Bob Woodward - No Lies found

[senseamp]

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

Is he relevant?

 

[Bowfinger]

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?

That's the conundrum for the Bush faithful. Do they accept that Bush personally lied about Iraq, or do they instead concede that Bush was an incompetent and pliable puppet who was jerked around by his staff? Either way, their faith in him was mistaken.

 

[fskimospy]

A bipartisan congressional investigation with far greater resources disagrees with Mr. Woodward.

 

[MongGrel]

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

Is he relevant?

He can still pick up a pay check for being relevant long ago, which I cannot say.

I find him irrelevant, which is all I can say in a internet thread I guess.

 

[davmat787]

Is he relevant?

That is all relative is it not? I am not trying to be annoying but I just found it amusing that anonymous internet forum posters were declaring Bob Woodward as irrelevant.

Personally I don't care, it's not like Bush is going to go on trial for past transgressions and there are more pressing and immediate issues. Besides, Democrats and Republicans have a MAD (as in the Cold War MAD) like agreement not to prosecute past Presidents and administrations. Do you think Hillary would want to break precedent and go after Bush, which would then potentially open the door for the next Republican administration to go after her?

 

[MongGrel]

NM, in my case, done with it.

 

[senseamp]

That's the conundrum for the Bush faithful. Do they accept that Bush personally lied about Iraq, or do they instead concede that Bush was an incompetent and pliable puppet who was jerked around by his staff? Either way, their faith in him was mistaken.

He was just following orders. But don't worry next one will be better. Trust them.

 

[senseamp]

That is all relative is it not? I am not trying to be annoying but I just found it amusing that anonymous internet forum posters were declaring Bob Woodward as irrelevant.

Personally I don't care, it's not like Bush is going to go on trial for past transgressions and there are more pressing and immediate issues. Besides, Democrats and Republicans have a MAD (as in the Cold War MAD) like agreement not to prosecute past Presidents and administrations. Do you think Hillary would want to break precedent and go after Bush, which would then potentially open the door for the next Republican administration to go after her?

You don't contest that Woodward is irrelevant, so I won't contest being an anonymous internet forum poster.

 

[IronWing]

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?

Bob Woodward got special access to write Bush's biography. This isn't investigative journalism; it is sleeping with the enemy.

 

[glenn1]

Evidently Iraq is going to be the left's New Deal - that which they criticize generations later and long after anyone still cares.

 

[IronWing]

Evidently Iraq is going to be the left's New Deal - that which they criticize generations later and long after anyone still cares.

We can cut a deal: Republicans get to dig up and hang Roosevelt and Americans get to hang Bush.

 

[sandorski]

So, Privately he was Skeptical, Publicly he was vocally Certain. What definition of "Lie" are we using here?

 

[trenchfoot]

That Bush is keeping his mouth shut *at the present time* either speaks volumes to what a liability he is to the Repub Party and how the party is telling him to stay in his little corner of Texas OR he is doing the honorable thing by letting sleeping hyenas lie in an effort to keep things from getting worse for himself.

Methinks the moment the Repubs take back the Oval Office, they will resurrect Bush as a true American hero, do some fancy historical two-stepping as payment to Bush for keeping hushed up for so long and symbolically place his marble bust next to Reagan's.

Woodward is as Woodward does. He's in this game of exchanging intimate knowledge for cash with the added feature of re-building Bush's image as a payoff and nod to Bush's acquiescence for allowing a buy-in.

Nothing more, nothing less as far as I can see.

 

[senseamp]

Evidently Iraq is going to be the left's New Deal - that which they criticize generations later and long after anyone still cares.

Nice try, but nope.

 

[rudeguy]

So, Privately he was Skeptical, Publicly he was vocally Certain. What definition of "Lie" are we using here?

Apparently the same one dramacrats use.

Hillary voted for the use of force. But then she was skeptical. Now she is vocally against it.

 

[Blackjack200]

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.

I've heard that in "All the President's Men" Woodward is constantly trying to delay publishing the story to give Nixon the benefit of the doubt, and it was Bernstein that pushed it. In any case, ever since Watergate Woodward has been a reliable Republican lap dog.

A bipartisan congressional investigation with far greater resources disagrees with Mr. Woodward.

SA Forums was laughing about this. They point out that Woodward's record includes missing Iran Contra despite doing a story on the CIA at the time with "inside sources" bullshit.

 

[xBiffx]

A bipartisan congressional investigation with far greater resources disagrees with Mr. Woodward.

You mean that same congress that had access to as much intelligence on the matter as Bush? No surprise that, after the fact, they went looking for a scapegoat to cover their asses. After all, they had elections to worry about. What better way to make yourself look better than blame it on someone else. Too bad anyone with a brain realizes what they were doing and the fact that they had access to any and all intelligence.

 

[Bowfinger]

I see the diehard Bush apologists are still at it. It is their religion. Even though most of their party wised up and moved on, they are stuck on stupid.

 

[rudeguy]

I see the diehard Bush apologists are still at it. It is their religion. Even though most of their party wised up and moved on, they are stuck on stupid.

really? Democrats talking about moving on? Really?

 

[fskimospy]

You mean that same congress that had access to as much intelligence on the matter as Bush? No surprise that, after the fact, they went looking for a scapegoat to cover their asses. After all, they had elections to worry about. What better way to make yourself look better than blame it on someone else. Too bad anyone with a brain realizes what they were doing and the fact that they had access to any and all intelligence.

Wait, why do you think Congress had/has access to the same intelligence as the executive? That's almost never the case. It would appear that "anyone with a brain" doesn't understand how intelligence oversight works.

Congressional committees have access to intelligence directly related to their duties. In the case of the house and senate intelligence oversight committees they have much greater access to specific intelligence, sources, and methods, but they never have full access the way the executive has, nor do they have the staff or expertise to evaluate it in the same way. This is actually one of the fundamental problems with congressional oversight of intelligence activities: they rely on the executive for the information necessary to oversee the executive.

And that's just the intelligence committee, the small group with by far the most access to intelligence. The average member of congress who isn't on any sensitive committees has only modestly more access than the average person. The idea that they had the access to all the same information as Bush did is sheer nonsense.

I'm not sure where you got this idea, but it's badly misinformed. Regardless, can you tell me what conclusions of the phase 2 report you disagree with and why?

 

[xBiffx]

Thanks for quoting that rudeguy...I can't see what the moron posts anymore.

LOL @ Bowfinger. Its easier for you to lump everyone who disagrees with you as a Bush supporter isn't it? Newsflash: I never once voted for the man and I thought he was pretty much an idiot as well. What I think you and others fail to realize is that by calling out the actions of congress here we are trying to point out their negligence and its not about defending Bush. It sure would be easier for me to agree that this was all about Bush lying and he was a moron but I can't leave it as that even though I agree with part of it. Its also about a complicit congress who failed to do their own duty and investigate further and look at their own intelligence. Only a complete partisan dipshit lays this whole matter at the foot of Bush. That's the politically expedient thing to do, of course. But that's not going to stop something like this from happening in the future. If you let congress off with their sheer negligence on the matter then nothing changes in the future. Our government only works with the system of checks and balances that it was designed around. You've seen what happens when those checks are ignored.

 

[xBiffx]

Wait, why do you think Congress had/has access to the same intelligence as the executive? That's almost never the case. It would appear that "anyone with a brain" doesn't understand how intelligence oversight works.

Congressional committees have access to intelligence directly related to their duties. In the case of the house and senate intelligence oversight committees they have much greater access to specific intelligence, sources, and methods, but they never have full access the way the executive has, nor do they have the staff or expertise to evaluate it in the same way. This is actually one of the fundamental problems with congressional oversight of intelligence activities: they rely on the executive for the information necessary to oversee the executive.

And that's just the intelligence committee, the small group with by far the most access to intelligence. The average member of congress who isn't on any sensitive committees has only modestly more access than the average person. The idea that they had the access to all the same information as Bush did is sheer nonsense.

I'm not sure where you got this idea, but it's badly misinformed. Regardless, can you tell me what conclusions of the phase 2 report you disagree with and why?

Arguing that the legislature doesn't have access to the same, if not more, intelligence than the executive is completely ridiculous. Every intelligence gathering agency reports to congress. Every one gets their budget to exist through congress. How is congress to have the power of checks and balances if this wasn't the case? The executive could do whatever and say whatever they want with impunity. Sorry, but only the simpleton thinks that this is the case and why they just fall back on blaming Bush in this matter.

So your argument is that the intelligence committee is the only one who knows anything and in this case, they just didn't tell anyone what they knew? That's more ridiculous that the first argument.

 

[Bowfinger]

really? Democrats talking about moving on? Really?

You seem to consistently have problems following along in threads. This thread is about Bush and Iraq, which is why people in this thread are talking about them. Further, it's not a Democrat who started the thread, nor was it MSNBC or another Democratic-leaning source who broadcast the comments by Woodward.

Finally, I am not a Democrat, but I'm certainly on board with their concerns about starting wars on false pretenses that cost hundred of thousands of innocent lives and added upwards of two trillion dollars to our national debt. They still matter. Your whining is self-serving and backwards.

 

[Bowfinger]

Thanks for quoting that rudeguy...I can't see what the moron posts anymore.

LOL @ Bowfinger. Its easier for you to lump everyone who disagrees with you as a Bush supporter isn't it? Newsflash: I never once voted for the man and I thought he was pretty much an idiot as well. What I think you and others fail to realize is that by calling out the actions of congress here we are trying to point out their negligence and its not about defending Bush. It sure would be easier for me to agree that this was all about Bush lying and he was a moron but I can't leave it as that even though I agree with part of it. Its also about a complicit congress who failed to do their own duty and investigate further and look at their own intelligence. Only a complete partisan dipshit lays this whole matter at the foot of Bush. That's the politically expedient thing to do, of course. But that's not going to stop something like this from happening in the future. If you let congress off with their sheer negligence on the matter then nothing changes in the future. Our government only works with the system of checks and balances that it was designed around. You've seen what happens when those checks are ignored.

I've never said Bush was solely responsible, sweetie, and I've always blamed Congress for it's role in supporting our invasion of Iraq. Bush and his minions do hold primary responsibility, but the cowards and chicken hawks in Congress share responsibility too. And, unlike you, I've said that from the very beginning, in multiple threads here. I didn't conveniently pull that out as a last-minute defense when cornered in duplicity -- also, unlike you.

 

[Blackjack200]

Thanks for quoting that rudeguy...I can't see what the moron posts anymore.

A conservative that shuts out and ignores reasonable opinions that don't align with his own? No way!