That's an interesting take on one of the great names in investigative journalism giving up entirely on investigation and journalism, and slutting himself out for access to the powerful. Myself, I'd prefer to have my journalists actually exercising some reasonable distance between themselves and those they report upon. Rather than waiting for the worm to turn, I'd rather some cynical honesty from the outset.

But I'm probably just old fashioned.

another view here:

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2006/09/distinguishing-insurgency-from.html

I think the possibility exists that Woodward punk'd 'em in order to gain greater access to do the third book. And in the process, he gained street cred with self-proclaimed moderates. Many of those moderates were great supporters of the war. But if you look around the blogosphere today, many are singing a different tune. Of course, it would have been much more helpful if this book came out before November 2004.

It's not that the anecdotes happen to be more gratifying to liberal ears this time around though they are. Woodward's sources, as ever, are just trying to make themselves look good, and we should take their anonymous stories with the same grain of salt as we did in Woodward's earlier and more hagiographic recitals.

Kevin, thanks for admitting the book by Woodward is full of lies. Woodward is part of the liberal Washington Post so I'm not surprised what's in the book. Woodward is just trying to exploit the liberal emotional anger at Bush. The book is without reason and facts (just as liberals are without reason and facts) so Woodward must exploit emotions. When liberals are as angry as they are, facts don't matter so long as it makes Bush look bad. Bob Woodward has now been exposed as no different than Michael Moore and Howard Dean in his vicious partisan attack at Bush in his new book.

Roxanne, I don't think Woodward punked them at all; his basic inclination has been Republican all along.

I do have one question I'd love to ask Bob Woodward, and I hope that someone will. It's this: did you, Bob Woodward, know about the July 10, 2001 meeting that the 9/11 commission did not know about, the one where the CIA failed to convince Condoleeza Rice to take any action on terrorism, before the 2004 election? If so, why did you hide it from the electorate?

Perhaps. Among other possibilities:

1. Woodward goes with the flow. When Bush was flying high, he added to the adulation. Now that he's having troubles, Woodward is happy to join the other side.

2. He sold two books already to the Republicans. Not many of them would buy a third. Now's the time to sell to the Democrats. It'd good business.

well, Al, you might have noticed that Michael Moore and Howard Dean have been anti-Bush from the start.

The tortured logic of republicans (oh how i mourn the assault on our civil liberties perpetrated by clinton at ruby ridge and waco) these days is beyond the pale. Did you type in the sentence "When liberals are as angry as they are, facts don't matter so long as it makes Bush look bad" incorrectly? I think you meant to type "When the facts are as bad as they are, it doesn't matter how angry liberals are, Bush looks bad."

So here's your logic exercise for today. If Woodward is just part of the liberal elite in Washington (and implicitly willing to write whatever he thinks will please them), what does that imply about the last book? Conversely, what do the contents of the last book imply about this thesis?

I thought Ms. Kakutani's comparison of the Bush war cabinet's ad hoc approach to Iraq to pick-up basketball was grossly unfair to pick-up basketball. Even among complete strangers, pick-up basketball is much better organized.

At this point it ought to be clear to anyone who is the least bit reality-based that the invasion of Iraq was a bad thing, and all but the most clueless of its supporters have finally gotten the message and are scrambling to the other side, rats deserting a sinking ship.

I don't think we should embrace anyone who insists that they were right to be wrong and we were wrong to be right. These are the rats we ought to kick off our ship, and Woodward's probably one of them.

It does look like a good sign, though.

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

Kevin, thanks for admitting the book by Woodward is full of lies. Woodward is part of the liberal Washington Post so I'm not surprised what's in the book. Woodward is just trying to exploit the liberal emotional anger at Bush. The book is without reason and facts (just as liberals are without reason and facts) so Woodward must exploit emotions. When liberals are as angry as they are, facts don't matter so long as it makes Bush look bad. Bob Woodward has now been exposed as no different than Michael Moore and Howard Dean in his vicious partisan attack at Bush in his new book.

Posted by: Al on October 1, 2006 at 2:39 AM | PERMALINK

Well done, Al. A staement without one reason or fact, but a number of lies. You never disappoit. Congratulations!

Once again, you liberals stab our leaders in the back and weaken the heartland with your poison words. You lie and sway weak-minded dupes like Bob Woodward. Maybe some day, you rats will learn to put America before party. Is there no opportunity you won't stoop to use? Ann Coulter is right about what we should do. A little waterboarding could do wonders.

You with me on this Thomas1?

Once again, you liberals stab our leaders in the back

I view it more as kicking him in the balls from the front like the way those self-defense classes teach women to fight back against a rapist.

Once again, you liberals stab our leaders in the back

I view it more as kicking him in the balls from the front

Oh.

Okay, then...

Once again you liberals kick our leaders in the balls from the front.

Kevin, what a charming way of saying Booby is the nation's wind sock.

Why does anyone even respond to the likes of Al or patriot? Like any good fundamentalist, they live in a world of circular logic. Anyone who even vaguely nods in agreement or says to themselves, "Hmm. He has a point there" would not be able to hear reason anyway. I know there is something deliciously satisfying about ripping there twisted logic to shreds, but ultimately it's an exercise in distraction from real debate. Because they are operating from the emotional level of a 1st grade bully on the playground, the only real pleasure they can receive from writing here is the responses you give them, incensed or otherwise. Why not let them be right (at least in the magnificant kingdom of their own minds)? Why sink to their level? Ignore them and I guarantee you they will get bored and go away. There has occasionally been an educated posting by those of the conservative bent. Why not save all that wit and intellectual sparring for a real arguement?

Upthread, did everyone notice that in Al's first post he derides Woodward's book using the work "liberal" four times in five sentences?

1. ". . . the liberal Washington Post"
2. ". . . liberal emotional anger"
3. ". . . liberals are without reason and facts"
4. ". . . when liberals are as angry as they are"

Republicans have overused the word "liberal" for years, particularly since Bush's first election/appointment (electment? appointion?). Apparently they found calling everything they disagree with "liberal" simultaneously diverts conversations from real issues and gets them at least one sympathizer in a room.

But not only has overusing "liberal" ceased to be the distraction it once was, it suggests people like Al ignore reality and live in their own state of denial.

Al, read the book FIRST, then comment (pillage first, then burn). Particularly read the quotes from your fellow Republicans, which make up most of the book. Are they lying, Al?

As someone who feels that there is more to the story of Bush pre-9/11 nonfeasance, it was good of Booby to tell us about that July 10 meeting.

Just more evidence of why 9/11 happened on Bush's watch.

Pre-9/11, the Clinton administration made countering the al Qaeda terrorist threat a top priority, while containing Saddam Hussein with no-fly zones and sanctions.

Pre-9/11, the Bush administration obsessed over ousting Saddam Hussein, while completely blowing off the al Qaeda terrorist threat.

The incoming Bush administration blew off the briefings given them by the intelligence experts of the outgoing Clinton administration.

The pre-9/11 Bush administration blew off the red-alert warnings in the summer of 2001 that an al Qaeda attack inside the U.S. was imminent.

3,000 U.S. citizens died on 9/11 because the Bush administration let their obsession with Saddam Hussein and Iraq push the al Qaeda terrorist threat completely off their right-wing radar screen.

Kevin: if everyone was aware that Woodward was nothing more than a court stenographer, that would be great. The problem is, that's not how most people see him. Most people still believe Woodward reports The Truth. Even the chattering classes are only slowly catching on to Woodward's role as court stenographer.

One of my high-school friends is a politically aware guy in the Foreign Commercial Service. He was back this summer, and we were debating some of the issues around the Iraq war. He still believes Bush was sincere in his motives for going to war, and this is on account of Woodward's previous book, the one with Tenet's slam-dunk in it.

He's a very intelligent, literate, basically liberal guy in his 50s, and here he is - buffaloed by Woodward.

Who's going to put out the official announcement that Woodward's nothing more than a court stenographer? The WaPo sure isn't gonna do it.

It is a complete mistake for liberals to be jumping for joy and praising high to the rafters Woodward's book. One, the guy is a hack; two, nothing he writes is news, at least in its substance; three, the book will get lots of press and attention without the Dems touting it which is important because: four, if you make Woodward the offical ex cathedra voice of criticism re Bush comptence and GOP manages to discredit Woodward's account you're screwed. Intelligent Dem response would have been: this info has been out there for awhile and we're happy with any added attention Mr Woodward's book may bring to the debate. Of course getting an intelliegent response from dem's would require them pulling their heads out of their asses first.

JS has it at 3:07.

But I'm not sure it's all that different than Kevin's analysis in terms of measuring Bush's degree of doneness, which is the significant part of this. When Woodward, who takes care of Woodward, joins the pile-on, the nation's wakey-wakey is complete.

saintsimon: Intelligent Dem response would have been: this info has been out there for awhile and we're happy with any added attention Mr Woodward's book may bring to the debate.

But exactly.

al: facts don't matter so long as it makes Bush look bad.

case #198

"My understanding from the check that we did was that there are just a few staff-level meetings." - Scott McClellan 1/17/06


The House Reform committee was able to document 485 contacts between White House officials and Jack Abramoff and his lobbying team from January 2001 to March 2004. - Roll Call 9/28/06

One of the key moments in the Bush presidency, already reported well before Woodward, came when Bush responded to the warning about terrorists planning an attack with a snide rebuke about them covering their asses. Bush knew something was up that demanded action and knew that he wasn't going to do anything. His Big Freeze the morning of 9/11 -- you'd like to believe that he was having a crisis of conscience, but the furious malignant way that the events have been exploited suggests that he was just overwhelmed with anticipation, like Laurence Olivier opening his box of diamonds in "Marathon Man".

Al - get a fucking life dude!

"nit wit" is such a friendly term with an undeniable implication of innocence. It is a term wholly unsuited for describing the bushliar-criminal, who though an ignoramous is also the furtherest anyone could be from innocent or friendly. Nasty, snide, insidious, craven, dolt, brutish, bully, bloodthirsty, arrogant, egocentric, vacuous, and for those who must be politie: intellectually challenged, are all proper terms decribing bush; nit wit is not.

Kevin you are priceless. A few posts ago you are complaining about the 'torture' bill he passed without bothering with the Democrats and outsmarting and out maneuvering Big John McCain. He's been doing this for 6 years while leading the GOP in elections yet he's the dumb one.

He's been doing this for 6 years while leading the GOP in elections yet he's the dumb one.

Yeah, it takes brains to use muscle and menace.

Woodward turning on Bush will probably give the rest of the establishment in DC an excuse to turn too. They can see the writing on the wall; the Democrats are probably going to win Congress this time around. If the country had not turned on Bush, Woodward would still be praising the courage of our beloved leader in ordering 19 yr olds to die for a losing cause.

2,700 US soldiers have been cannon fodder in Iraq and 20,000 have been maimed seriously. 50,000 innocent civilians were killed by the US Army in the last 3 years in Iraq and probably another 100,000 were killed in the sectarian violence we helped launch. How is this different from Osama ordering 19 kids to go kill 3000 on Sep 11?

The only difference is that the 19 hijackers went to their deaths willingly. The 2700 US soldiers who were killed are probably cursing Bush and Cheney in their graves.

The only two guys who want a continued Global War on Terror are Bush and Osama and their crazed followers. Neither could survive without the other.

Man, we live in a sick universe!

In the extract from "State of Denial" referenced by Kevin, we get the following (undoubtedly sourced from Andrew Card, the former Chief of Staff):

"One of Card's great worries was that Iraq would be compared to Vietnam. In March, there were 58,249 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington. One of Kissinger's private criticisms of Bush was that he had no mechanism in place, or even an inclination, to consider the downsides of impending decisions. Alternative courses of action were rarely considered.

As best as Card could remember, there had been some informal, blue-sky discussions at times along the lines of "What could we do differently?" But there had been no formal sessions to consider alternatives to staying in Iraq. To his knowledge there were no anguished memos bearing the names of Cheney, Rice, Hadley, Rumsfeld, the CIA, Card himself or anyone else saying "Let's examine alternatives," as had surfaced after the Vietnam era.

Card put it on the generals in the Pentagon and Iraq. If they had come forward and said to the president, "It's not worth it," or, "The mission can't be accomplished," Card was certain, the president would have said "I'm not going to ask another kid to sacrifice for it."

Card was enough of a realist to see that there were two negative aspects to Bush's public persona that had come to define his presidency: incompetence and arrogance. Card did not believe that Bush was incompetent, and so he had to face the possibility that, as Bush's chief of staff, he might have been the incompetent one. In addition, he did not think the president was arrogant."

We've heard this from Paul O'Neill (via Ron Suskind) in 2003 (former Treasury Sec) - the President does not ask questions when briefed.

We saw this for ourselves with the release of the Katrina briefing video - as Max Mayfield warned of impending catastrophe, Bush sat mute.

Now we learn that Bush's own aides fretted that alternatives were never considered, and downsides never reviewed. But still - and for me, this is the most fascinating human aspect to the story - this did not, for them, make them view Bush as incompetent.

If you're used to setting up your thinking where adjustment to evidence plays no part, I guess that may do it.

Bob Woodward is like Truman Capote for ugly people.

Yeah, it takes brains to use muscle and menace.

Apparently it doesn't take much to outsmart livebals no does it? How many users of posts does Kevin have featuring him sobbing in his cereal having been outsmarted by the dumb guy AGAIN! And Again! And Again!

It's what some might call a pattern. The pundits are actually even dumber than the liberal critics like Slick Willie they so adore. You spent 8 years calling Reagan dumb in the 80's. How did that work out? You could at least find something original.

I am sooooo confused.

Woodward wrote two books that covered a lot of the same time period and the a lof of the same topics covered in this later book.

To summarize: Book 1 and Book 2 - President Bush is smart and involved and making good decisions
Book 3 - Bush is not very smart, not very involved and making bad decisions

Is it just me or can the FACTS that Woodward put into the three books be reconciled???

shorter rdw: I got nothin'

Reading this blog, I'm constantly reminded of why the left has played second fiddle to the hard right-wing for thirty years now and looks to remain in a crouch position for another thirty.

Apologetically allowing Bob Woodward to change his tune from "Bush is a wartime genius" to "Bush is a putz" is not leading from a position of strength.

Was Woodward lying to begin with or wasn't he? Is Bush an incompetent liar or isn't he? Find some backbone, my God, man. Do you find the right-wing mincing words and forgiving of changes of direction when it comes to writing about liberal politicians or journalists? Of course not. They are brutally frank and vicious. Until some articulate liberal voice can respond in kind to these vultures, the left-wing is going nowhere.

September 30, 2006

FORMER US President Bill Clinton tried it on with actress Demi Moore, according to her hubby.

Ashton Kutcher, star of MTV’s Punk’d, said Clinton, 61, gave Demi, 43, the eye at a recent bash.

Kutcher, 28, told US chat show host Jay Leno that he felt like the invisible man while the three ate together.

He said: “I met Bill Clinton once but he didn’t really talk — he was hitting on my wife.”

Was Woodward lying to begin with or wasn't he? Is Bush an incompetent liar or isn't he? Find some backbone, my God, man.

Woodward doesn't see it has his role to understand Bush. As Nora Ephron wrote, he has always had trouble seeing the forest for the trees. Woodward's concern is to relay the "insider view" of how Bush is perceived and relay what his sources are saying. Woodward can't or won't put the pieces together. He just shows the rest of the country what pieces his sources want the public to see right now.

Oh yeah, right.

The reporter who took out Nixon isn't a partisan liberal hack and Bush, who somehow wins two elections, stops 10's of terrorist attacks, successfully topples two authoritarian governments, etcc. is a "nitwit". I'll bet if you mapped the brains of the pathetic liberal losers on this board you'd find neurons firing in circles.

shorter rdw: I got nothin'

I got my guys in the WH, in the Senate, in the House and at the Supreme Court and they're running up major vote totals to build fences and set American policy regarding questioning and whatever else you don't want them to do.

My favorite part of the discussions over the 'torture' bill is that not one single liberal voice was heard. Not a one. Every Democratic Senator sat it out.

The two most obvious "FACTS" (AL) today are that Republicans have redefined HYPOCRISY and made, again, so true the reminder that when one points a finger - three are pointing back at him. Projection is the best weapon that REPUGS have and works because folks are basically too lazy to THINK, prefering someone else to do that for them. WELL, Al, and the rest of your ilk, you've hit the MOTHERLOAD of folks willing to open up your heads and pour crap in...ENJOY!!!

rdw, please try to understand statements in context before repying to them. It makes you look like you have a case of diarhea-of-the-fingers when you type comments seemingly at random.

The reporter who took out Nixon...

That was Bernstein, the one who saw the forest for the trees provided by Woodward's sources. If you're willing to take it far enough, it wasn't Woodward who took out Nixon, it was Felt. Woodward merely did his job to relay what Felt told him, just as Woodward is relaying what the White House staff is telling him now. Is that simply enough for you, Jay?

What really strikes me is what this book says about Woodward.....

Here's a leading American reporter who in two books about the bush administration, treats its actions as run by wise men with forward vision.

Then he writes a third, and suddenly, our noble leader is an incurious dolt whose leadership is largely driven by those around him.

Did our noble leader suddenly change overnight, or was he always an incurious dolt...etc. When our noble leader says he is so sure he is right he'll "stay the course" even if his wife and his dog are the only ones still with him (and it appears his wish is coming true if you look at how those around him are deserting the ship) then one has to assume that his incurious doltship has always been his primary method of leadership.

Which raises the question to Mr. Woodward....just HOW did you manage to miss that fact in your first two books? Or conversely, if things suddenly changed, when did our incourious leader transform himself from saviour of the western world to leader of his wife and dog?

rdw: My favorite part of the discussions over the 'torture' bill is that not one single liberal voice was heard. Not a one. Every Democratic Senator sat it out.

Go here, search on "Clinton" "Obama" "Dodd" and "Feingold".

It hardly matters whether you were knowingly lying, or just making bullshit assertions without having the least idea of their truth. Either way, you're an intellectually dishonest troll whose posts need no further reply.

"That was Bernstein"

You think a fair and balanced reporter like Tony Snow, Shepard Smith, John Gibson, or Geraldo would be willing to slink around in the dark to get an anonymous single source story on a supposed coverup by the Nixon administration. I think they would have done the right thing and recommended mental health counseling for Felt.

RT,

They waited until after. They did absolutely nothing. They didn't even make an attempt to mount a filibuster. Sorry but issuing a too little, too late press release isn't expressing a voice. It's covering your ass.

Which raises the question to Mr. Woodward....just HOW did you manage to miss that fact in your first two books? Or conversely, if things suddenly changed, when did our incourious leader transform himself from saviour of the western world to leader of his wife and dog?

Bush didn't change and Woodward didn't change. The narrative that Woodward's sources were feeding him have changed. Woodward's sources are now in the process of trying to throw each other under the bus. Before, Woodward was relaying the message that the White House was unified and promoting the president as a Great Leader. Now they want to point blame for posterity.

Asking what "changed" about Woodward is like wondering what "changed" about the radio when it goes from advertising beer to advertising food.

A recent letter that was uncovered amongst Zarqawi's personal belongings addressed to him from one of his operatives stated that their organization was chaotic, unfocused and suffering too many losses.

Was Zarqawi a nitwit?

Juan Cole this morning:

Remember the charges Cheney and Rice made that Saddam was training al-Qaeda operatives in use of chemical weapons? Never happened. Where did the "intelligence" come from? They tortured an al-Qaeda captive named Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who told them that lie. The lie was denied by more senior al-Qaeda figures such as Khalid Shaikh Muhammad. But Cheney and Rice chose to depend on the false intelligence generated by torture. Because that falsehood was useful to getting up the war they wanted in Iraq, and to securing the oil contracts and the military bases they wanted in Iraq.

Read the whole thing. The comic book wingnut view of the WOT is so far from reality it's pathetic.

"Was Zarqawi a nitwit?"

Yup, Jay, sounds like the kind of threat that justifies a never-ending, trillion-dollar, Constitution-busting war.

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone brought Clinton's libido into the discussion.

".....that justifies a never-ending, trillion-dollar, Constitution-busting war." - lex

The only problem here moron is that they were very well focused, financed and intact during the 90's. You know, when the Democrats were in the WH. The blue dress era, you remember that, don't you?

Was Woodward lying to begin with or wasn't he?

He was wrong to begin with. You solve the question of lying.

The blue dress era, you remember that, don't you?

Xacketackly Jayman. Way to call 'em. Stead of going after Al Qaida had old Bill going after that dress. LOL. No Monica, no twin towers.

All this has been known for years: criminal incompetency in the protection of the country, criminal cynicism in full control of the foreign policy, criminal immorality undermining the foundations of the Republic - the question is whether all the corruption has fundamentally fixed the process to make accountability permanently dead. This was such a gradual negative change at first, and when things started to change faster and faster it was suddenly too late. I think it might be too late. I guess we'll see soon enough, at the latest 2008 will tell whether the system still works.

"All this has been known for years: criminal incompetency in the protection of the country, criminal cynicism in full control of the foreign policy, criminal immorality undermining the foundations of the Republic - the question is whether all the corruption has fundamentally fixed the process to make accountability permanently dead." - drama queen

But enough about Bill Clinton

"All is lost" is a heckuva platform for '08. Good luck with that.

"Now we learn that Bush's own aides fretted that alternatives were never considered, and downsides never reviewed. But still - and for me, this is the most fascinating human aspect to the story - this did not, for them, make them view Bush as incompetent."

If this account is correct, it ties in with the whole authoritarian personality shindig. How can we doubt our Dear Leader?

And jay, calm down a little - I swear I can hear your blood pressure rising from here.

Yeah, Bush is an immature and ignorant presidential face. Certainly, we've always known that fact.

But wnfortunately Woodward is a nitwit too.

Al:

Regardless of your dissemulation, lying and plain deranged whining, you repukeliperverts are going to lose the House and Senate in November.

And payback is going to be VERY POWERFUL. Many more scumbags will be investigated. Many repukeliscum will be in jail.

"And payback is going to be VERY POWERFUL" - deranged liberal

uh oh, an angry liberal! Hide the Christians, but the Muslims will be safe. Whew, close call.

With the idiots like Jay and Al as its supporters, the administration does not need the liberals to critique it.

"....does not need the liberals" - greggy

I think just in general this is an accurate statement.

The 30% who continue to back the president and the 30% who would never deign to support any republican are not the ones we need to be trying to convince of anything. Their minds are made up and they can't be swayed. So why argue with the trolletariat? It is an exercise in futility. Concentrate on the 40% who are capable of independent thought, lay out your arguments in a cogent and coherent fashion, and let the people decide their fate. As a rule, we get the government we deserve.

The 30% who continue to back the president and the 30% who would never deign to support any republican are not the ones we need to be trying to convince of anything. Their minds are made up and they can't be swayed. So why argue with the trolletariat?

Fair point. Although I think many fall outside the polled 30% and when they reach the age of 14 or 15 they might indeed change their world view. They'll have to make their own mistakes first. The Bush administration may be a good lesson for them in the long run.

"nitwit"

That is President Nitwit, Sir!

Oh Jesus, Bush is going wobbly on Iran:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2383147,00.html

Oh my god, the British are making deals with the Taliban:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2383232,00.html

What will a true patriot do? Am I the only one left who still supports victory?

Yes, moron, historians will remember The Blue Dress Era for thousands of years. It immediately preceded the Stuff Happens / Mission Accomplished / Bring 'em On / Freedom is Untidy / I Thought They Was All Muslims era.

I too have no problem with Woodward's role except for the fact that it's not obvious to many a casual reader.

My biggest complaint with Woodward is that he is not explicit enough about where his information is coming from. Read one of his books carefully and you pretty much know overall, but "pretty much" and "overall" will never be good enough when you prefer detailed verification of important facts.

My biggest concern regarding Woodward is his view of the Valarie Plame affair. How can he view this as trivial is beyond me. It leaves me wondering whether it's a matter of a lack of good judgement or does he have an axe to grind in that case?

Ah, the airs of:

"Hail to the Twit who in disarray advances!
Dishonored and unblessed be the evergreen pine"

Actually, Papago and others like him are the radicals. This "honesty" and "objective" stance in journalism we have now is something that's only been around the last 50 years or so. Before that in all of the history of this country and before we had papers that clearly had an agenda and clearly pushed their views and it forced people to not just blindly accept what was on the page because they were "independant" journalists. Because they weren't.

Maybe in a better world we could have independant journalists but right now the experiment has failed. Give me papers that are openly pushing an agenda so that there IS no higher authority than an individual's reasoning for believing the stuff in there.

It may not be pretty and it may not be efficient but things will end up like the are now at the least and probably better.

Phleabo, not papago, sorry.

Once again, you liberals stab our leaders in the back

>I view it more as kicking him in the balls from the front

>Oh.

>Okay, then...

>Once again you liberals kick our leaders in the balls from the front. --Patriot

Actually you should stick with "stab in the back." Dolchstoßlegende has a well established pedigree in goosestep-land. Always best to stick with what works.

Shorter rdw: Who cares how many innocent people get tortured and spend the rest of their lives rotting in Gitmo as long as my side wins!

"uh oh, an angry liberal! Hide the Christians, but the Muslims will be safe. Whew, close call."

Hey, if there are any Republican scumbags who happened to be Muslim, we'll investigate them too.

{Looks around . . .}

cdward,

history will record gitmo as state of the art for compassionate POW care and yes they will be there for a very, very, very long time. If you knew anything about history you would know POWS can be held without trials for the duration of any war. So says the Geneva conventions and our US Supreme Court. That might displease the French and thus embarrass you but that's OK.

Now matter how upset you get about Gitmo there's always going to be one lefty more outraged than you. Think about how pissed your guy Fidel has been over this. He's got even less say than the Democratic party.

jay: You think a fair and balanced reporter like Tony Snow


"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

- Tony Snow March 24, 1999

U-S death toll in Kosovo: 0

History will record the concentration camp in Cuba alright. But if I were honest I would point out that it will be right there next to Soviet Gulags. But as a dishonest idiot with a hatred for all things America I would never say that. Instead I will defend the party of Mark Foley, Jack Abramoff, and George “started and lost two wars” Bush to my dying day.

....Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi...

not to be confused with

scooter libby...

laffin@jay...

it looks like snow was hoping for more dead americans when clinton was president?

fake-rdw,

you could make it a little less obvius

Why? You don’t try to be a rational poster.

"...facts don't matter so long as it makes Bush look bad."

Yeah, Al, good thing we have enough "emotional anger" to be able to make this stuff up. It's hard, "really hard", to get anything on a guy who does everything so perfectly.

Just think if the Great Leader didn't have the White House, the judiciary, the Pentagon, Halliburton, big pharm and oil, Regnery and Fox News, he might never be able to get his message across—esepcially against vicious partisans like Bob Woodward. And then we'd really be in the shit, right?

What's the point of the Woodward piece? To get Rumsfeld to resign. Someone powerful somewhere believes that Rumsfeld is the chief bad guy blocking meaningful action. He's being scapegoated.

Maybe that person is Rumsfeld.

I think you need to put a little more thought into your postings, Kevin. If, on the other hand , you are not offended by Woodward's behavior, then you are as useless as a screen door on a submarine. I can't believe that even many moderates take your position on Woodward. Are you trying to win the Miss Congeniality award?

I would never stab a leader in the back - give them a much-deserved kick in the ass, yes - but stab in the back, no.

The talking point is: Administration sources want the world to know that an idiot is in charge and the course is wrong.

Shorter rdw: Who cares if most of the people at Gitmo (and the other US prisons) are innocent? They have compassionate care!

They waited until after. … rdw 10:06 AM

… We may never know now. Thomas1 10:01 AM

……recommended mental health counseling for Felt. Jay 10:03 AM

…The blue dress era, you remember that, don't you? Jay 10:48 AM

If you knew anything about history you would know POWS can be held without trials for the duration of any war. So says the Geneva conventions and our US Supreme Court…rdw at 1:05 P

Despots imprison people indefinitely without charges

Being rather harsh on FDR and Truman aren't you?

If you knew anything about history you would know POWS can be held without trials for the duration of any war.

too bad we never declared war. Try reading the Constitution sometime. Very enlightening.

See what I mean? That's not even trying anymore. We both know that Bush has imprisoned people without charges, that he has secret prisons (we know because he just told us he is moving the prisoners), and that he tortures. And to deflect attention, you simply suggest that this is all the fault of Democrats 50+ years ago. Assuming (contrary to all the evidence to date) you are telling the truth, that was a war. You might have heard of them. They have declarations. This is just Bush torturing and murdering brown people for political gain. Not that it hasn’t worked. After all, the Republicans certainly couldn’t have won on their record on the domestic issues, their ability to protect Americans, or their morality. No, fear is all they sold and they managed to make electoral victory from the bones of honest Americans who died owing to their negligence. But then, that’s reality based – not pro-torture, mindless Bush support.

I know this thread is getting a little long in the tooth, but I strongly recommend that anyone with an open mind, check out Juan Cole's blog (Informed Comment) at www.juancole.com for October 1st, 2006.

Cole attended a Central Asian seminar where the former U.S. ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, spoke. Murray's contention is that the War on Terror is a sham and that the goal of Bush and his minions is to set up a number of "lily pad" U.S. military bases in Central Asia surrounding the oil and natural gas fields. The reason Bush wants to be able to use torture against presumptive "al-Qaeda" suspects is to get forced confessions that exaggerate the threat posed by al-Qaeda. Here is a representative example:

"Murray as UK ambassador began seeing CIA reports naming known al-Qaeda operatives who were prominent in Uzbekistan. But these turned out to be just run of the mill Uzbek politicians who were on the outs with Karimov. Where did the CIA get this information about high-level terrorists in Uzbekistan? From Karimov's secret police. And where did they get their phony "intelligence"? From torturing dissidents and making them admit to being al-Qaeda and implicating others as al-Qaeda. From torture. From the twilight of consciousness before they were boiled to death like lobsters".

In other words, Bush needs torture to get false confessions and exaggerated claims to support his fictitious "War on Terror".

People need to deeply, deeply question this "War on Terror" and urge aggressive international police action and cooperation to root out those very few, committed terrorists that do exist and NOT a military solution.

Read this very important column!!!

rdw, what's the weather like in Bizarro World? Do they make you wear your underwear on the outside so they can check it three times a week?

Hey, if they arrest your family and torture them, it's good to know that the Bizarro Leaders will be doing it for all the right reasons—and you won't complain because that would make you a crazy liberal. Sleep tight in your bed of fear, knowing that whatever else goes wrong in the next two years, it will be Clinton's fault.

What I love about the White House's response to Woodward's allegations that Rumsfield is despised by much of the cabinet, and that Bush is becoming increasingly isolated: "Hey, it's old news."

Guess naked emperors just grow tougher skin as the weather turns colder.

(oh how i mourn the assault on our civil liberties perpetrated by clinton at ruby ridge and waco)

Bull! Ruby Rudge took place in August 1992. Do the math and see who is repsonsible.

As for Waco, that was during Clinton's watch (three weeks after inauguration). But whose FBI and Whose BATF was calling the shots and creating the crisis to begin with?

Perhaps Woodward's next book will tell us how Bush also signed a secret presidential order directing u.s. officials to launch a dirty war in Iraq--the Salvadoran option. See my latest post at http://barrylando.com

He said: “I met Bill Clinton once but he didn’t really talk — he was hitting on my wife.”
Posted by: rdw

Now we know what rdw stands for - Really Dumb Wanker. I'll make this as clear as possible, rdw, Kutcher was joking. He's a comedic actor (although not a very good one), he tells jokes.

It would be interesting to find out just how Clinton hit on Demi Moore without speaking. Maybe he has telepathic powers!