Bob Woodward - No Lies found

[cabri]

Link

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors, but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.
Though plenty of mistakes were made in the invasion of Iraq, Bush actually told CIA Director George Tenet, "Don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD," Woodward said.
...

Remember, that this is the guy that help pull down Nixon - so he is not a Republican stooge as Dem sheep might like to claim.

 

[theeedude]

Bush is a Republican, so the buck stops nowhere.

 

[soundforbjt]

He had Cheney do it, same outcome.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Then who was responsible for such bad intelligence?
Has anyone been held accountable?

 

[drebo]

Who fucking cares?

Half-assed American Imperialism has been going on since the 60s and will continue until we pick the wrong fight and are forced to learn to just mind our own fucking business.

Noninterventionism is the only policy. And, no, it is not the same as isolationism.

 

[JSt0rm]

If 12 year younger me could smell the bullshit from my living room they certainly knew.

 

[theeedude]

Then who was responsible for such bad intelligence?
Has anyone been held accountable?

You are talking about Republicans. No one was responsible for anything.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I could have sworn the Democrats not only had the Whitehouse as well as both houses in 2009/2010 and didn't press any charges against those who provided bad intelligence. Not to mention no one was really held responsible for the financial debacle of 2008. Guess the Democrats lacked the political will to do either or was afraid it would cost them their seats.

 

[theeedude]

I could have sworn the Democrats not only had the Whitehouse as well as both houses in 2009/2010 and didn't press any charges against those who provided bad intelligence. Not to mention no one was really held responsible for the financial debacle of 2008. Guess the Democrats lacked the political will to do either or was afraid it would cost them their seats.

Notice Republicans never take responsibility for anything, they just change subject to Democrats. But they want to be given "responsibility" for running the country in 2016.

 

[trenchfoot]

I could have sworn the Democrats not only had the Whitehouse as well as both houses in 2009/2010 and didn't press any charges against those who provided bad intelligence. Not to mention no one was really held responsible for the financial debacle of 2008. Guess the Democrats lacked the political will to do either or was afraid it would cost them their seats.

Let's call that a professional courtesy, as the Dems, being politicians themselves, fully understand that the Repubs would respond in kind should the shoe on the other foot also step into a fresh steaming pile.....or would they?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Notice Republicans never take responsibility for anything, they just change subject to Democrats. But they want to be given "responsibility" for running the country in 2016.

I've never seen Democrats take responsibility anything either, so much easier to blame it on the Republicans.

 

[mindmajick]

Then who was responsible for such bad intelligence?
Has anyone been held accountable?

Just maybe the Central INTELLIGENCE agency. The same people who gave Hilary the wrong info on Benghazi.

 

[Jhhnn]

Link




Remember, that this is the guy that help pull down Nixon - so he is not a Republican stooge as Dem sheep might like to claim.

Woodward sold out a long time ago. Deal with it.

The rationale for the invasion of Iraq was trumped up fraud, orchestrated from the Bush White House. Dubya didn't lie? He just had his friends & minions do it for him. He said "find me a way" & they did, exploiting the shock & resentment of 9/11 for that purpose.

Only fools let pride & loyalty stand in the way of the realization that they've been had.

 

[MongGrel]

Woodward sold out a long time ago. Deal with it.

This.

He'd do about anything to be relevant again these days I imagine.

 

[trenchfoot]

Just maybe the Central INTELLIGENCE agency. The same people who gave Hilary the wrong info on Benghazi.

Think of of the CIA as an attack dog that not only is just barely being able to be controlled by its master, it also has on it's mind it's own survival instinct to contend with. Now let's add to that how those characteristics play with and against those same features found in the sitting president, and how both have in their own minds their duty to protect and serve the people who gave them the authority to do just that and the conflicts that naturally occur from both doing their jobs the way they see fit.

Then let's add in all of those layers of personal agendas that need minding to up and down the chain of command, and then add in the individual personalities involved (yes, including the control freaks and chronic paranoids) and the personality conflicts that obviously arise from that condition, and top it all off with having to win elections against foes that want to win just as badly and are willing to do just about anything, ANYTHING for the riches that control at that level of society brings.

From that perspective, having Bush and Cheney convincing the rest of the nation that we REALLY needed to get Saddam and put aside getting revenge for 9/11 for the sake of "world peace" and spreading democracy is just as plausible as having Hillary getting the "wrong info on Benghazi", don't you think?

 

[Jhhnn]

I've never seen Democrats take responsibility anything either, so much easier to blame it on the Republicans.

Dive for the bunker o' denial!

 

[dank69]

I could have sworn the Democrats not only had the Whitehouse as well as both houses in 2009/2010 and didn't press any charges against those who provided bad intelligence. Not to mention no one was really held responsible for the financial debacle of 2008. Guess the Democrats lacked the political will to do either or was afraid it would cost them their seats.

Imagine if they investigated with the same veracity as Issa.

 

[trenchfoot]

Dive for the bunker o' denial!

Every conservative has a very well used and broken in one supplied by none other than their friendly folks at FOX, the local chapter of their Tea Party and custom made ones donated by Rush Limbaugh complete with padded walls and meals delivered three timed daily on a regular basis.

 

[boomerang]

Too many have got too much invested psychologically to listen to what Bob Woodward has to say now about Bush. Investigative journalism is a term very foreign to these same people. They like the adoration form of journalism. You know, the 'boxers or briefs' kind?

 

[Meghan54]

George W. Bush, Cincinnati, OH, Oct. 7, 2002:

It (Iraq) possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons…. Surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.

Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

(A September 2002 report by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which was widely distributed to government policymakers, said, "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.")



In September 2002, Cheney insisted there was "very clear evidence" Saddam was developing nuclear weapons: Iraq's acquisition of aluminum tubes that were to be used to enrich uranium for bombs. But Cheney and the Bush White House did not tell the public that there was a heated dispute within the intelligence community about this supposed evidence.

The top scientific experts in the government had concluded these tubes were not suitable for a nuclear weapons program. But one CIA analyst—who was not a scientific expert—contended the tubes were smoking-gun proof that Saddam was working to produce nuclear weapons. The Bush-Cheney White House embraced this faulty piece of evidence and ignored the more-informed analysis. Bush and Cheney were cherry-picking—choosing bad intelligence over good—and not paying attention to better information that cut the other way.


At a Sept. 7, 2002, joint news conference with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, Bush declared that a 1998 International Atomic Energy Agency report had found that Iraq had been "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."

One problem: There was no such IAEA report. In 1998, the IAEA actually had reported there were "no indications" that Iraq was producing nuclear weapons. Bush wasn't citing bad intelligence. He had concocted a nonexistent report to bolster the case for war.

 

[theeedude]

So Bush was an innocent bystander as others in his own administration whom he hired and backed just happened to lie resulting in unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and a trillion dollars disappearing into pockets of friendly defense companies?

 

[MongGrel]

So Bush was an innocent bystander as others in his own administration whom he hired and backed just happened to lie resulting in unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and a trillion dollars disappearing into pockets of friendly defense companies?

Was pretty convenient.

That and the whole, "I want to be a war president thing".

Dubya will always be a twat in my mind, just the way it is.

Still amazes me he was re elected, that one threw my any credibility in the political system in the toilet right there to me.

 

[theeedude]

Too many have got too much invested psychologically to listen to what Bob Woodward has to say now about Bush. Investigative journalism is a term very foreign to these same people. They like the adoration form of journalism. You know, the 'boxers or briefs' kind?

Woodward is irrelevant. The time to tell us everyone was lying but Bush was out to lunch and had no clue was before we went to war. That would have been great investigative journalism. 13 years later it's just verbal masturbation and attention whoring.

 

[MongGrel]

Woodward is irrelevant. The time to tell us everyone was lying but Bush was out to lunch and had no clue was before we went to war. That would have been great investigative journalism. 13 years later it's just verbal masturbation and attention whoring.

+1

 

[davmat787]

Anonymous internet forum posters declaring Woodward to be irrelevant. The irony is so precious.