Bob Woodward is publishing his 4th book on the Bush administration this Monday, Sept. 8. Both Fox News and the Washington Post have published advanced news stories on the book. The book is ..."based on more than 150 interviews with the president's national security team, senior deputies and other key intelligence, diplomatic and military players. Woodward also conducted two on-the-record interviews with Bush in May." (wash post) (how does Woodward continue to get such amazing access to people of power?) Here are some of the revelations as referenced by Fox and the Post: 1. While publicly maintaining that the US was winning Bush privately felt that the US strategy was failing. 2. The President secretly spied on the Maliki government. 3. There was serious dissension among key military leaders, who were ultimately replaced. They felt the President wasn't getting accurate information. Bush ultimately replaced these military leaders having lost confidence in them. 4. When Bush replaced Rumsfeld with Gates he kept the information secret from Cheney until the last day. 5. Rather than crediting the surge for the decrease in violence in Iraq Woodward credits 4 factors including: The White House revealed some elements of covert actions that enabled the US to identify and kill al-queda in Iraq leaders, but also got him to restrict publishing specifics of this process. 6. Prior to the surge occurring the Pentagon agreed to free 2 brigades for the increase in soldiers. Bush ordered and received 5 brigades for the increase. 7. Both Fox and the Post reference the book suggesting that Bush often seemed dramatically disengaged with regard to progress in Iraq. He did take an active role with regard to increasing troops during 2007 in what resulted in the surge.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/09/iraq.secret/index.html Anyone have an idea of what this could be?
Rob: (its great to be a mod, Rob--and edit titles)--but that is a good and intriguing addition. Its secret; how could we know what it is? Hmmm....Woodward said that the terrorists already know about it. First one who describes it here, must be a terrorist. The excerpt from yesterday's Washington Post described in greater depth how during 2006, Bush lost confidence in the generals and the Pentagon, and they lost confidence in him. When he decided to go with the surge it is thoroughly opposed by the joint chiefs of staff. They absolutely feared that it would utterly destroy the army and marines. Bush's actions really look like a big gamble, willing to go all out in Iraq, and damn any other consequences. Meanwhile he was communicating different things to the public. As to the Secret policy, that you are referencing, Rob: Woodward says that 4 different things related to the drop in violence usually totally attributed to the surge in troop numbers, including: 1. the surge in soldiers 2. Al Sadr's Shi'ites not fighting the US and Iraqi government 3. The decision by Sunni's in Anbar to team with the US and hunt out the extremists. 4. The big secret methodology that found and killed al queda in Iraq--bad guys. from what I read, woodward didn't seem to imply that any one of them was more important than the others.
Earl, did you read the debunk to this? I suppose I could post it, since "the other side of the story" should be there as well
As to a draft...... Bob Woodward's latest book, The War Within, published on 9/8, reveals that during 2006 the issue of conscription (a draft) was broached by the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). During the year, as violence in Iraq escalated, Bush focused on a strategy that led to the surge. The JCS hotly contested this issue, claiming internally that we didn't have the troops to spare. Moving troops into Iraq would seriously jeopardize reserve and safety requirements around the world. None of this was made public. The administration quashed discussions on a draft. From the administration perspective, with the mid term elections coming up it would have been a political disaster. With much debate the JCS grudgingly came up with a plan for 2 additional brigades and the administration demanded and received 5 brigades. It required calling up more soldiers from the reserves/national guard and extending stays beyond 12 months. I think the book demonstrates a reasonably high level of believability. In one regard over the past 8 years Bush has agreed to specific on record interviews with Woodward over the course of his period as President that have provided a unique look at one goes on within the White House different from that which the administration makes public. Rangel has stated earlier he wants to seriously propose a draft. He knows fully well it would be a political hot potato. He also believes, probably, that a national service requirement with a draft, might have worthwhile benefits. But a draft in its own right would dramatically change the character of debate about Iraq. Moving forward, the increased benefits for college education offered to new recruits will probably have a big effect in increasing enlistments. It is also anticipated the higher level of benefits will serve as an inducement for enlisted soldiers to leave service earlier. Who knows what the net effect will be though current estimates the net effect will be the same as a less expensive education benefit would have created. As far as Koch, I simply found it interesting he would support Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008. Even as a Democrat he has always held a unique somewhat maverick perspective. I agree with pizzaman on one issue. He would be an effective advocate for Obama for a large population of New York retirees in Florida, where the race is close. If you are going to campaign....might as well do it somewhere where the weather is warm.
i have an opinion about a couple of the points 1- sadr made the move as part of an overall warming up to iran. 2- removing of the dumbfeld was the turning point and the reason for the success in Iraq not the surge. lol i like this better any way. by the way i just wrote a lot of not well organized thought in the other thread about Koch that you might find interesting. also i think Florida is better when it is not so hot. and Barbara is the only person that might be better.
@pizzaman: I screwed up. I meant to post the above post in the thread you started about Koch. Oh well. sorry. It was late. I was tired.