administration renounced responsibility for ameliorating social distress. The book makes clear why the rich got richer and the poor poorer in the last decade. Johnson portrays President Reagan as a kind of Dr. Feelgood who fulfilled a public need for reassurance, and ironically evaded judgment during the Iran- contra affair because of his reputation for not being in charge. Summarizing what he sees as Reagan's legacy, the "ethical wastland of the eighties," the author points to growing fractionalization, subversion of the constitutional system, corruption and ineffectiveness of government, and cynicism and inattention of the American people."

Give credit where credit is due, Kevin.

Posted by: Aaron Adams on September 29, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.--Bertrand Russell

OXYMORON

The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

--Yeats, The Second Coming, 1919

Posted by: anandine on September 29, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

The bombshell in this story is that the Bush Admin. ignored specific warnings about 9/11 from the CIA. From the NYTimes article:

... in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Mr. Rumsfeld questioned the electronic signals from terrorism suspects that the National Security Agency had been intercepting, wondering whether they might be part of an elaborate deception plan by Al Qaeda.

On July 10, 2001, the book says, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice at the White House to impress upon her the seriousness of the intelligence the agency was collecting about an impending attack. But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously.

This alone could win the November election, if they only had the brains to make TV ads out of it. But don't hold your breath about that.

Posted by: JS on September 29, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

"...and Bush was sleeping through the whole thing."

and congress just gave this unimaginative, uninterested, ignorant, craven, criminal of a president, unlimited monarchial powers to declare anyone an enemy of the state, make them disappear forever, and no one can challenge his actions. NICE!

Posted by: pluege on September 29, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

we told you so....

Posted by: mr. obvious on September 29, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Subtitle for Woodward's new book:

All the Stuff I Missed While Researching My Last Book

Posted by: RT on September 29, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

"Bottom line: Powell didn't get along with Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld didn't get along with Rice, Cheney didn't get along with anyone, the war was going to hell the entire time, and Bush was sleeping through the whole thing."

Good thing the grown-ups are in charge . . . .


.

Posted by: GK on September 29, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

If you guys are exasperated by this Homeric level of incompetence, think how bad you would feel if you were on my side -- that is, how would you feel if you thought this war was just and a winnable proposition if the right crew had been in charge? I've read Kevin's criticisms, the contributors to this comments thread ranging from rational to tin-foil brigade, and I have not heard one saying where we should go from here other than cut and run. The only "solution" I can see from this point is to try to hold on as Truman did in Korea [dropping to 21% approval ratings] until maybe the Iraqis are ready to ask us to leave. I do not think we can "redeploy," even if that's what Jim Baker recommends after the election, I just can't think of anything other than prayer that the Iraqis can improve to the point where they can legitimately ask us to go. I'd really like to know what John Burns of the NYTimes thinks of this situation, and what he would recommend. Of all the voices on this war his is the one I'd trust the most.

Posted by: minion of rove on September 29, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK


Minion, we need to stay until the Army mutinies and comes home. I'm sure that they'll have a special present for people like you.

I can hardly wait.

Posted by: gcochran on September 29, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

minion of rove wrote: "... I have not heard one saying where we should go from here other than cut and run."

Cut, run, impeach, indict, prosecute and imprison.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 29, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

Secular

FWIW, I might not oppose all of those options except the first two. I agree if we lived in a just republic Don Rumsfeld would be stripped naked and made to march 400 miles out of Washington without food, water, fire or shelter.

Posted by: minion of rove on September 29, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

"I do not think we can 'redeploy'..."

Why not.

Posted by: Lucy on September 29, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

Lucy -

Because I still think our troops are saving more lives than they are costing. I'm old enough to remember our sellout of the Shia'a in the last conflict, and our yo-yo-ing the aspirations of the Kurds, and I believe we have a debt to those people to give them every opportunity to stand up a plausible government.

Posted by: the minion on September 29, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

From a May 2004 GQ article on Powell:

"I can tell you firsthand that there is a tremendous barrier between Cheney and Powell, and there has been for a long time. It's like McCain saying that his relations with the president are 'congenial,' meaning McCain doesn't tell the president to go fuck himself every time."

Posted by: croatoan on September 29, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

minion of rove wrote: "I might not oppose all of those options except the first two."

Remember that "cut" is short for "cut our losses" and "run" is short for "withdraw in an orderly manner as quickly as possible without causing avoidable harm to either US troops or Iraqi civilians" and perhaps you will find it more palatable.

Especially since, sooner or later, it is inevitable, and since there is no evidence whatsoever that continuing the US occupation is going make things better or prevent them from getting worse, and since the clear majority of the Iraqi people are in favor of immediate US withdrawal.

Glad to hear you are open to the "impeach, indict, prosecute and imprison" part, though.

And I agree that those who thought the invasion of Iraq was a good idea have even more reason than those who opposed it to be pissed off about the corrupt and incompetent post-invasion conduct of the Bush administration in Iraq.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 29, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

minion,

I sympathize with your argument. I'm also old enough to remember GHWB's shameful abandonment of the Shia--a terrible thing. I couldn't support the invasion, for what that symbolism was worth, but I hoped that en route to its glorious domination of the Persian Gulf the US would redeem its betrayal of the Shia. It was a naive hope, to say the least.

You know, Galbraith proposes that the troops redeploy to Iraqi Kurdistan or Kuwait. It seems like a reasonable step.

Posted by: Lucy on September 29, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

I suppose that Kevin (and the rest of us) can consider Woodward to be "careful, accurate and fair" now.

Posted by: Brian on September 29, 2006 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

"... serious policy debates within the administration ..."

American Hawk, that's your funniest line ever. Keep up the great satire!

Posted by: Kenji on September 29, 2006 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK

性爱图片 台湾18电影网 美腿图片 强奸图片 祼体写真 美女写真 性感美女图片 做爱小电影 美少女自拍 日本av电影 明星裸照 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 两性健康图片 性教育电影 激情电影 免费黄色电影 成人性爱电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交视频 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线下载 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 电影夜宴网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 美女乳房 性爱小说 美眉写真 激情贴图 两性性生活 作爱电影 性交图片 做爱图片 人体艺术摄影 美女裸照 全裸女 黄色小说 成人小说 强暴图片 轮奸美女 泳装图片 韩国电影 性知识图片 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 免费电影下载 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 性爱贴图 情趣内衣图片 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情

Posted by: mmf铃声 on September 29, 2006 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK

You can't judge the size of an iceburg by looking at the tip sticking out of the ocean. However, if you're smart enough you can ESTIMATE the size of that iceburg and that is what most citizens; liberal, conservative, independent, are now doing; using their own yardstick to reach their own measurement of the facts. Nothing discussed is "provable" because our knowledge consists of bits and pieces we pick up here and there from the secret government created over the last 6 years.

And we have every RIGHT to pick at our government, to challenge it, to criticize it and to CHANGE it - the Bush administration does not, they are bound by the Constitution that can only be changed by We the People; not Bush, not Congress, and not the Courts. That is still the truth.

Posted by: Liberty76 on September 30, 2006 at 6:29 AM | PERMALINK

minion of rove: I agree if we lived in a just republic Don Rumsfeld would be stripped naked and made to march 400 miles out of Washington without food, water, fire or shelter.


just?

bush has kept rumsfeld, according to woodward's book because..

rove and cheney convinced g.w. that it was the better --political-- move...

dumping rummy would be seen as weak...so..rummy stays..

gotta have priorities...

Posted by: mr. perspective on September 30, 2006 at 8:34 AM | PERMALINK

If God was really talking to Bush, he would be telling him to apologize for the mess and call on all world leaders to help figure out what to do to save the lives of the Iraqi people who are being tortured and murdered as I type.

back when the fundies had me they had a saying....if you were accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?

Posted by: lilybart on September 30, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

I think that Woodward was blinded by being so close to power. Bush gave him a nickname and all that.

Then he saw through them, because the truth about what is happening is too hard to deny.

he got mad
simple as that

Posted by: lilybart on September 30, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

But how could a trained journalist, especially one who made his name on ferreting out the truth, not see that this was a crowd of inept crooks from the get-go? ("Gee, that Herman Goering sure is thin.")

Posted by: Kenji on October 1, 2006 at 1:32 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly