Comments on: Bob Woodward on Bush’s Iraq Gamble

By: kuru

kuru — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:26:20 +0000

Bush was the worst president we've had. He f**ked the whole world for the oil

By: In New Book, Woodward Says Bush 'Failed to Lead,' Even as Surge Succeeded |

In New Book, Woodward Says Bush 'Failed to Lead,' Even as Surge Succeeded | — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:17:14 +0000

[...] Bob Woodward on Bush’s Iraq Gamble – Before the 2006 elections, according to Woodward, Bush asked for a review of the war “under the radar screen” after Condoleezza Rice challenged the wisdom of sending additional troops to Iraq. “You’re not getting a clear picture of … [...]

By: kritt11

kritt11 — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 19:12:07 +0000

CO—Maybe I should give Obama a second look, LOL. I don't know if I can vote for a guy who would never hesitate to to use military force!

By: casualobserver

casualobserver — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 19:05:48 +0000

Maybe I should give this guy Obama a second look...........here I had thought he had graduated from the Jimmy Carter School of Terrorist Appeasement.

“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

Speaking on other national security matters, Obama said he would not take military action off the table in dealing with Iran, but diplomacy and sanctions can’t be overlooked.

The Islamic republic is a “major threat” and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a nuclear weapon, he said.

“It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon, it would be a game changer,” Obama said. “It’s sufficient to say I would not take military action off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and the United States’ interests.”

By: kritt11

kritt11 — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:34:35 +0000

None of this comes as much of a relevation. That's why the country stopped paying attention to what Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld told us about our progress in Iraq. Even after the tide turned, skepticism remained high, because there had been so many “Pollyanna” reports before that.

Still, Woodward's books will make a good resource for historians in 50 years.

By: DLS

DLS — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:21:42 +0000

1. Petraeus was right.

2. "Condoleezza Rice challenged the wisdom of sending additional troops to Iraq."

Not a good idea, but what's weird is

"claiming that Don Rumsfeld was giving him 'a fable, a story…that skirted the real problems.'"

But Rumsfeld was optimistic, not pessimistic, and wanted economy in the occupation!

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:20:48 +0000

Well, I think transparency is always good. Yes! Blow the doors off our government's misdeeds, whether against us or against others. It's high time Americans grow up and stop believing the sugar coated delusion that we're always the good guys in a life or death struggle against “evildoers”. Indeed, we are often the evildoers, or at least, as in this case, sneaky and duplicitous “friends”.

By: Silhouette

Silhouette — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:17:17 +0000

OIL

By: jchem

jchem — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:07:08 +0000

It seems that Woodward is putting to print what most of the country already knows.

“an administration riven by dissension, either unwilling or slow to confront the deterioration of its strategy in Iraq…”

If this is really news to anyone, then they have been living under a rock for awhile.

That aside, about the same upcoming book, the Post leads with this title:

“U.S. Spied on Iraqi Leaders, Book Says”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Now I would really hate to be one of these spies…surely this will raise some eyebrows within the Iraqi Government. Perhaps they will begin being suspicious of the Americans that they associate with? It leads me to wonder if this is a repeat of the Plame affair, without actually giving any names. So what good comes from this new “revelation” by Mr. Woodward?