Was just watching The Situation Room on CNN. Story on Bob Woodwards new book which comes out next Monday, and promises to be a bombshell of a book, maybe even more than his two previous books on Iraq and Bushs' war there. In snippets released to CBS News in which (Woodward is going to be interviewed by CBS on this Sundays "60 Minutes" program), Woodward says the administration is, in a total state of denial about Iraq, and how badly things are going there. He also says that the White House "has not been truthful with the American people" regarding the war and how badly its going as well. Well, what a surprise!!!!! This could be, maybe, as Sen. Kennedy said recently, the last nail in the coffin for Bush and his Iraq quagmire..Expect him to be everywhere next week talking it up. I see this doing nothing but helping the Democrats, and this according to a CNN poll, which said if Iraq is the central issue, people say they will vote Dems. by a 68% -29% margin in November......and Iraq is the big issue. His critics have charged Woodward with being to soft in his previous books on Bush and Iraq. Sounds like he finally got the message this time.

I hope he does get this message out. There's no room for our Imperious President to deny the lie any longer. There no weapons of mass destruction. We had Saddam bottled up like a ship in a bottle. We had Afghanistan to focus on with the hunt for Osama and he even screwed that up. At best, this is incompetence at best, nearly treasonous at worst. Our troops are dying by the thousands and Iraqis are dying the tens of thousands and all our Imperious President can come up with is, "We have to stay the course until victory is achieved."

Define victory. Define what the course is then. Give us, the American people, who are more intelligent than half of the Bush Regime, the credit we are due. Give us some proof to justify what little faith we have in this Regime. I won't hold my breath.

Well, we can throw our hands up in the air yet again, even though everything that Woodward is reporting has either been surmised or known for a while. We have a delusional psychopath as our president. He meets with the chief Nixonian regularly. He steadily lies about Iraq. Okay--and yet, nearly 40% of our fellow sheeple STILL BELIEVE STRONGLY IN HIM!

So seriously, what can be done? These people aren't going to change their minds even if we're blown to smithereens. They're zombies.

We just need to remind even the sheeple that there are 140,000 or so US soldiers in Iraq's killing fields right now. W doesn't ever want them to come home, at least not till he's out of office, because he can't bear the ignominy of admitting how completely wrong his decision was, or how horrific its outcome has been. Nope, dump that on whichever Democrat can eke out a presidential win, or whichever Republican--including Senator McTorture--lines up to lead us into the ground next.

Fantomas, when one is that deep in denial, there is no magic bullet to get them to "see the light". One by one, they all will eventually see the light, the only question that remains is will it be too late?

MB, many of those people won't see the light until they're six feet under. And even then, I wouldn't bet on that.

There are some very interesting comments coming out from the book thus far. Bush says, " I am stying in Iraq even its only Laura and Barney ( their dog) supporting me." Probably pretty accurate prediction. Woodward also said there are attacks on US forces on average about every 12 minutes. He says the White House and the Pentagon are both saying that 2007 is going to be a really bad year privately, but publically its, " oh, no, things are going very well." And on and on and on..... ABC News this morning mentioned that Woodward will most likely lose his all access White House pass over this.

So what's the deal with Woodward's earlier books? Was he duped? Did he really believe that stuff? Or was it a ploy to get in the good graces of the White House so he could get access to the good stuff?

Don't know, but critics were very, very harsh on Woodward re: his first two books, and said he was not harsh enough on Bush. Looks like he has changed his tune.

Wow, the White House must be so concerned about the charges in this book, that Tony Snow is right now answering questions about Woodwards charges in a Press Conference.......lots of spin Tony. Lots of spin!!!!!

I think this book is going to have a far larger impact than his last two. Mostly, because it pinpoints key moments in the summer of 2001 when Condi and gang simply didn't take seriously the blaringly obvious threats from Bin Laden. We all know that this administration will blame Clinton or anyone else but themselves...the facts show that they truly f*cked up in the summer before 9/11 and continue to harm our country through their arrogance and denial.

See, I think the way some of my friends do. We were attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda who was hiding out in Afghanistan. So how did the Bush Regime respond?

Attack Iraq.

HUH? Wait, how did that come about? Where was this coming from? How did they justify this pointless "war"? With obfuscation, innuendo, speculation, and full-out lies. So, our response to the al Qaeda attack on 9/11 was to attack Saddam in Iraq. Where is the logic in this?

Bob Woodward, by what the media has indicated, exposes this hypocrisy and the obfuscation that has taken place since. We are losing the war on terror in Afghanistan because of the Iraq quagmire. UGH! As 80s hero Susan Powter once said it best, "STOP THE INSANITY!"

Its gonna be one bad week for the Shrub regime! The fun begins, tonight on "60 minutes" with the full interview with Woodward, then he is guest numero uno on "Larry King Tonight" on Monday night. I expect him to pop up and just about every other talking head show there is and then some. I think this book, is gonna have an impact on the elections, moreso than his first two. The WH has been on spin control since the first mention of this book!

So all the Dems need to do is torture Barney until he turns.Agreed. It confounded me that Woodward could have risked his journalistic ethics by writing two books that could be interpreted as supporting the Bush administrations terror in Iraq. He could have accurately judged his facts in a single book.

Wow. So the Administration has dug up Henry Kissinger?? What is he secretly our Chief of State??? Unreal. I am sorry, but I can come to no other conclusion that if I had any doubt that George W. had more in common with Richard Nixon, it has been completely erased. Liar in Chief, is all I have to say.....This whole thing is turning out to be one hell of a huge disaster, of epic proportions....especially for this administration. I don't believe one word which comes out of the mouth of Geroge W. Not that I ever did anyways..... He may very well endup having the support of only Laura and Barney.

I hear you, hockeyTom! I didn't trust the Bush Regime after the Iraq quagmire and I trust him even less now. Bob Woodward finally got it right. Third time was the charm after all.

As for this Iraqi muck-fest, thank you very little, Mr. President, and you're welcome even less!

Edited to include the following:
Oops! I nearly forgot my reason for posting in the first place. Even Condi is turning ignorant now too. She's now claiming she doesn't remember CIA chief George Tenet warning her about al Qaeda two months before 9/11. This is going to get interesting!

Poor Condi. Selective memory...much?????

Caught Woodward on "Larry King". It was interesting hearing the comments coming from the White House regarding the book. Presidentail Spokesman Dan Bartlett saying that in his book, Woodward has "failed to connect the dots." Woodwards reply: "thats exactly what I did throughout the book, was to connect the dots." Also prominentaly mentioned was Condis denial, and then apparent retraction comment regarding that meeting she claimed to not know about happening.....

I caught this in USA Today. I completely agree with the points made. I am often reminded of this quote when I read about the Iraq quagmire:

"It's easy to go through life with your eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see."

I never did like Condi, but like her LESS, since reading the part in the book, about her selective memory re: a terrorist warning from George Tenet, where they tried repeatedly to bring this urgency to Condi, in a meeting held in August 2001 in Crawford, Texas, as Tenet felt something "big" was going to happen. Condi did not feel the sense of urgency that Tenet did, and of course we all know now, what she is saying and claiming...to the contrary. The book is rather riveting I must say....

Too bad most Rethugs won't read the truth.

Woodward is now on record, and two times in guest appearances said that the only way to maybe salvage this mess is for Bush to swallow his pride, and call in the Dem.s and get some feedback regarding their ideas, and thoughts on what needs to happen next. Meanwhile its been an extremely ugly start to the month over there with something like 21 American deaths in the past few days I believe, and where is the coverage???!!!

One thing that has come out from the book, that I don't believe I have heard much comment about, is that Shrubs' Father, was dead set against the quagmire in Iraq, and in fact said the thought of war with Iraq kept him from sleeping at night. He said also that according to Woodward he does not talk about it to his son either. Both comments suprised me. I guess I was thinking that he may have been more along the hard line neo-cons in pushing for the war.

I just heard the detail about our Imperious President's father not approving of going into Iraq. Therefore, I was wrong that W was trying to rewrite history on behalf of his father and will no longer be making reference to that.

However, to have one's own father who was in a similar position not do what you did should have been a lesson to learn. I would have. You would have. Most logical people would have. W is obviously not a logical person, invading Iraq after Osama was found to be in the Afghanistan-Pakistan area. We are mired down in this thing and our only logical option is to withdraw on a timetable because we have no clear strategy of what we're doing in Iraq.

This book has been eye opening in alot of areas. Things I have learned now that are very revealing about the inner workings of the current administration. Last night I was read a part about Karl Rove. It seems that both he and the President enjoyed joking alot about farting. I kid you not. Page 402 reads" Bush and Rove in particular, dwelled on flatulence, and they shared an array of fart jokes. The son of one senior White House staffer had a small toy with a remote control, that produced a farting sound. One morning the device was placed under Rove's chair, and activated during a senior staff meeting. There were multiple activations and it took Rove several minutes to locate the toy."

I also have been reading about Kissingers involvement and meetings with the President. He has come to a conclusion ( Kissinger) that Bush doesn't really have a grasp of how to run a government, which I thought was quite shocking. The other thing he said which I thought was profound was that the administration was not able to fully comprehend and grasp the extreme negative consequences ( downside) of making major decisions. Pretty telling I thought. I don't have much more to go. Its hard to put this book down!

I read somewhere a couple of years ago, where a person was invitied to Kennebunkport during the
reign of 41. The person couldn't sleep and went downstairs to find something to read, and apparently the only thing to read in the house was something called "The Fart Book". When he questioned it the next morning, apparently the Bush family was proud that they didn't read. I'll try and remember who wrote it.

Lksimcoe, I have heard of that book.

Just finished the book today, and again it should be required reading for every American, and anybody else who has questions about the Iraq quagmire. I came away with an even stronger impression that the President really hasn't a clue as to what to do next over there or exactly what they need to be done. And that he and his cronies have known for YEARS how bad the situation is over there, and that major changes were needed YEARS ago. His lies and half truths are old, and all thats left is his denial. It was an eye opening read, and I recommend it highly.

Hockeytom, I'm going to pick the book up this week. I haven't been a big fan of Woodward's, but I am curious to see what he has to say here. The prior book actually contained a lot of material that was critical of Bush, though the mainstream media didn't spin it this way. You know, they pounced on any "pro-Bush" passages and ran with them.

Unfortunately, the people who most need to read this book or others like it, or see any of the documentaries on Iraq, etc., are the zombies who refuse to believe anything that conflicts with their view. I can't imagine being that worshipful of ANYBODY. I can't think of a single Democrat whom I would not criticize or challenge to get her or his act together if they were running things into the ground like WPE Bush, and fortunately some Republicans are doing that, yet you have others who still get on camera and spout perverse nonsense like, "Everything is fine in Iraq" and "We'll stand up when they stand down" and "We found WMDs" and "Al Qaeda was working with Saddam" and the insurgency's in its "last throes," etc. How certifiable do you have to be to believe this stuff, in the face of REALITY? (BTW, a poor American soldier has gone missing today in Iraq, amidst widespread killings, bombings, etc.)

It's also important to continue to analyze and explore exactly why the administration needed so badly to conduct this war. Who exactly has benefitted? While the country's integrity has gotten hammered, what specific gains have been made for bush and company? Is the now permanent presence of the US in the middle east the real story? Is it the control of the oil? Is it that simple?

And now that it's become so clear that this was a manufactured, calculated war, does that lend credence to any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories? Especially the alleged "controlled demolition" of WTC building 7?

We know that everything's fishy, but what's the real cause behind the smell?

The other thing that has become abundantly clear to me after reading this book, is that Rummy should have been let go YEARS ago. Some of his thinkings, and comments about things were just totally bizarre, and there were a couple of times where Woodward was left just speechless by Rummy's comments..its also clear he doesn't really have a clue as to what exactly is going on, or what to do next. Another area the book pointed out really well was the huge rift between Condi and Rummy. Pretty clear they are not fans of each other.

Stay the course!
Wait, that is sooooooo last week.

Yes, the writing is on the wall. We MUST leave Iraq, even if it does great harm to that country. As conservative commentator Paul Harvey is fond of saying, "Self-government cannot work without self-discipline." The Iraqis must govern themselves, even if it costs their lives to do it. It shouldn't cost American lives for this.

If Bob Woodward's book has helped to force the issue, then he has done the job of every journalist to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comforted".

At this point, I would tend to favor the position of Joe Biden, and that one is to divide if you will, the country into three districts/section based on the 3 leading sects there. This to me out of the options mentioned makes the most sense.

First, let me say that I'm no expert on the Middle East, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. But saying that, I think the partitioning of Iraq is a very, very bad idea. Why? Because the Shiite south will be oil-rich and closely allied with Iran. (In fact this has already happened; Iraq's Shiite-dominated government and Iran have signed military agreements, and Iran is backing the Badr Brigades, I believe.) The Kurdish north will be oil-rich and will be able to influence and fund Kurdish separatist movements in Iran and Turkey, and as we know, Turkey would readily fight a war against the Kurds, thus dragging into play another major military power into this conflict. (This is already beginning as Turkey's military has, I think, crossed the border more than once so far.)

I have not mentioned the Sunnis, but here goes: the most violent areas of the country, outside Baghdad, the mixed-ethnic cities of Mosul and Kirkuk, and the southern ones where the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades (which is to say, Moqtada al-Sadr's forces vs. the Iranian-backed forces of SCIRI/Hakim, respectively) are fighting to the death, are predominantly Sunni. Were the Sunnis to construct their own state, we've already seen some proclaiming an Islamic Republic. But it would be likely to harbor Al Qaeda (even more so than now), AND would be closely tied to other Sunni Islamicist entities throughout the region (Hamas, the fanatics in Syria and Saudi Arabia, etc.), and would literally be in a position to foment all kinds of problems both in that region and across the globe. On top of this, the Sunni region has the least amount of oil, so that it would have every incentive to try and seize territory from the Shiites and/or the Kurds, and given that Turkey is an ethnically Turkic country but religiously Sunni one, it could ally with Turkey to subjugate the Kurds. That wouldn't happen easily, and it would involve a bloodbath, but remember that Saddam, a Sunni, oppressed the Kurds with little outcry from Turkey (which has its own Kurd separatist problem, including bombing within the last month).

The potential for scenes of destruction worse than what we've witnessed already is great. Remember too that Iraq borders on Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, so neither of these three countries, especially Kuwait, would be safe. (Nor would any of the other smaller oil-rich countries, like Qatar, UAE, etc.) On the one hand, one reason WPE Bush does NOT want to pull out is because he sees the writing on the wall in terms of the partitioning and the disaster that could occur; yet because he has stubbornly and consistently (since DAY ONE) refused to provide enough US troops, because we have almost no real military allies (except Britain) to shoulder the burden and our military is stretched to the limit, because of the US's ignorance of the longstanding ethnic and religious tensions, and because of the ineptitude and corruption of the various US administrative entities over there AND the successive post-Saddam Iraqi governments, the military strategies so far just are NOT working. So WHAT DO WE DO? Well, staying the course isn't going to work. Partitioning isn't going to work. So we're going to have to do what we most loathe doing which is negotiating with the Iranians, the Syrians, the insurgents, and working out a plan so that whatever remains, if the US troops redeploy, has broader regional support (including troops stationed there), and doesn't turn out to be more than an antechamber to hell than what we've currently seen.