Woodward Defines Change Needed on November 7 on '60 Minutes' Tonight
While some would say we need additional evidence that the Iraq war is prosecuted by a bunch of Republican liars as much as we need more proof that disgraced GOP Congressman Mark Foley is a pervert, it's still important that everyone catch tonight's '60 Minutes' to see journalist Bob Woodward spell it out even more.
In his new book, 'State of Denial,' Woodward spells out in agonizing detail how George W. Bush and the Republican party have lied to the American people on the level of violence in Iraq and, in particular, the intensity of attacks against U.S. troops.
"It’s getting to the point now where there are eight, nine-hundred attacks a week. That's more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces," says Woodward, of a fact that has clearly been intentionally hidden from Americans by Team Bush.
In addition, Woodward details that, no matter what nonsense Bush, Dick Cheney and
Donald Rumsfeld spew daily about how great things are going in Iraq, it has indeed gone to hell in a hand basket and will get worse, not better, in 2007.
"The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], 'Oh, no, things are going to get better,'" Woodward tells Mike Wallace tonight . "Now there’s public, and then there’s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know."
"The insurgents know what they are doing. They know the level of violence and how effective they are. Who doesn't know? The American public," said Woodward.
Far from being conjecture, Woodward's book is filled with official documents and memos from within the Bush administration that go directly against most public statement made by the GOP about the Iraq war. In fact, Woodward has apparently stumbled across new information that makes him regret past statements and publications in which he appears to go way too easy on Bush.
"I found out new things, as is always the case when you replow old ground," he said recently. "The bulk of them I discovered this year. I wish I'd had some of them for the earlier books, but I didn't."
Woodward also discloses new information about the extent to which Rumsfeld received loud, early warnings from military officials, saying that things were about to start going very badly in the ill-advised Iraq war. Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, upon coming back from an assignment as the first head of the Iraq Postwar Planning Office, told Rumsfeld on June 23, 2003, that the United States had made "three tragic mistakes" in Iraq, including banning members of the Baath Party from government jobs and disbanding the Iraqi military. According to Woodward, Rumsfeld tossed Garner's concerns aside, saying "We're not going to go back."
Please tune in to '60 Minutes' tonight and urge everyone you know to watch as well -- especially those who sport a 'Support the Troops' emblem on their car.
You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.
- Bob Geiger's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend









Cut and run policy
Is it the position of the democratic party not to have operationl bases once departing OIF
As far as I know, no one has
As far as I know, no one has a "position" on operational bases in Iraq -- except the PNAC neoconservatives. They would like to have bases all throughout the ME, in order to promote their Pax Americana Crusade and, to keep the military/industrial cabal's profits as high as possible.
Murtha's plan seems to be the most sane, and that entails pulling back to the "horizon" almost immediately (within 6 months), and providing rapid-action support from remoted bases until the Iraqis can get their shit together.
We already have a presence in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE, and of course, our allies in Israel. Do we really need more operational bases in Iraq? Are we planning on more ground wars in the region? If so, why?
Anyone who believes the "fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here" line of bullshit, has been hoodwinked and manipulated. Anyone who actually believes the Rovian propaganda that Democrats are the "cut and run" Party, is just plain Dubya-level stupid. Unless, of course, that term is interpreted as meaning to "cut" our losses, and to "run" the PNAC neocon criminals straight to jail for their anti-Constitutional antics, and war crimes.
And btw, there are many ex-military members on Democrats.com, including me, and we (and all Democrats) fully support our brothers and sisters who are being used as cannon fodder in this senseless and ill-planned elective "war on terror," or as you choose to call it: OIF.
Navy_guy...The phrase Cut And Run is just a Rovian...
sequence of buzzwords. Remember that the first name the Bushistas came up with for this Iraq debacle was Crusade...the Muslims didn't care much for that.
Rove had a meeting and quickly came up with 'Operation Iraqi Liberation. Even the press, normally Bush friends, caught this one: OIL. That is the true purpose of this so-called war...this cakewalk Rummy called it.
Are you aware that as we type back and forth right now...that the oil being pumped and shipped from Iraq is not being metered? Oil theft and wonderful overcharging contracts for Bush friends is behind this quagmire. No one is paying Iraq for the oil. Ask yourself: Where does the money go? Shouldn't be hard to answer that question.
You would have to ask the Democratic Party about their stand on the Cut and Run policy--if any such exists.
We are not the Democratic Party. We are a 6 year + private site for Dems, Liberals, and others interested in honest govt., the protection of our rights under our Constitution, and a return to fiscal and economic sanity; to a cessation of hostilities...and the protection of our troops and their families.
As Bill has mentioned, many of us are Vets...we served and many of us volunteered, rather than got drafted.
I am curious as to just why you would ask about 'cut and run.'
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur