Oct 01 2006
Woodward’s Democrat Propaganda
Bob Woodward is definitely on an anti-Bush, pro-Democrat tear. His facts do not support his wild claims. I saw one such fact, a memorandum from the military on Iraq,that said the insurgents had the resources to maintain or expand their efforts through 2007. Somehow this was twisted to say Bush is lying when he said there is a chance things could stabilize, but the military would make the decision when conditions would be right to reduce troops. Of course the insurgents have the explosives and people to keep up their efforts into 2007. They are using IED’s which are made of components available all over the planet. But how is it lying to say things could get better if Iraqis can take over security and crack down on the insurgents? How is this inconsistent with the POSSIBILITY things do not get better for now?
I have to laugh at all this because the lefties apparently are in full fantasy mode, and each new wild claim makes them look more and more unstable. Jane Harmon on Fox News Sunday was the epitome of the Democrat problem. As leaks keep coming out to turn the American people away from the war and into the idea of surrendering to Al Qaeda – Harmon let out the real issue for dems: power. When confronted with the fact large majorities of Democrats showed their true colors and voted against calling terrorists enemy combatants, interrogating them seriously and not treating them with the rights and honors due an American citizen (in what bizarre world does killing 3000 people in 9-11 then relay the rights and privileges of this great country on the murderers? If not for 9-11 Dems would not ever think of conveying US rights on a terrorist caught in Pakistan!) Harmon made her gaffe. The Bill is about how to defend ourselves and Harmon said the issue was about how Congress has the power to determine how prisoners from the battlefield would be treated. I guess the fact Congress was voting their will never dawned on Harmon in all of this. But she was clear: it was about power – not what was the best path on dealing with our terrorist threat. Ugh, these people are so egotistical.
Bob Woodward discovered the Bush administration allowed debate and contrarian views to be voiced before making hard decisions. Wow. Color me enlightened. And the Dems now believe terrorists who participated in 9-11 (Kahlid Sheik Mohammed) should be conveyed all the rights of Americans for their murderous acts (otherwise they would not get said treatment). And the liberal media and DC echo chamber thinks this will help Dems??? OK, maybe I am the only person out here who thinks America is a lot smarter and more informed than the news media and political consultants in DC. I could be wrong – but I have trusted America to see through these silly mental gyrations and come to smart conclusions (on Kerry for example). Congress exercised their power and denied terrorists who toppled the WTC Towers, hit the Pentagon and highjacked civilian airlines the rights to be quasi-Americans. They were deemed enemy combatants and they will pay for their war crimes, which violate the very Geneva Conventions the lefties claimed protected them from our interrogators. Anyone thinking otherwise should be voted from office.
Addendum: And one other item. While we are in this life and death struggle, any person in the government entrusted to protect us by protecting how our defenses work should be prosecuted and thrown in jail if they abuse that trust and responsibility to leak information for partisan purposes. Where is the outrage on the left for the partisan leaks we have seen? If Al Qaeda learns how to circumvent our defenses because some leftist tipped off the world about the legal and successful SWIFT program (monitoring the flow of terrorists funds to possible target areas to support a suicide cell) then that is negligent homocide in my book. Partisan blinders is no excuse to risk everyone else’s lives.
It seems every election cycle we get more and more leftist books out there. Was a great post at the corner on Woodward:
Woodward [Michael Ledeen]
There doesn’t seem to be much interest in Woodward’s book here, and for good reason. Anyone who thinks he knows what other people are thinking, especially in situations he didn’t witness—which is after all what most all Woodward books are all about—is not to be taken seriously. I haven’t read a Woodward book since I reviewed his thing on Casey, which famously contained an account of a sort of conversation he claimed he had with the stroke-stricken director of central intelligence in the hospital. Woodward was scheduled to go on Nightline, and earlier that day Ted Koppel called me and asked what I would ask Woodward. “Ask him to describe the room,” I said. “You know, what was Casey wearing? Were there lots of flowers? What color were his pajamas, that sort of thing…” And Koppel did. And Woodward froze, deer-in-the-headlights. Then he said he couldn’t discuss it because it would “reveal sources.”
He couldn’t discuss it because he wasn’t there. He was the source himself.
I’m not going to read this one either.
Woodward is trying to get back in with his social class. They were pissy about the last book,
One claim he made that I found interesting was the assertion that Bush was hiding the number of attacks in Iraq. But all that information is in the Brookings Institute survey on Iraq. It is not hidden or classified, but most people just don’t have the inclination to read all that stuff. So I guess that means Bush is supposed to do a daily press conference and tell us the news himself.
I really think the whole Bushbash book thing is getting old. Does anyone actually read this stuff?
Talking about questions to ask. Here’s one.
Woodward talked about the conversation Laura Bush and Condi Rice had when they took a stroll at Camp David. Just those two. So who was the source of the content of that conversation.
I don’t think Laura told him.
I don’t think Condi told him.
Hmm Woodward must have been the source.
Ah, Strata, “negligent homicide,” you say? Have you ever called for such designation and prosecution of a few of those responsible for allowing 9/11 in the first place?
“Egostistical” in seeking power ,the Democ rats? Doubtless, they are vulnerable to this charge-as are the Strata/Bush neocons for
using scare phrases like “surrendering to Al Qaeda” and “life or death struggle”as a frenzied means of retaining power.
Strata well knows military and civilian experts who argue,as do the majority of non-jihad Iraqis, that leaving Iraq is the best way TO
fight Al Qaeda. But the last theing Strata cares about,believing in the
“indispensable” nature of America, to quote Madeline Albright,
is what the Iraqis want-he and his kind will “Westernize” and
“democratize” them whether they wish it or not.
And of course the scattered army-less, navy-less, air force-less
jihadists should be tortured in secret CIA prisons in such a way as to
make the teeming masses of Islam appreciate us even more
and exit the ranks of the jihad rather than join it. That is ,when they are not appreciating us for financing Israel’s destruction of Lebanon.
Anyone who quotes Madeline Albright as an authority on anything has a screw loose. And Ken, if we left Iraq, where would be the best place to fight
al Quaeda and other terrorists? The streets of NYC or maybe Washington perhaps? It puzzles me where the dems think the war on terror could be fought. Oh, excuse me, the dems don’t think there is a war on terror. I have come to the conclusion that the dems do not see anything wrong with Al Quaeda tactics is because they are also democrat tactics. Sneaky, underhanded in the shadows attacks out of the blue. Never knowing where these attacks will come from. Although Al Quaeda attacks are lethal, dem attacks are just as sneaky.
Ken, things going ok over there in France today?
“those responsible for allowing 9/11 in the first place?”
And that would be….. Clinton and his crowd. Ok, no disagreement there.
“Strata well knows military and civilian experts who argue,as do the majority of non-jihad Iraqis, that leaving Iraq is the best way TO
fight Al Qaeda.”
No he doesn’t. There are none. There a few nutjobs running around spouting the progressive message. But they are, of course, just the
‘hate America first’ crowd.
“jihadists should be tortured in secret CIA prisons in such a way as to
make the teeming masses of Islam appreciate us even more”
I don’t know any reason they should be ‘secret’. The jihadists chop off heads in public. and that makes nutjobs like you want to treat them even better. Maybe if we tortured them in public, it would make them want to treat us even better. That’s your logic.
“That is ,when they are not appreciating us for financing Israel’s destruction of Lebanon.”
What you think they don’t appreciate us for financing Israel? If we didn’t they wouldn’t be getting their money and military supplies from Iran and Syria. It really chaps your butt that the Lebanese started a war with Israel and come out on the short end of who got blown up.
Ken, why did the communists change their name to Progressive rather than neolib? just semantics?
Madeline one of your idols is she? She been over to France for a personal visit since she left office?
Tell Jacque we send out best?
Actually, I am pretty sure that Ken does not like M. Albright, perhaps because she supported the UN sanctions against Iraq.
Tell us how you feel about M. Albright, Ken. You feel she’s a war criminal, right?
You politically illiterate blowhards, I should have realized, are not
sophisticated enough to grasp the irony in my Albright quote, which
is echoed by yourselves , Bush and all the neocons in your basic agreement with her regards America’s stature in the world.
And of course I have just yesterday quoted a US military officer
who say we cannot defeat Al Qaeda but once we leave Iraqis themselves have a better chance. Since For Enforcement boasted he
refused to read the link, let him wallow in ignorance until the inevitable Vietnam-like pullout.
Murtha and General William E. Odom are among hundreds of such experts who can be utilized to show the bleak military outlook ,
and thus calls for departure on their part. Another is ex CIA head Deutsch who also called for getting out.
If anyone is the naieve nutjob with his ostrich-like head in the sand,it is For Enforcement.
The Israeli failure in Lebanon has been proven by the calls for Olmert’s resignation, by Israeli military admitting the failure,
and the resilient staying power of Hezbollah.
Ken, you didn’t say how things are there in France……
Let’s see, there must be thousands of Generals, and you can find 1(one) to support your position. all righty..
And Murtha is an expert? at what? betraying his country. Selling out.
The real irony in your Albright quote is the fact she is your expert witness.
“If anyone is the naieve nutjob with his ostrich-like head in the sand,it is For Enforcement.” At least it ain’t up my ass as your’s is.
“The Israeli failure in Lebanon” and tell me again which one of the countries has millions in damages and lots of dead people? Was that Israel? or Lebanon? hmmm, I’ll leave you guessing on that.
And if you figure it out. I’ll give you a clue, they were the losers.
Tell us again what a neolib is?
And as always, give Jacque or regards.
General William E. Odum is cited–and I bet if you reveal your approximate locale in America, I can find as serious problems as those which afflict most parts of France within 50 miles of your home.
Frenchie,
“which afflict most parts of France within 50 miles of your home.”
That would be real easy, as we all know about 50% of this country is full of neolibs. But then it is closer to 100% there in France. In addition to about 80% of them being chicken*hit.
Give our regards to Jacque and your countrypeople.
Unlike the stupid Americans who let Bush lie them into a no-win
war, the smarter Frenchmen FE envies, stayed out .
Result? US 2700 dead 35,000 wounded . France, zip and zip.