JOIN US as we look into the fascinating realm of the White House staff - the War Cabinet - President Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Tenet, Mueller - as they plan strategies to capture Osama bin Laden and from there to invade Iraq. As you watch them on television, have you wondered about the backgrounds of these prominent people? Short biographies of each are also in the book.

This is a must-read! But more than that, it is knowledge of what our government is doing and will do in the future as we struggle with global terrorism!

It will warm your heart - bring a few tears as you read of the after effects of the World Trade Tower and responses of the White House staff.

Let's discuss the decisions being made; how they are being made; by whom; the struggles within the War Cabinet and the Pentagon - Woodward has laid it out for us in a very readable, intriguing manner!.

And maybe we can answer the question of how and why Woodward, of all the reporters who would have loved to have had the privilege of interviewing President Bush at length, was given this opportunity.

Post a message! We'll begin January lst!

would like to join in but I don't think I will be able to get the book but maybe I can get a feel for it from the posters.

Carolyn

Carolyn: Can't you get Amazon down there? They'll send it.

I'm not a great Woodward fan and am not sure he's even-handed, but I'll order the book.

I have a running account with Amazon.com. They even have Amazon.UK.com. I'll have the book within the week. Try it. It's easy and fun.I've just ordered mine. Took less than ten minutes.

Ella, Not sure if I will get the book but think I will but please know I will will be observing with much interest.

I will join in this discussion......good and timely one......

"Ella" You have a quorum and I am so glad. Will check out buying Bush at War next time I am out.

Hi Ella, I've ordered BUSH AT WAR. I looked it up in B&N and it looks like a really interesting glimpse into the inner workings of the Bush administration. I liked the first chapter excerpt.

Incidentally, I noticed that B&N is doing a 40% discount on orders of two or more books with free shipping included right now. I guess they're trying to encourage buying for the Holidays. It makes for a reasonable price on the book, especially with a Readers Advantage discount.

Harriet

Thank you but no thanks. I already know more than I want to know about BUSH. So far, he is a two issue president. BUSH AT WAR on terrorism and IRAQ and tax concessions for the most affluent among us with dire consequences.

WELCOME TIGERLILEY, NANALENI, GINGER, HARRIET AND CAROLYN!

Isn't this great to have such a good group to discuss this timely book! I am halfway through it and admire Woodward's clear and unbiased account of what has happened in the present administration as they attempt to work their way through the problems that face America; problems that have no precedent from which to learn! It's a global situation and we don't have too many friends in the Middle East.

There is no need to discuss politics; let us just examine how the various principals in our government are dealing with complex situations - we live in perilous times and it behooves us all to learn how to deal with terrorists abroad and a few at home; the government agencies involved; how the Congress and the Executive Branch are working together - we can learn from each other's viewpoints as we discuss how the Bush administration is handling this emergency.

I'm so happy to have you all here and will look forward to January when we shall regroup here - in the meantime I'll do a heading and a schedule for reading.

Thanks so much for posting of your interest!

CLIFF - I'm sorry you won't be joining us. I'm hoping that this will be a discussion of the book - not politics! It will be an excursion into the processes of government.

ELLA, of course, you are right. The discussion will be and should be a discussion of the book - not politics. I tend to get carried away at the most inappropriate time and off topic. Please forgive me. Believe me, my "barks" are so much louder than my convictions.

Cliff - don't be "silent or complacent" (haha, I see that!) - come join in - read the book and let's explore together what has transpired in our government since 9/11; there is so much (well, for me) to learn here; for example, I'm not sure just what role the NSC plays in time of war; how it fits in with all these other agencies involved - The CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, Defense Department, and then there are the V.P., Secretary of State, Advisors, Counselors, just endless agencies and personalilties.

I was a little surprised to read that the first team into Afghanistan was personnel from the CIA - does that surprise any of you?

I'm going to attempt to put them all in the heading somehow so we will not get them confused from time to time; also am going to look for a map of this region of the world, as we will want to refer to several countries who have been contacted for help of various kind, several of whom are independent countries who broke off from the Soviet Union.

What a large amount of history there is for us to explore and talk about! Please join us - it'll be fun and an educational experience.

I intend to read the book and I think it will be worthwhile to join the discussion. I have feeling the book will deal with the mechanics of the administration in a war environment and not with messages of intent by Bush. I want some insight into this man's thought process and I am afraid the book will not give it to us. But that remains to be seen. See you all in January.

GREAT, JUSTIN! You won't be disappointed in this book, it's factual, but it is also provocative, it contains quotations from the principals involved.

Woodward based the book on interviews with more than a hundred sources and four hours of exclusive interviews with the President and extensive quotations from the secret deliberations of the National Security Council

Harold will be looking in and maybe post a time or two; he is tied up with the Iroquois Indian book in January.

Ella,

Problem with interviews is that they mostly wind up being self serving to those being interviewed. You are not going to find many people in politics or government who will give many or any honest answers to questions that they think the answers will put them in a bad light or expose their mistakes. I would take the book with a large salt mine.

Tiger Tom

Hahaha TIGER! You are so right, we'll attempt to be good critics here and determine the wheat from the chaff.

Ella I was a Beautiful day here so I went B&N and bought the Book Bush at War and two more so may post a bit but usualy not much but I will be reading every post. Will do my best to post.

Ginger

Oh, great, Ginger! Still cold here and it's going to be icy tomorrow - a stay-at-home day.

Wonderful day here. over 40 degrees and sunny.

The book arrived from Amazon this afternoon. I will be interested to see how a book discussion takes place here

Hi Nanaleni! We're over east of you in Ohio and it's going to get up to 40 degrees so they say! That's okay, everything for two days has been frozen!

While getting dinner last night I thought I heard something about Tenet (director of CIA) being replaced? Did I hear right? If so, that's amazing as he is a key character in the book and a top-level decision maker in Bush's War Cabinet.

Oh, I think this discussion is going to be super! JUST SUPER!!!!

I've (with help from our techies) been working on a new header and it will show up soon here, it's pretty!

A review of this book appeared in last week's SUNDAY BOOK REVIEW OF THE NEW YORK TIMES. I believe the book is either No. 1 or 2 on the NYT's bestseller list for nonfiction at the present time.

Thomas Powers, author of "INTELLIGENCE WARS" is the reviewer and states it is remarkable in that Woodward, as in all his previous books, has the ability to gain such extraordinary access to secret documents and to high officials.

We still, of course, do not know who "Deep Throat" is - Woodward can keep his secrets!

He also states, as we shall learn when we read and discuss the book, Woodward tells us much about our President and his administration and the way in which the various top level cabinet members work - we can imagine, through this look at the first 100 days, what possibly is going on at the White House at the present time.

Ella, I have just finished one of our Books that is scheduled at the same time as Bush At War so I will be reading Bush At War next as I have bought it so on to Bush At War and am So looking forward to it as hopefully we can get to understand what is going on in our World Today other than the News we hear.

Thanks for being a Discussion Learder for it.

Ginger

That review makes for interesting reading, Pat. Thanks for finding and sharing it.

Pat - I cannot get that NYTIMES article as I have not signed up to receive the paper. I've thought about it several times but every time I sign up for something I begin to get junk mail.

In answer to your question about can I get Amazon down here -Have to order from Amazon in USA and have to pay American dollars so it ends up twice the American price in NZ dollars plus shipping. Not in my budget unfortunately. However I will try Whitcoulls right now and let you know if they have it in.

Carolyn

Whitcoulls can get it from Amazon but it is $65 NZ so its a bit out of my range but I will be patient and it will come out in paper back at some time and I will read it. Meantime I will lurk on the discussion and when I do get the book I will go into the archives and read the posts alongside it. Disadvantage of living in Middle Earth LOL.

Carolyn

Kiwi....maybe someone can purchase it for you here and send It? I would volunteer but I am in the throes of moving.......

KIWI LADY - I CAN DO THAT! OF COURSE I CAN - JUST EMAIL ME YOUR ADDRESS AND I'LL GET IT TO YOU! I HAVE A B&N bookstore near me and I shall pick it sometime this week. I think you can get it by the first of January, can't you?

WILL AWAIT YOUR EMAIL - just click on my name to get it! We want your opinions NOW - NOT A YEAR FROM NOW!

Ella - Thank you for your kind offer but it would still work out the same price by the time I repaid you! It is very nice of you to offer! You are a nice bunch!

Carolyn

I would miss you........

Here are some E-Cards that Senior Net has for us to use.

Senior Net E-cards for Your Enjoyment

---

---

Here is My Favorite Christmas Card.

Ginger's Card For Each and Everone who posts here and those that Obsever also

Love, Ginger

CLIFF S Your #9 & #11 --- One thing you can never do is read too much about those with whom you agree and disagree, politically. The only problem, when it comes to books about the processes of government, is finding ones that are credible and not filled with nothing more than the promotion of a given agenda. David Brock’s book, “The Real Anita Hill”, comes to mind.

Likewise, Mr. Woodward has been accused of engaging in some creative license in his books that are supposed to be non-fiction.

ELLA GIBBONS --- I am thinking of joining in and reading Mr. Woodward’s book. But, I hope I won’t be disappointed.

I read his book, Shadow, and felt that he may have added a little to his narrative in order to make it more readable. One has to wonder how he gets all of his “inside” information. There was some criticism of Shadow, based on the idea that he was not given the kind of access that would have been necessary to get the information he claimed to have.

Do you know if he was really as deep inside the Bush administration as the advance advertising for this book leads one to believe? If not, although it may be entertaining reading, how accurate can it be? And, don't let my questions lead you to think that I am condemning it in advance. After all, I realize I haven't read the first word. But, you seem to be very enthusiastic and I am curious.

Hi GANDYDANCER! We will just dance our way through Woodward's book and discuss that very question you just posed - is the book accurate? The more we delve into such books, the more people get involved with discussing books, the more we discover! Let's do it together, starting January lst!

None of us know exactly what words are Woodward's (fabricated to make the book more interesting) and which are "sources" he claims cannot be identified; however there are passsages which certainly are truthful and enlightening, e.g., direct quotations of the president and the war cabinet members - persons he claims allowed him to tape record the interviews.

Certainly, in such instances, Woodward, an investigative reporter for years and now assistant managing editor of the Washington Post, is writing veritable words.

Happy to have you aboard!

ELLA GIBBONS Your #25 --- The NY Times, and many other newspapers, have an online version. And, for many, registration is free, as is the case with the NY Times. I am registered with the NY Times, Chicago Trib, Dallas Morning News, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and others. I post regularly over in Political Issues and these online newspapers are invaluable when it comes to researching political issues.

Some charge for archived articles. But, most, allow free access to archived articles from a day or two to as old as seven days. The NY Times review of Bush at War, to which Pat linked, is currently available.

If you are not registered, when you click on her link, you will first be taken to a registration page. Just follow the instructions and, in a few minutes, you will be a NY Times registered reader. The process is similar at most other newspaper web sites. The good news is that most all have online editions. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette even has a “photo” version of its hard copy street edition, as well as its online electronic version, which is abbreviated, on its web site. You can choose between one or the other.

So even if you aren’t a hard copy subscriber to any one of the online newspapers, you can read the news from all over the world for free!

I also subscribe to the NYT via the internet! I especially look forward to the book reviews which are sent to me seperately via email. Its a great service for me when I live thousands of miles away across the Pacific Ocean!

Carolyn

Thanks, Gandy, for your advice on Internet subscriptions and a big HELLO TO YOU, CAROLYN!

I will see you, talk to you both (funny how we use those expressions online) soon - Wednesday as a matter of fact; looking forward to it!

WELCOME EVERYONE AND WELCOME TO THE NEW YEAR - 2003!

You wouldn’t believe my copy of this book – I have stuck at least 6 articles and one whole magazine between its pages and I hardly know how to begin this discussion – I’m positive that all of you have been reading much the same articles in the media, listening to the same commentators as myself and so I ponder -

THERE IS SO MUCH TO CONSIDER HERE.

There are short biographies of each of the principals as listed in the Cast of Characters at the beginning of Bob Woodward's (BW) book and as we discuss each one if you have anything additional to add, please do so. I have just finished reading a biography of Condoleeza Rice (what a woman!) and will share a few things about her when she is introduced in the book.

But to begin…….

Quoting Woodward (BW) “this is an account of President George W. Bush at war during the first 100 days after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks..” But it is more than that, as these same people, these same strategy meetings of Bush’s War Cabinet; these meetings of war planning and war making, are taking place as we sit in front of our computers today – the target country is different, true, but the objective is to make war – a pre-emptive strike against a foreign nation!

However, this book covers just those first 100 days and I would prefer we stick to that subject – BELIEVE ME, THERE IS ENOUGH HERE TO LAST TWO MONTHS AND WE ARE ONLY GIVING IT ONE!

Let’s start off our discussion with a few general questions, shall we?

1. What surprised you in the first 73 pages of this book? Did you learn anything new?

I did, quite a lot, actually, but to give the first example (pg.7) I was pleased to learn about the existence of the group called the GE/SENIORS who had been tracking Osama bin Laden around Afghanistan for the last three years – that to me is the type of intelligence/investigation the CIA should be doing, even though they were not able to capture him.

Did you know about the activities of the CIA in Afghanistan prior to Sept. llth? Had any of us heard anything about Afghanistan prior to that date?

I'll be waiting for your comments as we begin our discussion. Thanks so much for your interest in the book, we are all going to be great friends by the time this experience is over, bet on it!

Happy New Year to All!!

You're right, Ella. There is a lot to think about in this book. Everything in the current newspaper headlines can be interpreted through the personalities of the people described in this book. You seem to admire Condoleezza Rice in particular. I'd love to learn more about her.

In actuality the al Qaeda had been at war with our country for many years. It took 9/11 to get the United States to finally concede a public statement that we were engaged in a war for survival. Still, the sound of the word "war," even if it may be justified, carries a frightening ring. I WAS surprised to learn of the prior CIA activity in Afghanistan under Clinton.

This book paints Bush as a bit of a fatalist in the matter of his personal safety, don't you think? His religious beliefs apparently allow him to accept the dangers that go with his job. However that fatalism doesn't seem to extend to his feelings about his family. I remember a TV interview in which a reporter asked the president if his daughters now phoned him more often since 9/11. Bush responded that it was HE who actually called THEM more frequently to check on their safety since the terrorist attacks. A likeable moment involving our president, I felt.

I was fascinated by the portrayal of how the presidential staff anticipated Bush's questions immediately after 9/11 and worked to serve his needs and the needs of the country.

Harriet

HELLO HARRIET! I hope some of our other people check in soon to our discussion; I did get an email from Nanaleni that she is moving but will be back as soon as possible. I know GANDY will be here as he seemed very interested in the book. GINGER, are you around?

Perhaps I had my head buried in the sand or in a pit somewhere because I truly did not know about Afghanistan and al Quaeda before Sept llth, but then if it was the CIA and the FBI that was involved then we were not supposed to know – aren’t their activities cloaked in secret. I read this:

The CIA had been after bin Laden for more than five years, and increasingly so after the devastating 1998 bin Laden-sponsored terrorist bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that had left more than 200 people dead. At that time, President Clinton directed the U.S. military to launch 66 cruise missiles into terrorist training camps in Afghanistan where bin Laden was believed to be in a high-level meeting. But he had apparently left a few hours before the missiles arrived.

I do remember the bombings of our embassies there but don’t remember the connection between al Quaeda, etc. Do you, Harriet?

Don’t those missiles cost one million each? Good heavens, 66 of them to no avail! It is no wonder that our Special Forces after 9/11 couldn’t find bin Laden and his henchmen when the GE/SENIORS, who were Afghans, and others going back five years couldn’t pin him down anywhere.

The SENIORS wanted permission from the CIA at one point to ambush bin Laden’s convoy and kill him and they were told NO, YOU CAN’T DO THAT. It’s against our law – and now a few years later you and I and everyone in America have heard nothing about that law – the assassination ban !

Now this is what puzzles me and, perhaps, some of you may be able to straighten me out. Clinton could attack Afghanistan with those missiles, but when the Afghans Seniors wanted to attack a convoy the CIA said “No, you can’t….” It would violate U.S. law.

What is our law in shooting at enemies? How do we declare who is an enemy?

How do you feel about Tenet, the CIA director, appointed by Clinton? Do you know anything about him other than what we read here? He must be respected to have survived both parties in this capacity. There is a clickable in the heading to the CIA but it's just plain facts.

As GAMDY mentioned earlier, authors have a tendency to manufacture or "broaden" (for lack of a better word) language in order to make a book more inviting, let's be on the lookout for instances of this in BW's book.

I was aware of Afghanistan before 9/11....The Taliban destroyed some of the oldest Buddhist art and sculpture known.....it was an awful thing to do.......

HELLO TIGERLILEY! Glad to see you here.

How were you aware of that?

oh my.....seems I read it in the paper...that occurred a couple of years ago when the Russians were still fighting there I believe. Ella, I moving tomorrow and will be off line for a couple of weeks.....I will join in when I return.......

Oh, good - we'll look forward to having you back. Everyone's moving - why? A New Year's resolution or something? Hahahaha

How long ago was it when Russia was fighting there? About 10 years ago do you think? I'll do some digging on the Internet. I know the Taliban took over about 1995 or 1996, something like that.

And I'm curious as to whether the Taliban is out of there for good or will they be back when we have lost interest in the country? No way to know that, I suppose.

Ella, I am here just need to reread abit as (I forgot what I read) and will be back.

Hi Ginger!

Just did a little digging and here are some facts about Afghanistan: Afghanistan

The Soviets invaded the country in 1979 and left 10 years later and left the country much worse off than it was and it wasn't very good to start with. They have enormous poverty, crumbling infrastructure and widespread land mines.

Another site I found is Afhanistan's web site: Afghanistan on the web They have items to sell on this web site and two bumper stickers are among them; one says "DON'T FORGET AFHANISTAN....AGAIN" (that is sad) and another has the Afghan flag in one corner, an American flag in another and between the two are the words - "UNITED AGAINST TERROR."

Are they friend or foe?

HELLO ALL! Before I started reading the book, I read a number of reviews, some by professional reviewers and some by readers, such as those at the various online booksellers. One that really stuck with me was the observation that as one reads the book, one can easily tell who, at a given point, was Mr. Woodward’s source. For example, at one point the subject was Sec. Rumsfeld and Mr. Woodward’s characterization of him was less than flattering, the assumption being that it was Sec. Powell who was doing the talking. At another point, Mr. Woodward’s description of Sec. Rumsfeld is less critical, even sympathetic, the assumption, of course, being that the source is Sec. Rumsfeld himself or one of his closest advisors or staff.

As I started reading, that reviewer’s observations rang true.

Regarding the Taliban and Al Qaeda, there were widespread news reports about the activities of the Taliban before 9/11. But, there were few about Bin Laden, and fewer still about Al Qaeda. I particularly remember the stories about the destruction of the shrines throughout the country.

There have already been reports that both al Qaeda and Taliban are regrouping in Afghanistan!

I knew we were under attack by radical Muslim/Arab elements for many years, but Ella, I didn't know they had a name, al Qaeda, until recently. IT IS ONLY IN RETROSPECT that I can say they were our enemy for many years. In 1993 a truck bomb blew up in the Parking level of the World Trade Center. Since that was one of the places used by the school in which I taught for class trips, it made an intense additional impact on me. I began to keep count of the radical Muslim attacks on embassies and ships after that. I wish I knew the answer to some of the very good questions you brought up.

In America we have adhered to a formal policy against assassinating world leaders, perhaps in the hope that such chickens would NOT come home to roost in our own backyard at some future time. I wonder if that policy was formulated AFTER the Kennedy assassination? But do we have a different set of rules for our enemies nowadays?

Currently our political situation seems to me to be as hard to grasp as quicksilver. No sooner does one notable person express a view, then someone else comes out with an opposing one. I read an article yesterday from the NY Times by Warren Christopher, former Secretary of State under Clinton. He seems to feel that Bush should shift his emphasis from Iraq to North Korea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/opinion/31CHRI.html

A second article from the Christian Science Monitor praises Bush for his ability to project a mantra of force even through he has NOT launched a preemptive strike on Iraq or North Korea, almost as if America is walking an international tightrope between bluffing and all-out war.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0102/p01s02-uspo.html

I feel it is more important than ever to understand something about the personalities of our leaders in government and how they think. It IS hard for ourselves, the American public, and thankfully, for our enemies also, to determine whether our stance is designed to negotiate a more favorable position for ourselves OR if we are actually ready to go to war. I can hardly believe that we are planning to fight in both Iraq and in North Korea while holding the line on terrorism in the American mainland. That seems like a tough act to bring off.

Gandy, you're absolutely right. I too have read that the Taliban and al Qaeda have begun to regroup in Afghanistan.

Harriet

It's important to note that the Taliban were the Afghan revolutionaries who seized control of most of Afghanistan when the Russians left. They're native warlords and were not international terrorists (or members of Al Qaeda). The Taliban allowed Osama bin Laden to set up his Al Qaeda training camps there and he paid them well. But most of Osama's recruits were from other countries. Some of the Taliban joined (or sided with) Al Qaeda when our troops went in after 9-11, but they're two different groups.

The goal of the Taliban was to install a strict Islamic (religious) rule in their own country - similar to the Ayatollah's take-over of Iran. They were not interested/concerned with 'outsiders'.

(I prefer to lurk because I don't feel like reading the book

The Taliban as Lonex said were Islamic fundamentalists. After they took power they became increasingly repressive in dealing with their own people and culture and particularly in their dealings with foreign nationals. Remember in the year before 9/11 their destruction of the ancient Buddhist statutes and the laws that restricted the education of girls and restricted women in particular. And so far as foreigners were concern, remember at the time of 9/11 there were 2 or 3 American aid workers who were under death sentence for some alleged minor missionary activity. It was a minor miracle that in the Taliban collapses in November 2001, they got out unscratched.

Three weeks before 9/11, I had seen George Bush at the San Antonio Missions National Historic Park (Click Here) where he had come on a visit to dedicate a restored 18th century mill. How quickly the President’s priorities had changed as he turned to the fulltime task of wartime leadership, a task to which he has responded so very well.

Oh nevermind. I wasn't aware all that would be relevant to Woodward's book - which is why I didn't mount the soapbox.

Oh, how great to see all of your posts here and I shall return and read them over carefully. For the moment I must get dinner - haven't even started it, but it's an easy one! I do want to respond to several - and LONEX, we don't mind lurkers! We even like them to post! Truly

Gandy, I want to attempt to ascertain where BW is getting his information as we go along. I thought in these first few pages, the ones regarding Senator Boren and CIA director Tenet, that those direct quotes must have come from the Senator, don't you think? I doubt if Tenet would allow BW to tape record an interview.

The next few pages in that first chapter are about Powell and there are no direct quotes there. However, I've read Powell's autobiography (a great book, I would recommend it) and he is upfront and straight in everything he does.

Powell was in Peru at the time of 9/11 attending an OAS meeting. I couldn't help but notice the phrase that BW put in there - "Cuba had not been invited."

Why? Has Cuba ever been invited? Why not? As I recently listened to an interview of the Treaty of Versailles where the defeated Germany was not invited (which consequence led to the Second World War), it appears we do not learn from history!

Sorry, must run................

Cuba is a member of the Organization of American States (OAS) so it is probably significant (diplomatically) if that country didn't receive an invitation.

Maybe they didn't pay their dues

HAHAHA, LONEX! But the fact that BW put that phrase means something, I don't know what.

Harriet said and I quote “Currently our political situation seems to me to be as hard to grasp as quicksilver.” - ISN’T THAT THE TRUTH! Everyday as we listen to the news reports it gets curiouser and curiouser! But we must stick to the book or we all will be here next year at this time……

I read the articles, Harriet – THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THEM. Did you notice in the Christian Science Monitor this sentence – “Beyond actions, Bush's persona and verbal style also seem to translate to his advantage in the Middle East. By all accounts, including reporter Bob Woodward's new book "Bush at War," the president does not appear prone to indecision. He does not preside over endless meetings, like some past presidents. Rather, he listens to his options, then decides - more on gut instinct than on any pretension of expertise. (Emphasis mine)

We will get to President Bush in time, folks – I’m a methodical person and must go step by step, chapter by chapter, lest I miss something along the way.

What do all of you think about Powell, this man who could have been sitting in Bush’s chair had he run – do you agree?

This man who had been national security adviser to President Reagan, Chairman of the Join Chiefs of Staff and now secretary of State! He’s impressive, do you agree?

I’m going to quote a paragraph for our lurkers here and ask for their opinion about BW’s words:

”In his first months as secretary of state, Powell had never really closed the personal loop with Bush, never established a comfort level-the natural, at-ease state of closeness that both had with others. There existed a distance between these two affable men-a wariness-as if they were stalking each other from afar, never sitting down and having it out, whatever the “it” was.

BW’s words – where do you suppose he got this information from? If true, why is that?

And then there is this: “Whenever Powell was too out in front on an issue and became the public face of the administration, the political and communications operations at the White House reined him in, kept him out of the limelight.”

Is this a clue? Hahahaha

THANKS SO MUCH, HAROLD, FOR YOUR POST! Enjoyed the pictures – and you say Bush gave a good speech to the American Legion! Was it off the cuff or did he have notes? Not ever having served in the military (neither he nor our former president) one would think he would feel out of place at veterans’ groups. COME AGAIN AND POST OFTEN, HAROLD, GOOD TO HEAR FROM YOU!

There are too many intrigues in politics to guess why Bush & Powell don't harmonize. IMO they were never kindred spirits. When the public was urging Powell to run for the Presidency, it was obvious that he had broader support than Bush - many Democrats & Liberals were receptive to Powell, but not to Bush. Bush's support was clearly defined by Conservatives and Party loyalists. Bush knows that.

Powell chose not to run, and also rejected the idea that he might be Bush's running mate. Bush looked like the runner-up or 2nd choice. Maybe he took it personally. Who knows? I think there have also been occasions when Powell seemed to oppose Bush - like the interview with David Frost, when he said we need an international agreement before launching a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. This was shortly after Bush said the U.S. might go it alone without UN agreement.

Being a newsman, Woodward probably keeps files on things like that and draws his conclusions/assumptions from those articles.

Just reporting in. The American Legion in my home town does not agree with Bush. There being WW11 etc. Vets see things Very differently, But this is not part of the Bush At War Book so probably should not be here. I am enjoying the Posts relating to the Book here tho. Yes I do have the Book.

LONEX, maybe you found the solution to ELLA's question. It may be that Bush initially considered Powell to be serious competition to his own image and, in order to maintain his integrity as a leader, preferred Powell out of the limelight. I doubt that Powell carries enough impact to threaten Bush's position since 9/11, but his more moderate, pacifistic leanings might make both Bush and Rumsfeld cautious with him. Do any of you agree? Or have an alternate theory?

Without footnotes, which this book does NOT have, it's hard to track down BW's sources of information. It may well be that some of his privileged information was obtained with the proviso that he not reveal the names of his sources. For that reason it's all guesswork when we try to determine the accuracy of many of his facts, isn't it? But Woodward, during the Nixon administration, certainly broke a lot of huge stories without revealing his informants! He has an established history of dealing with anonymous sources of information from Watergate onward.

GANDY, I once saw a photograph of the ancient Buddhist statues that the Taliban destroyed in 2001. They were priceless religious and cultural artifacts and their loss was a tragedy.

Hi Ginger! It's always so good to see you.

Harriet

I just went researching and found a photo of the Buddha statue that the Taliban blew up. Now I'm not sure whether there were one or two statues destroyed.

http://www.notesfromtheroad.com/desertsouthwestlaafgha5.htm

Harriet

Harriet (#59) - I might question particular statements made by Woodward, but knowing how journalists hang on to information I recognize where he's coming from.

I found an informative article from the AP news wire that gives a brief history of our involvement with Iraq and the people Woodward writes about who are discussed in "Bush at War". Donald Rumsfeld was involved with Iraq during Reagan's watch. The article was on the front page of The San Antonio Express News on Dec 30,2002. I was surprised because we rarely get this kind of write-up that provides the background and details of what is happening.

Anyway, Bob Woodward would have files & files of this stuff that he would use, but not necessarily reference since the incidents were covered by the media when they occurred.

(I like having this kind of stuff organized in an orderly sequence

For the article, click the following link -

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1230-04.htm

So - Bush's statement that some things are 'missing' from the list that Saddam provided may refer to some of the weaponry we sent him to use against Iran in the 1980s.

Thank You.

Lonex

Yes Brother against Brother and Friend against Friend has been going on for to long. When shall we have Peace on Earth, I long for that Day for are Young.

Ginger

Hello Harriet and Lonex - very astute observations from both of you tonight, and HELLO GINGER! Nice to see you here.

I agree with your statements that Bush did not want to share the limelight with Powell; let me ask you this:

If Bush knew that we were going to be involved in a war - particularly one in the Middle East - would he have appointed Powell to his Cabinet? Powell was one of the big guns in the Gulf War. I remember watching Storming Norman in some of his briefings during those days and he would refer often to his bosses in Washington. Certainly he was referring to Cheney and Powell.

No, I doubt if Bush would have wanted Powell around with his great experience in putting together that coalition with NATO, his influence with all the countries involved, his military experience - even though that has proven to be a HUGE PLUS!

What surprises me in reading these first pages is Powell's reluctance to use force, considering his background - actually his whole life - in the army. He does not seem to be a strong advocate for the use of the military.

Those first "fighting words" from Bush after 9/11 must have made Powell wince, don't you think?

When Bush made this statement "We will make no distinction between those who planned these acts and those who harbor them."

BW says this about that part of Bush's speech:

It was an incredibly broad commitment to go after terrorists and those who sponsor and protect terrorists, rather than just a proposal for a targeted retaliatory strike. The decision was made without consulting Cheney, Powell or Rumsfield.

That to me is quite a statement - that a young President without consulting his advisors (although he did talk to Condi Rice about it) would go on national TV with such a speech. I remember being dumbfounded at the time, even though we were all shocked about the whole incident.

What are your thoughts about Bush, his speech, Powell's role in the Cabinet to this date?

I am trying to take on these major figures one at a time and discuss their good and not-so-good qualities in their roles at the White House, so that we can go on with all the meetings held and their individual roles during this time of crisis.

And now, I must go cheer for the BUCKEYES OF OHIO to beat the team from Miami - of course, the Buckeyes will win - they must!!!!! A National Championship - GO BUCKS!

later, ella

Here's an interesting comment/link regarding Colin Powell's inclination to seek peaceful resolutions rather than war. Unusual for a military 'hero'...

"Colin also served under George Bush Senior, who appointed him chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff... When Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, Colin initially opposed the use of force, proposing the use of economic sanctions instead. Defence Secretary, Dick Cheney (now US vice-president), had to order him to draw up military plans. When Operation Desert Storm took place, Colin Powell became a household name...

"As a peace-loving military man and a black figure in the Establishment Colin Powell is a complex American icon. A colleague summed up the man often described as “the smartest of the chiefs” when he described him as a: “strong man with a gentle disposition who has exhibited the qualities of trust and good sense that were sorely needed at the National Security Council.”

http://www.hellomagazine.com/profiles/colinpowell/

And another little conflict with his current boss ~

"Bush and Powell split over captives' status

Mr Powell's concerns were detailed in a leaked memo from the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, to Mr Bush. The memo informs the president of Mr Powell's belief that both the Taliban and al-Qaida detainees should be covered by the Geneva convention. But the letter from Mr Gonzales dismisses Mr Powell's argument in favour of reaffirming the hardline stance."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,640593,00.html

I've read that there has been much effort to plug 'leaks' such as this one. The administration recognizes the need to present a united front.

Good morning, LONEX! Thanks so much for those articles. Golly, you can get almost as much from the Web as you can reading books these days and from knowledgeable sources.

I particularly admire Powell for being "a peace-loving military man" - he knows how to use the military when it is called for but will take care not to use it when other means are at hand!

HEY, HEY - did you watch that championship game out in AZ last night - WOW, what a game - two overtimes before our Buckeyes from Ohio State managed to pull it off.

WHERE DID ALL THE PEOPLE GO? Where's Gandy? He's a working man so we may not hear as much from him as others. I know Harriet will be here shortly.

RUMSFELD – what do you think of him? You’ve seen him on TV, read about him in the media, and read the remarks in this book. In my estimation, he’s somewhat a controversial figure and I find myself surprised that he’s in this job at this time. Here are a few remarks from BW’s book:

“brusque way he often treated people, especially subordinates.”

“he made a political enemy of one of the party’s rising stars, George H. W. Bush”

“Rumsfeld’s ascent to the inner circle of power is a story of intrigue, drive and luck”

“In their years in the House, Rumsfeld had found Bush (Sr.) to be a lightweight who was interested in friendships, public relations and public opinion polls more than substantive policy”

“Rumsfeld believed that Bush was a weak CIA director”

“One four-star officer who worked with him said Rumsfeld was a ‘egomaniac cleverly disguised…a hip shooter who gives the impression he is not.”

“On occasion Rumsfeld bounced ranking generals out of his office..."

Rumsfeld routinely handed out or recommended a book called Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision”, particularly the foreword written by Thomas Schelling, who argued that Pearl Harbor was an ordinary blunder, the type government specializes in.

“He seemed too confident in himself and too distrustful of his subordinates in the military.”

Who would have told BW these gossipy vignettes about Rumsfeld and his opinions of former President George Bush, Sr. We don’t know but BW put in enough derogatory statements about the man that there must be some truth in them, do you agree?

Can you imagine appointing this man Secretary of Defense? His obvious lack of approval of the military would put him at odds with most of the forces at the Pentagon.

One senior general said, “I admire the man greatly even though I don’t necessary like him…He’s got a weakness in wanting to have his hands around everything.”

That last is a direct quote so it is possible that BW interviewed sources in the military who gave him the above information.

LET'S DISCUSS RUMSFELD!!!!!!

Ella, I have read the book and while I don't promise I will make many postings, I will follow the discussion and comment if I have anything to say.

Regarding Rumsfield, I think he is a very good Secretary of Defense and to me a man who inspires confidence that he knows what he is doing. It is obvious that he doesn't suffer fools lightly. He has broad experience in the Government at high levels over a long period of time. The military is a huge operation and there are many super egos involved. A person without self confidence and an ego wouldn't be someone I would want in times like now. I can't even image the pressure that goes with the jobs of the people discussed in this book and especially during the times of war.

I would think that no President would want advisors who all agreed on things. He needs varied opinions and this group sure seems to give that to him.

Larry

CONGRATULATIONS, ELLA, on the Buckeye win! I hear that was a looong game, but I'm glad it came out the way you hoped.

I just did a bit of grazing around on the internet for Donald Rumsfeld. I bypassed sources that looked like government agencies because I assume all biographical information emanating from them would have been written by a member of Rumsfeld's staff and submitted with Rumsfeld's approval. I was looking for an objective opinion, or if we CAN'T avoid a biased one, at the very least let's try for a writer NOT connected with the man himself.

Here are some excerpts from an ABC News Profile on Rumsfeld.

As a young Congressman he was legislatively conservative, supporting a strong defense against the Soviet Union and opposing legislation to curb urban poverty — but supporting civil rights bills. His aggressive, ambitious demeanor won him a friend in Richard Nixon, but enemies in Congress.

In 1999 he blasted CIA director George Tenet for increasing secrecy within the agency to such an extent that it was damaging the quality of intelligence provided to Congress.

Is Tenet STILL at the head of the CIA? Did I hear something about his replacement recently? Does anyone know anything about that story?

THE COMMON DREAMS NEWS CENTER, which terms itself as a progressive publication, points out that Rumsfeld in 1983-84, as Ronald Reagan's Middle East envoy, reopened diplomatic relations between the United States and Iraq even though Saddam Hussein had just used chemical weapons of mass destruction on his Iranian enemies. (Emphasis is mine.) As a result of the newly established friendly relations, the U.S. sold Iraq weapons and helicopters, some of which were used in the delivery of the 1988 poisonous gassing of Kurdish civilians. There is NO public record of Rumsfeld expressing concern about these incidents until AFTER the 1990 Gulf War.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

I'm trying to figure out what all of this means about Rumsfeld. Is he loyal to his president regardless of the ethical situation? Can the pragmatism of politics possibly justify such things in the defense of our country? I wouldn't like to have Donald Rumsfeld for an enemy, for sure.

Harriet

Larry, I saw your post for the first time when I entered my post. There is no doubt that your opinion is correct. Yet, even though I'm sure it's naive, I'm still troubled by Rumsfeld's apparent ability to justify certain means to achieve the result of American power.

Who knows, maybe that's an essential part of being a member of a Presidential Cabinet? Maybe I shouldn't expect boy scouts to thrive in politics?

Upsetting....

Harriet, the responsibility of protecting our nation must involve many tough decisions and having knowledge of many troubling facts. When dealing with war it seems the options are never good as most result in death and destruction. One of the threads that came though this book to me loud and clear is that all of these principles have the same goal in mind and that is the preservation of our country and the free world. They are just human beings and obviously cannot know the ultimate outcome of all of their decisions.

I am just about finished reading the David McCullough book "Truman" and I see so many parallels between today and what Truman and his cabinet faced.

Larry

Yesterday after I left my work at the ITC I made the long drive to the big B & N store in the far Northwest outskirts of San Antonio and bought the book. After having struggled through the #8 point print reading the “Ambiguous Iroquois Empire” book that appeared to have been printed with a ink jet printer whose cartridge was about out of ink, what a dream this book is to read. With the big type and generously spaced print lines I had read 40 pages before I left the store.

Regarding the position of Powell as Secretary of State, I had not realized how alienated his position had become within the administration prior to 9/11. I think and certainly hope that today these conditions have improved. Beyond question the Bush administration and America need Clayton Powell and while I don’t think for a moment that he is the type to call for peace, when there is no peace, a voice of caution is not without value and at this time is not to be ignored.

Regarding Rumsfeld, over the years he like other members of the cabinet has been around for a long time. He has held many positions serving under different administrations making decisions based on the needs of a particular time. What was sound policy under the facts and conditions, as they then existed might not be so sound under today’s circumstances. Perhaps this is the advantage of experience. In the final analysis we must be grateful for the leadership that so quickly mounted the worldwide response, successfully disrupted and disorganized the al Qaeda network, and dislodged them from their secure base in Afghanistan.

On 9/11 mornings I watched the development of the news story on CNN from the security of my rural South Texas home. I guess I had not realized the uncertainty for the President and his Family (Even the girls were spirited away from their college campuses by the Secret Service to more secure locations). Also the matter must have been rather frightening to the ordinary residents of New York and Washington who could see and smell the dust and smoke of the collapsed World Trade Center and the burning Pentagon.

HELLO LARRY! HOW NICE TO SEE YOU IN THIS DISCUSSION, we haven’t been in one together for a long time. You obviously enjoyed reading the book and got a good impression of our present administration and the individuals who are advising our president. However, I know you agree with freedom of the press which loves to dig into the “who, what, why, when and how” problems get solved within our government and it behooves us as citizens to read carefully and attempt to digest the news in all forms of the media; to question, to absorb and to vote accordingly. Actually it is our duty and the duty of the press to question the wisdom of the people in government.

When you say “A person without self confidence and an ego wouldn't be someone I would want in times like now. I can't even image the pressure that goes with the jobs of the people discussed in this book and especially during the times of war.” Neither can I; however we have lived through some difficult periods in the history of our country and you and I and and most everyone on Seniornet can remember a president who gave off the aura of self confidence; had a huge ego and those characteristics eventually were the downfall of Richard Nixon.

HARRIET – thanks for those notes from the Web and I take note of this quote –“His aggressive, ambitious demeanor won him a friend in Richard Nixon, but enemies in Congress.”

Rumsfield is all of that! Let’s hope that President Bush is equally as aggressive and can calm this man down to a degree that he will work with other members and the military.

The future is uncertain at this time and that is all the more reason to examine these men who will be making decisions and leading the country. Where are we headed?

Harriet gave us one example of VERY POOR POLICY DECISIONS made by Rumsfeld and Reagan and I can give you another:

-On June 7, 1981 Israeli forces dropped bombs and destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor and considered the act one of self defense; however the rest of the world, including the United Nations and the United States, condemned it as a violation of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which plainly states that using force against another nation is sanctioned only after a hostile attack. That’s history! IS THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW? ARE WE ATTEMPTING TO REWRITE THE LAW IN OUR BOMBING OF AFHANISTAN AND POSSIBLY IRAQ?)

I think we need to know – GOOD QUESTIONS, HARRIET! There are no answers at the moment, but history will judge our actions!

A BIG WELCOME TO HAROLD! Yes, indeed, we need the wisdom that I believe lies with Colin Powell – we do agree, Harold! More diplomacy, less war tactics and strategy.

Later, ella

P.S. Harold, am so sorry the AMBIGUOUS IROQUOIS book is such fine print, I have trouble with that also.

I admire Colin Powell tremendously. I wish he had stood for President. He is a very intelligent man and I am sure he has expert knowledge of the Middle Eastern Political Situation. President Bush would do well to heed him!

I am afraid here in NZ Mr Bush is not very popular, I have not yet met one person who is in favor of our country joining in the War against Iraq. Australians feel the same way. I and many others feel we should be concentrating on destroying Al Quaeda cells by covert means.

Carolyn

Ella, I certainly do believe in the freedom of the press. What is the old saying that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". While I am saddened that often the press and media seem to be pushing their own agendas rather than just reporting, it is still vital that we have freedom of speech in this country.

In reading this book it is obvious that none of the President's advisors get his or her way all the time.

Larry

LARRY and HAROLD, thank you for your comments. You make excellent points. Hindsight helps us to see the ultimate correctness of all policy decisions. In retrospect it is plain that the support that America extended to Saddam Hussein in the 1980's has come back to bite us. It is also plain that, had we protested Hussein's brutal use of weapons of mass destruction at the time that Iraq used them, we might have galvanized world opinion against him earlier. Yet, as HAROLD pointed out, America had different needs in that era.

I wonder though, ELLA...if we look back now at Israel's much condemned bombing of Iraq's burgeoning nuclear facilities...what does hindsight tell us about THAT? Perhaps we would be facing a nuclear adversary right now if Israel had not carried out that aerial strike? Would we really prefer that situation? Will history condemn America for bombing radical terrorist strongholds that spread networks all over the world?

In this discussion, we are all trying to evaluate the policy decisions that the Bush administration is currently making. We all want peace passionately and long for diplomatic solutions. Since we can't see into the future, it's very hard to know what's right. Wouldn't it be great if we could read a future history book written about our own era that described the outcomes of America's current decisions? I'd love to see a scholarly analysis of our present political, diplomatic and military decisions, written from a future historian's dispassionate point of view. As many people have commented in this discussion, I cannot even IMAGINE the stresses and responsibilities being borne by President Bush and I would NEVER be able to deal with them.

CAROLYN. it's so good to see you posting. I'm very interested in the NZ point of view about our very volatile times. I hope you'll communicate more of what you hear and know.

Harriet

THANKS, CAROLYN, FOR POSTING! We know, we know, OH! HOW WE KNOW that many countries feel as NZ and Australia do, as many citizens in this country do, that we are acting too hastily in this crisis! Keep us informed will you?

Stay with us, LARRY, as we continue throughout the book and learn for ourselves the facts that you stated so well. Of course, the press is biased, this is a capitalist society and the press wants to sell newspapers; therefore, it is our duty to read carefully and separate the wheat from the chaff.

HARRIET, you state the questions in all of our minds so well – how will we be judged? We, in America, are doing exactly what Israel did in 1981 – bombing and more bombing – in Afghanistan and contemplating bombing in Iraq.

However, let’s continue with our discourse on the PRINCIPALS noted by BW at the beginning of this book – we have quite a few yet to comment on by Thursday, Jan. 9th, if we are to keep to our schedule. CONDOLEEZA RICE, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, a very good friend of all the Bush family; formerly appointed Director of Soviet affairs at the National Security Council by the elder Bush.

Condi, as she is known, had been studying music since the age of three years old and was planning to be a concert pianist until her sophomore year in college when she realized her lilmitations in that field. She accidently took a course in Russian Studies taught by Professor Korbel – Madeline Albright’s father – and he became another father to the young Condi and remained so until his death. She went on to speak fluent Russian, got her Masters in Russian Studies and her Ph.D. in International Affairs. Former President Bush says Condi taught him everything he ever learned about Russia while at the White House, so is it little wonder that she became a close friend of the son and the right hand in his presidency.

Let me quote, if you will, from the biography of Condi, written by Antonia Felix:

”The president’s primary advisors on foreign policy are Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell. As referee between these three, as well as between other members of National Security Council, Condi is sandwiched between the widely different views of a team of powerful Washington veterans. On one side, Cheney, Rusfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, are hard line, conservative hawks who promote military strength and intervention……….On the other side stands General Powell, a centrist who advises against military intervention and, like Condi, does not believe the nation’s role is that of global policemen.

She has run a tight ship, keeping the egos at bay as the administration works through one crisis to the next. That’s her job. A BUSINESS WEEK source said that ‘She not only spends the most time with the President, but in the pantheon of foreign policy advisors, his comfort level is highest with her.’”

What have the rest of you heard or read about Condi Rice? Can you speculate about her future? Would you think that others in the White House might be jealous of her proximity to the President?

HARRIET - I never answered your question about Tenet, I had heard rumors that he might be leaving the CIA also. However, I do believe he is still there and I found two links on the Internet that might be of interest. CIA Director George Tenet

That article, in dicussing Tenet's future says: "Might Tenet be a sound choice to head intelligence for the new Department of Homeland Security?

McNickle has the right idea. Tenet does have significant abilities. Moreover, his relationship with President Bush is extraordinary. Still, the president must understand that it is not helpful to have the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee constantly expressing his lack of confidence in Tenet, who he believes is in over his head as director of the CIA.

Sometimes people simply have to find the right niche in life. Perhaps a move to the DHS is George Tenet's."

I came across this unclassified testimony of George Tenet before a Senate Committee and found it interesting: Tenet's testimony before the Senate

Ella, isn't it true the Tennet was a carry-over from the Clinton administration? If this is coprrect, I suspect he is the only carry-over.

An envoy from the USA State Department has been visiting our officials here to gauge support for the proposed War on Iraq. Prime Minister Helen Clarke said at a Press Conference that NZ will not be part of a unilateral strike on Iraq. We will only be involved should the Security Council of the UN agree with a strike. If we are asked to help by the Security Council we will assist in a support role. Helen Clarke says this will most probably be in the Medical field - dealing with Casualties. Our country prefers to take Peacekeeping roles or support roles. We are a very tiny country. We are only 3.8 million souls. An exception to the rule was the deployment of SAS Troops to Afghanistan. I am interested to hear how the media in the USA report this visit by your State Department Official.

Carolyn

Condoleezza Rice is only in her forties. It's extraordinary that she rose to a position of being taken seriously by the elder President Bush over ten years ago. I wonder. did she initially find being so attractive and youthful a handicap in achieving her status as a major player on the world stage?

From a BBC Profile:

"Rice's belief in education and self-improvement seem to be the key to understanding her. In an interview with Newsweek magazine, Rice said that despite growing up with racial segregation, her personal expectations were high. "My parents had me absolutely convinced that, well, you may not be able to have a hamburger at Woolworth's but you can be president of the United States."

I listened to Ms. Rice's voice in a brief audio on the internet as she talked about Russia. Her voice has a pleasant, but decidedly unflappable quality to it. I hear her name on the news frequently, but seldom see her interviewed or hear her talking. She seems to keep a low profile, certainly MUCH less prominent that one of her predecessors, Henry Kissinger.

A Newsweek story, http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/844173.asp characterizes her in this way.

Rice without question plays a critical, if largely hidden, role in the overall direction of the president’s foreign policy. Bush is “instinctive,” Rice often tells interviewers; her job is to translate his “good strategic instincts” into an “intellectual framework,” usually in the form of major presidential speeches, particularly those on Iraq. This is probably a subtle, at times almost unspoken process, a matter of a nudge here and there, a phrase inserted into a speech that may seem minor at the time but that can nonetheless have deep long-term consequences.

Midway into the article there's a Condoleezza Rice Video Gallery and Rice can be seen and heard discussing Afghan operations with Tim Russert. She is a VERY impressive lady. I haven't found any quotes in which she discusses or opines about any other cabinet member, so I can't gauge the dynamics of the relationships there. I can see that she tends to speak for President Bush with confidence.

ELLA, since you have read Felix's biography of Condi, I consider you to be our resident expert in your knowledge of the lady and would be glad to hear any other comments you may have.

Thank you for the links to the articles. I have read them with interest, particularly Tenet's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Harriet

CAROLYN, I read your comment after I posted. I'll keep an eye open for any news commentary about Prime Minister Helen Clarke's comments and New Zealand's role. I'll pass them on here if I hear anything.

Interesting...to hear if Clarke's comments are passed on accurately by the media.

Harriet

You may be told we are supporting a strike.

Carolyn

I’m trying to catch up here since I’ve been away for a few days working. So my comments may seem a bit dated, as they likely will throughout this discussion because I work away for a few days at a time each time I work.

Ella, your quote of the relationship between Powell and Bush is an interesting one. BW touched on the reason that they had such a distant relationship when he pointed out that Powell set conditions on his acceptance of his appointment to the Bush administration team. Taken with the fact that Powell was a potential political adversary, it’s easy to see how they might not be able to “bond”.

I believe that the likely source of that description was probably someone close to Bush, who had such a bond with him. I suspect that it would probably have been either Condoleezza Rice or Karen Hughes, not necessarily in that order, or perhaps both.

As for Bush’s style of decision-making, although BW doesn’t state so specifically, it appears that Bush often makes his decision after a meeting or consultation has ended. I suspect that he often uses his father as a sounding board before making his decisions and that this is something he has not revealed to his “team” or BW. This would explain his habit of waiting before announcing a decision and might explain why he appears to have “winged” it in his announcement that he would go after terrorists and those who sponsor them without first consulting Cheney, Powell or Rumsfeld. He may have felt that he already had all the advice he needed. After all, his father was a former CIA chief and a former President.

After the famous memo regarding North Korea from father to son was revealed and widely criticized, they may have decided not to reveal any further advice which passed between them.

Powell’s reluctance to use military force isn’t so much that he is a peace-loving man as it is a visceral reaction to the experience of Viet Nam. I believe BW touched on this just a bit. Many of you may remember that Powell was credited with what came to be known as the “Powell Doctrine”. In reality, it had its genesis in the thoughts of Caspar W. Weinberger, President Reagan’s Secretary of Defense, who, by the way, escaped prosecution for his role in the Iran/Contra Scandal when President Geo. H. W. Bush pardoned him. Sec. Weinberger stated the question of whether to use military force thusly:

”Under what circumstances, and by what means, does a great democracy such as ours reach the painful decision that the use of military force is necessary to protect our interests or to carry out our national policy?”Caspar W. Weinberger, Fighting for Peace: Seven Critical Years in the Pentagon (New York: Warner Books, 1990), p. 453

He developed six tests that must be met in order to justify military force, which was initially coined the “Weinberger Doctrine” and was borrowed by Powell.

As for Rumsfeld, although his public persona inspires confidence in those who have watched his briefings since 9/11, I find his past troublesome. I believe that the current administration has become too much of a clone of that of the first President Bush.

I believe that Condoleezza Rice is likely to be the most talented and gifted member of the Bush “team”. I was surprised when he brought her on board.

Kiwi Lady – I do not mean this as a criticism of your Prime Minister. But, there is a critical difference between a unilateral attack, and an attack conducted as a coalition, which would be the accurate description of an attack using NZ forces in addition to U.S. forces, British forces and others.

HAROLD – yes, Tenet was appointed Director of the CIA by Clinton – interesting isn’t it? But Bush’s father, according to BW’s book, recommended he stay in that position..

Thanks, Harriet, for the clickable, but I couldn’t get the article probably because I am not a subscriber to the paper; however I noticed the title is “THE QUIET POWER OF CONDI RICE” – excellent description of the lady, as we shall see as we make our way through the book – ever diplomatic and intelligent – she is the one that briefs the President first thing every morning after she has met with the War Cabinet members.

CAROLYN – I will do the same as Harriet – do you know who was in the envoy that came to NZ? Thanks so much for your post and your interest.

Good to see you here GANDY! Powell and Bush – Bush and Cheney – a repeat of the Elder Bush’s White House Administration – indeed, yes! Thanks for pointing out that “the current administration has become too much of a clone of that of the first President Bush.” Did you notice the first sentence in my post here – young Bush asking his father about the CIA Director? (p.2). The Index is bewildering to me – on and on and there is no source notes for individual pages. But, being fair, isn’t it understandable that he would speak to his father many times, particularly when the war in Iraq was first mentioned and later advocated.

Incidentally it was Rumsfeld who first mentioned carrying the aggression to Iraq (p.49) and he troubles me, also, GANDY! Powell, who is concerned about aggression, replied:

”Any action needs public support. It’s not just what the international coalition supports; it’s what the American people want to support. The American people want us to do something about al Qaeda.”

We have – I believe we have approximately 2000 prisoners on Guantanomo, don’t we? We don’t hear much of them these days – how many of those were members of al Qaeda or associated with Osama bin Laden?

Now what of Dick Cheney? Why aren’t we hearing more of him these days? Cheney, described on pgs. 37 and 38 is taking a back seat perhaps? A vice-president’s role is not a major one; however it came as quite a surprise when Bill Press (of Crossfire) stated in an interview that I heard Sunday that Cheney was running the show in the White House. What do you think?

Remember when Powell was featured on the cover of TIME magazine with a cover story asking where was he hiding? We have a president who enjoys visibility, who is out front, is that what you see? Who is talking the most for this administration in your view?

Did you know that the White House dictates who can and cannot address the press on the Sunday morning news programs? The book is an eye-opener in many ways.

Out of curiousity, which of these principals that we have discussed would you most like to meet?

Later, ella

Ella, I wasn’t at all surprised that the White House determines who will appear as its spokespersons, not only on the Sunday news talk programs, but all such programs and regular news programs during the week. They, meaning all administrations, current and past, even try to control whom, from the Congress, will do the talking for their party. In fact, such efforts to “control the message” are common at nearly all levels of government. I know because I’ve “been there, done that”!

As for Cheney, I suspect that the White House is reluctant to allow him too much publicity because of the Damocles Sword of potential scandal still hanging over his head related to his involvement with Enron, Halliburton and the Carlyle Group, not to mention the younger Bush’s failed oil enterprise, Harken Oil. Although there hasn’t been much in the news about the ongoing investigations, nobody should assume that it is all over. It literally took years for all the facts to come out in the Watergate Scandal, and in the various scandals of the Reagan administration. Before it is all over with, the trail could lead all the way to the top and it could take a long time for it to do so. If you think about it, Cheney didn’t go “underground” on the occasion of the 9/11 attacks. He had already been in the publicity “freezer” since news of the Enron scandal broke.

Of all the principals, I would like to meet Condoleezza Rice.

GANDY, you brought up an issue that I have often wondered about. You hypothesized that President Bush may use his father as an advisor. That seems logical to me.

I once saw an extensive TV interview with the elder Bush as he discussed his emotions about his term in office and his regrets about not "opening up" to the American public more about his feelings on the issues of the day. In retrospect he felt it had been a mistake to maintain a public image that gave too little hint of his human feelings. Our current president doesn't hesitate to humanize himself and discuss difficult issues like the economy. The son has learned from the father's experiences, don't you think? Interesting point about the younger Bush's administration being a "clone" of his father.

Today President Bush said in a speech that he wanted to ask Congress to abolish the double taxing of dividend income. It wasn't fair to tax money twice, he stated, particularly as many seniors received dividends as part of their retirement income. Now what I would wish is to end the taxes on Social Security income. Now THERE is an example of double taxing that really affects all of our pocketbooks. I doubt it will ever happen. It would probably take too big a bite out of the federal budget.

ELLA, I agree that most VP's keep a low profile regardless of their actual role in order to enhance the presidential image of being in charge. Heavens, I hope we're not exposed to another scandal with Cheney during such a time of political crisis, GANDY.

Harriet

Hi GANDY! I didn't know Cheney was involved in Enron and those others - not at all! Perhaps I should stay more involved with the underground news? I knew of Bush's trials with several oil companies (he tried to outdo his father buying up land all around a successful oil field and pumping oil from it - which seems sneaky to me). But Cheney - all I knew was that he had made a lot of money in the public domain.

He isn't the only one to capitalize on being "in the know" of Washington; hate to burst your bubble about Condoleeza Rice but she also has made money from Washington connections. She sits on several corporate boards, e.g., Chevron, Hewlett Packard, TransAmerica and others. Several of them pay up to $35,000 annually for just her name and an additional $1500 per meeting attended; she also gets stock options! She is easily a millionaire and is single! Where are the men? Hahahaha But why shouldn't she - they all do it!

HARRIET - ME, TOO! Stop taxing social security, help the seniors! You would enjoy reading Condi's book - get it at the library! Also a book written by the elder Bush, with help from Condi and and Scowcroft and others, entitled "A World Transformed" covers events that happened during his term in office, e.g. the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Gulf War. I'm going to get the book and read it - will keep you informed if I like it.

Ella and Harriet, as I understand it, no mater how high his/her income may be, a SS recipient is never taxed on that portion of benefits that represents a return of what he actually paid in. Furthermore low income recipients are not taxed on the portion of payments that came out of the part employer's paid in and interest earned on the account prior to payment. It is only when a retiree’s total income hits a stated level that a tax obligation applies. Granted this dollar amount at which a recipient’s tax obligation begins is not very high so most SS beneficiaries pay tax on a substantial part of their SS income (Me Too).

You might remember, prior to the 1980’s, SS income paid to retirees was never taxed. In the 1980’s (about 1984 or 85) when the trust fund was speeding toward bankruptcy, a bipartisan committee worked out the present arrangement to save it (for awhile).

So today ordinary corporation dividends are taxed twice, first by tax paid on its earnings by the corporation and again by the individual shareholder receiving the dividends. Another approach to avoid the double taxation flaw would be to allow the corporation to deduct its stock dividends (as they are now allowed to deduct interest they pay on bonds) and let the individual dividend recipient pay the tax.

I think we have here an example of the old maximum, that an individual’s attitude toward any tax will in the final analysis depend on whose ox appears he/she feels is gored the most.

Thanks, Harold, for that information and “Me, too” is getting gored by the present tax, but the low tax on dividends will help offset the loss we’ve suffered – well, maybe!!

Before we begin the next section, let’s sum up the first 73 pages - did you notice that the legislative branch of the government is rarely mentioned. There is one instance (p.45) when Senator Thomas Daschle cautioned the president to use care in his language. “War is a powerful word.” That exchange between the two men (where each asked the other to never lie) shortly after Bush took office was strange, do you agree?

The legislative branch of the government is rarely, if ever, consulted by the leaders of the Executive Branch – is this historically true in times of crisis do you think?

I thought it amusing (p.56) that President Bush would not leave the White House when there was another threat of attack on the White House – well, “amusing” is not the word to use, I’ll say it was an incident that showed the human side of Bush when he said that no, he wasn’t leaving and he was hungry – wanted an hamburger! So American, so like a man – stubborn! Hahaaaaa

Did you notice that the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Shelton “firmly opposed bringing Iraq into the military equation at this early stage.” He said that it would anger the moderate Arab states whose cooperation we needed in our campaign to oust terrorism. And Powell agreed and asked Shelton if he could not “get these guys back in the box.”

A box again! It must be a common expression around Washington – remember the lockbox that Al Gore kept repeating in his campaign?

Bush’s best speech, completely unrehearsed, was at the site of the World Trade Tower when he shouted in the bullhorn – “I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon” don’t you all agree?

A great moment I thought.

How did President Bush come across in these first 73 pages, in your estimation? Presidential, in your opinion? Weak? Strong? A leader – one who can take charge? A wise and judicial man? A man that Americans can relate to? Feel a loyalty to?

HAROLD. it all sounds so reasonable the way you explain it, but taxes take a mighty big bite out of Social Security for all of us. Boo hoo!

On page 73, Woodward summarizes the United State's policy toward terror by having President Bush define it.

"What was decided was that this is the primary focus of this administration. It doesn't matter to me how long it takes, we're going to rout out terror wherever it may exist. The doctrine is, if you harbor them, feed them, house them, you're just as guilty, and you will be held to account. This war will be fought on many fronts, including the intelligence side, the financial side, the diplomatic side, as well as the military side. We're going to hit them with all we've got in a smart way."

When I first heard this extremely broad doctrine, it sounded right to me. Yet, as time goes on, I begin to wonder if the wide ranging scope of it does not constitute an eventual trap for the United States. If America follows through on this doctrine, we could be committing ourselves to hostilities on many fronts Surely this could be a dangerous course for our nation?

A TV news item today indicated that President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela may have contributed $1,000,000 to al Qaeda after 9/11. If this turns out to be true, how should our government respond? Can we ignore it? Do we "hold Chavez to account?" Is it possible that we would engage in hostilities on our own continent?

I often wonder if President Bush should rethink the all-inclusiveness of his doctrine about terrorism? Do any of you have any opinions?

Harriet

Edit: ELLA, we posted at the same time. I have to think on your questions.

I am having problems keeping up on the News and the book so please forgive me for not posting much. It looks to me that Bush wants to go into Iraqi first for his Father instead of dealing with the terrorist as he said he would but I could be mistaken. Korea and Iraqi ARE together on dividing where Bush should fight first (not us)Just Bush.

Let us take care of the US first as charity begins at home I have been told and if we do not What then?

Just where is all this money coming from?

Do we have another President who will put us into the worst depression ever? I wonder and have for quite some time. Is the US going Broke? I think so. Will the US be able to cover our money in the bank, Social Secuity (sp)etc. I am sorry for geting off the Book but the News is so depresing to me.

Scrapping Dividend Tax

I think it would be a bad idea unless it was restricted as tax free only to the first $3,000 or maybe $5,000. That would certainly take care of the vast majority of seniors and middle class. Years ago we did have tax free the first $200, or was it $400, of both interest and dividends.

Otherwise, what would prevent people like Steve Forbs of Forbes magazine from no longer taking any salary but receive the same income as dividends and thus tax free. In fact, I think the temptation would too great for 99.9% of the owners of a private business. That creep Steve Forbs when running for preident actually proposed that only wage & salaries sgould be taxed

This is the title of a highly critical book review of "Bush at War' by G. Pascal Zachary, of whom I am unfamiliar.

It starts out; "In page after dreadful page of his latest book Bush at War, Bob Woodward demonstrates an old adage about journalism in waretime: The first casualty is truth."

And later; "Once a muckraker, Bob Woodward has gone to war---and cemented his new role as a flattering publicist."

Then; "Woodward makes much of his sources, boasting of an 'inside account, largely the story as the insiders saw it, heard it and lived it.' This 'inside' account relies on chiefly self- serving recollections of the chief participants (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice) and sanitized transcripts of meetings in which the main players sound like the're playing to a televised audiance rather than speaking to each other."

Woodward--"has become, after all, a novelist rather than a journalist, and a poor one at that."

I haven't read the book---am now at 4th place on hold at the library, but I've been suspicious of Woodward for a long time.

SELDOM, during times of war it's very true that jingoistic elements come to the forefront and encourage extreme patriotism. When I was a young child, during WWII, I remember going to the movies and being stirred by all the patriotic sentiments in the films. I still think it's a good thing for children to learn to love their country.

Yet, when we're adults, even while we continue to love our country, we have the power to evaluate what we hear. Moreover, we have a mostly irreverent press corps in the United States, often more dedicated to their personal "scoop" than to the adherence of any particular government viewpoint.

As you pointed out SELDOM, we all try to be cautious before taking a political stand. We're fortunate because, for every writer like Woodward that may be "pro" Bush policies, there are others like Zachary who are vocal in their disapproval of those who share or admire the Bush point of view. I feel we're doubly lucky because we have forums like this discussion where we can talk to each other and have a try at sorting out the truth. I sure hope you get your copy of BUSH AT WAR soon.

GINGER, I hear you. My Social Security check is important to me also. The thought of a major depression is scary.

more,

Harriet

Here's more;

"Woodward's betrayal of his journalistic duties--so common these days among his colleagues--would be ordinary and unworthy of comment were it not for his status as the dean of American investigative reporters."

There is quite a bit more but you see what Zachary thinks of Woodward.

I think it's already affected my opinion of the book and I haven't even read it yet.

ELLA, I think Bush is not only stubborn...he stayed in the White House against the wishes of the Secret Service ...he also has a strong streak of fatalism for HIMSELF, fueled by his religious faith. Woodward pointed out early in his book that Bush prefers to believe his safety "is the hands of the Lord."

I was surprised to learn that NSC meetings begin with a prayer and meals begin with the saying of grace. Yet Bush's faith is fueled by pragmatism also. He prefers to take excellent precautions for the safety of his wife and daughters. He also makes sure VP Cheney spends time in an undisclosed location to provide for the continuation of the US government if Bush himself should not be available.

What do I think of Bush in the first six chapters of BUSH AT WAR? I think the jury is still out for me. I haven't read ahead and I'm eager to see how all these people interact. I'll also be watching for any hints of Woodward's personal orientation, and try to locate any "spin" in his account.

I think Bush definitely comes across as presidential since 9/11. It's too much for me to figure out if he is also RIGHT in his viewpoints as well. I feel loyal to him because he's our president.

Is he a wise and judicial man? Oh ELLA, I hope so...I certainly hope so!

Harriet

Seldom, read the book and make your own judgment. I read the book and fail to see that it was all that flattering to the participants. It showed quite clearly that they didn't have a clue as to the way to accomplish what they thought needed to be done and no common agreement when a path of action was decided upon. They have a dreadful responsibility and how they stand the constant barrage of meetings and the pressure each meeting placed upon them to prepare for the next meeting is hard to fathom.

Larry

GINGER! We all have those same worries as you expressed so post whatever is on your mind, don’t worry about not keeping up with the book. We are always happy to see participants express their opinions.

This book has received both favorable and very unfavorable reviews.

As of now, I have 5 reviews of this book sitting here and one of them by Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times believes that Bush’s team is not being truthful to the American people; that this war is going to cost $1 trillion and it will be paid for by you and me, etc.

Another article by David Shribman who writes for Universal Press Syndicate asks these questions: Who gets to take pre-emptive action and asks if it is the United States then other nations will feel they have the same right. Does might make right? What is the role of Congress in the making of foreign policy; how is an imminent threat defined and further suggests that the Bush Doctrine poses risks.

We could go on and on with this discussion about our government, its decisions (right or wrong) on every issue imaginable; however, we started out here to discuss a book regarding the first 100 days after Sept. llth and I think it our duty to continue with that task.

HOWEVER, LET ME EMPHASIZE THAT I AM DELIGHTED TO HAVE ALL OF YOU HERE . IT IS A PLEASURE TO COME TO THE DISCUSSION AND SEE SO MANY POSTS. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR YOUR INTEREST AND DO STAY WITH US

Whether you have the book or not, we will be talking about subjects that you can relate to, so please post with a comment whenever the mood strikes you.

THANKS, SELDOM FOR POSTING! I do hope you get your book soon – it’s an easy read so you will be able to catch up with us in no time!

HARRIET! I agree with every word you said, we all, as conscientious citizens of the country we love, need to evaluate everything we read and hear! And I heard “way over in Ohio” your WORDS – OH, I HOPE BUSH IS A WISE AND JUDICIAL MAN. In the past crises of our country we have had some great leaders, and some good ones, we could all name the ones we liked the best – I hope Bush can live up to the ideals of our country!

HI LARRY! I quote your words here – “It (the book) showed quite clearly that they (the administration) didn't have a clue as to the way to accomplish what they thought needed to be done and no common agreement when a path of action was decided upon.”

INDEED IT DOES AND WE ARE JUST NOW GETTING INTO THSE INDECISIONS IN THE NEXT SCHEDULE OF PAGES.

Let’s concentrate on the war plans these men are making; the differences in this war and Desert Storm, let’s talk about the new players that are brought in and the ideas of each; the president’s decisions; our early allies – so much to consider here as we journey through these next pages.

Later - ella

But I can't leave here until I type this quote of President Bush in as it colored my judgment of the man - I'm beginning to admire him - listen to his words (not Woodward's):

"One way you're not impulsive is to make sure you listen to an experienced group of national security advisors....If I have any genius or smarts, it's the ability to recognize talent, ask them to serve and work with them as a team. When they give advice, I trust their judgment. Now sometimes the advice isn't always the same, in which case my job - the job is to grind through these problems and grind through scenarios, and hopefully reach a consensus of six or seven smart people, which makes my job easy."

Woodward speaking:

"He (the President) was about to find out that, indeed, the advice might not only be different, but that it could come dressed in language that was not always straightforward. He also was going to see that grinding through was not always easy."

Who among us would want the job? What a dreadful responsibility on the shoulders of these men!

A few questions to chew over:

Would the Principals’ communications, methods of communication or interactions have been better or worse had they been in office longer?

Who has the most access to the President? Who influences his decisions the most?

At times does it seem that the endless discussions will never be fruitful; that decisions will never be forthcoming? Is this due to prudence or indecision?

Many foreigners feel that Bush Snr is the President by Proxy and Bush Jnr is just his mouthpiece. He is surrounded by his fathers men. His obsession with Iraq to the exclusion we feel of going after the most serious threat which we believe here is the Al Quaeda covert cells. Many of us believe there should be a full on covert war on uncovering terrorist cells. I just hope Bush is not so busy with his war in Iraq that he leaves his people wide open to a devestating attack at home. I pray to God I am wrong in this thinking.

Carolyn

HarriettM, I am sorry to say that I can’t share your faith in our President. He has a dismal track record and his agenda is far from what a truly compassionate conservative would have.

We saw a flash of what he is really like in this op-ed, by Brad Carlton, published in the Baltimore Chronicle:

”Bush, in the weeks before September 11, pledged to honor the sanctity of the Social Security lockbox except in the event of recession, war, or a national emergency. But after ‘everything changed’ on 9/11, he reportedly gloated to his budget director, Mitch Daniels, ‘Lucky me--I hit the trifecta!’”

The Trifecta is a gambling term used for a special three way bet at dog and horse races, and in this case, was a reference to the three conditions under which he could justify raiding the so-called Social Security Lockbox!

And, he was quite correct! He had hit the trifecta because nothing he would do from 9/11 forward would come under as glaring a light of scrutiny as it had before. Prior to 9/11, his public approval numbers were declining along with the economy and he was facing the certainty that he would have to raid social security, violating a promise he had made during the campaign. The only thing missing to complete the picture would have been a request that we "read his lips"!

And, his record going into office was nothing to crow about. He had bankrupted an oil services company and failed at every other business venture he had been fortunate enough to have his father, and his father’s rich friends, finance for him. Before 9/11, he had accomplished absolutely nothing and had began a campaign of rolling back important programs such as environmental protections and instituted a policy of ignoring immigration laws allowing further flooding of our country with legal and illegal aliens without any marketable skills with which to contribute to our society.

And, as for the accuracy of BW’s book, don’t you find it interesting that the quote above has not yet, at least in the first 73 pages, even been mentioned?

Ella is absolutely correct! Listen to Bush’s words, not Woodward’s, both from in the book and from other sources. Otherwise, you will have missed some of the most important of his words when it comes to making a judgment about the man, his character and his agenda!

Ella,

I’ve chewed over your questions and these are my conclusions, or, if you will, my opinions.

I don’t think that the prinicpals’ decision would have been any better, simply because most of them, even Condi Rice, had been members of earlier administrations, some going very far back. Unlike their President, not one of his “team”, that I can recall, was a neophyte!

If one is to believe the picture being painted by BW, the one who seems to have the President’s ear above all others is Condi Rice. But, as I pointed out earlier, I suspect that the one with the most influence is the elder Bush. Which brings me to your earlier question about this matter.

The problem with the President’s reliance on his father’s advice is this. It’s one thing if one is seeking the advice of one’s father if the question is whether to use 30 weight or 40 weight oil in the car, or whether it’s still considered proper to hold the door for a lady. It’s another matter entirely if the question is whether to attack Iraq or place further taxes on Social Security. The elder Bush failed to finish the job in Iraq and the economy was in shambles when he was voted out of office, not to mention that he committed perjury about his involvement in the Iran Contra Scandal. The elder Bush inspires little confidence with such a track record and the sad truth is that we are seeing the echoes of his advice on a daily basis in his son’s administration. After having read the first 73 pages of BW’s work, I suspect that he was led down the proverbial rosy path when it came to his lack of critical assessment of the principals’ descriptions of the events that took place in those pages. I hope it gets better as we progress through the next phase.

Kiwi Lady, I am afraid you may be correct that President Bush is ignoring a real danger right here at home. As you are well aware, I have been a vocal critic of his failure to close our borders and push Congress to pass real Homeland Security, rather than what I consider to be a mere “Three Card Monty” shell game that the so-called Homeland Security Bill turned out to be.

Ella The Title of this Book Bush At War is not over yet so it is hard to concentrate on the Book for me.

Harriet, I understand also.

Gandydancer, I had not heard of Bush in the weeks before September 11, pledged to honor the sanctity of the Social Security lockbox except in the event of recession, war, or a national emergency. But after 'everything changed' on 9/11. But after 'everything changed' on 9/11,but he reportedly gloated to his budget director, Mitch Daniels, 'Lucky me--I hit the trifecta.

Ginger

I have finished the book under discussion. Woodward in his introduction says flatly that this is an insiders account. He was given transcripts of National Security meetings, personal notes, memos, calendars, written internal cronologies, and other documents in addition to interviews of all participants. This is nothing more than a public relations campaign to try to show Bush in the way they want the public to see him. The other participants are much more interesting and come off as the ones doing all the work, and absolutely all the thinking. In order to get the story Woodward did his best to show Bush in the most favorable light possible, but his really few quotes fall flat and seem a rehash of his fathers words. This is the Bush propaganda machine at work, and even Woodward warns that this telling may not be the final word, as history has a way of looking differently at self serving information.

Bush was in Florida with a group of little black children for another photo op, when the planes crashed into the towers. His first words were a rehash of his fathers quote about Kuwait, "this will not stand". He wrote in his diary about Sept.11; he equated it with Pearl Harbor. He does not seem to be capable of independent thought. Any ten year old could have made a decision about going after the enemy after being attacked. After all this was not some great Nation power, but a bunch of men living in caves in a devastated country.

I supported the attack on Afghanistan, thinking it would rout out and capture or destroy the Taliban leaders and more importantly Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The Bush administration quickly abandoned that goal to go after Saddam Hussien. The main leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda have neither been captured or killed, so we must assume they are still in the area somewhere. The fact that we have more or less abandoned Afghanistan with troops being moved in close to Iraq, tells me he is neither wise or prudent. The only thing different in Afghanistan is a different leader sitting in Kabul, if we can keep him alive that is, since there have been several attempts on his life.

Woodward begins his book with George Tenet head of the CIA. I think this is intentional, as this book could have been called "Tenets War", and been a lot more credible. He was the one making decisions, moving ahead, actually putting his men into Afghanistan, while Rumsfeld and the Department of Defense seemed frozen in inaction.

Condo Rice, I was surprised that she as the head of the National Security Council does not offer her own counsel unless pressed. She does the work of an informant, by sitting in on all meetings, and then reporting to Bush who said what, and what does it mean. She was sent to George W. by his father, and I see her more as a nanny than anything else. She seems to go everywhere Bush goes, and practially lives with them. Like his pillow, he doesn't leave home without her. She had absolutely no experience in National Security. That short stay when Bush 1 was in the Whitehouse was too brief, and was not in the loop enough to give her any credibility on foreign affairs. She was sent by the father to be a nanny, and I think she has done a credible job of keeping this arrogant, strutting chicken hawk away from the public, except in a controlled enviornment.

He is spending our money like he did all his fathers friends who put him through one failed business after another, and that is recklessly and wildly, with no thought for the morrow. He said that he hit the trifecta when we were attacked. He got a war, a recession, and an excuse to gut our civil liberties. I see him as a danger to democracy in his drive for more and more power at the expense of the citizens of this country. With all our military might and power, he is the most dangerous man on the planet right now, and we had all better hope that a sensible man like Colin Powell has some influence on the use of that power.

Like his fathers and Reagans legacy in Afghanistan that gave us Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, what Bush does now, will have consequences. Everything our government does in foreign affairs will affect us for years to come. This is a government of chicken hawks, pushing for war, and aligning itself with the most corrupt despotic governments in the world. When blowback comes, Bush like his father will be long gone and retired to his ranch.

Fifi le Beau, The main leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda have neither been captured or killed. I agree that finish one job before starting another Unless we are not being told the whole truth as has been said by one of our posters. I am sorry can't remember who.

CAROLYN – thanks for your best wishes for America and, believe us when we say that your concerns are echoed by all of us; we use our “freedom of speech” article of the Consitution frequently – sometimes every hour of the day!

GANDY – THANKS FOR YOUR POSTS! I wonder, however, since we are critiquing Woodward’s book, shouldn’t we also critique articles such as you just quoted from the Baltimore Sun? Do you see that the author of the article used the word “reportedly” when quoting Bush gloating? What was his source for this statement?

I know I don’t need to remind any of you that what we read in the newspapers and hear in the media should all be questioned thoroughly. I think it’s great that Americans can criticize our government freely among friends, in the press, on TV, on the Internet but facts are another thing all together. When direct quotes are used, and not words like “reportedly” then I think we can believe they were uttered by the person quoted or otherwise the source could be sued.

WOODWARD HAS NOT BEEN SUED BY ANYONE THAT WE KNOW OF, so these direct quotes in the book are facts.

But what you said, GANDY, about the Principals surrounding young president Bush is correct – we all remember them from Bush, the Elder’s administration. It is something that will be constantly looked at by the press and they will have to account for by historians.

WELCOME FIFI LE BEAU! Even though you have finished the book, please stay and comment on each of the sections we are discussing per the schedule listed in the heading. Your comment – “Woodward warns that this telling may not be the final word, as history has a way of looking differently at self serving information” – is astute! DEFINITELY!

Condi as Nanny? Oh, I would have to disagree with that statement! The Condi that I have read of and seen on occasion on TV is no NANNY – no, no! She is “with it,” if you will pardon that cool expression! She was foreign policy advisor to Brent Scowcroft when he was National Security Advisor (do you remember who our enemy was at that time – the Soviet Union), she has a Ph.D. in International Affairs and all of the White House members respect her knowledge and her abilities.

I do appreciate your frank expressions but we must remain with the book – it is our defined task – it is our recent history and we are assessing the first 100 days and what Woodward has to tell us about them.

The first chapter starts at the Camp David meeting with the main Principals, Tenet (CIA Director) proposed the following actions:

• CIA paramilitary teams would be deployed with the Northern Alliance, hooking up with others to create a northern front.
  
  
  
• A full-scale covert attack on the financial underpinnings of the terrorist network
  
  
  
• CIA and FBI would coordinate, track down and smoke out bin Laden supporters here at home
  
  
  
• The CIA be given a broad intelligence order permitting covert operations without restraint, including “snatch” operations abroad
  
  
  
• Millions of dollars to “buy” intelligence, training, equipment, etc.
  

What do you think? In my opinion, many of these requests have already been answered in the affirmative and we know that several of them have been successful. Of course, some of the more secret covert actions by the CIA will not be disclosed because they are ongoing.

Did you notice that Mueller, the Director of the FBI, - the person who all of us would expect to be fully informed of what was happening WITHIN the country – had nothing to say? Woodward says he was intimidated by the company and had little to report! I have recently read a book entitled “THE BUREAU, THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE FBI” by Ronald Kessler, a former Washington Post and Wall Street Journal investigative reporter who has won numerous journalism awards.

A good book, but I won’t bore you with details other than to say that Mueller was just appointed to the Bureau on Aug. 2, 2001 – shortly before 9/11! THE POOR GUY! There is a whole chapter on 9/11 in the book and you might want to read it; however I do want to tell you that the former head of the Bureau, Louis Freeh, left the Bureau in shambles and there is a whole chapter on this man also; he didn’t believe in technology and their computers were totally out of date, they had to share between them, many did not work and those that did could not connect to the Internet because they had no browsers!

Can you imagine that?

More later - ella

There are as yet many Al Quaeda cells which have not been uncovered they are all over the world. Pupils of the Fundamentalist Islamic Schools have spread out over the Globe. As fast as one leader is eliminated another will take his place - as there are waves of suicide bombers ready and waiting. I believe this is a war unlike any other that has been fought before on the planet. We must look to our own lands and look after our people!

Carolyn

Yes, Carolyn, recent news has shown that to be true. There are terrorists everywhere - in all countries. We all have to be vigilant; it is not America's problem alone.

Perhaps Rumsfeld has been proven right when he made the statement at the Camp David meeting that it "would not be effective to succeed in removing or killing bin Laden.....without solving the basic problem of terrorism." How do we get to the basic problem?

We must all work on that together. Thanks for the comment.

At the end of our first chapter on the current week's reading schedule, chapter 6, Woodward gives us a portrait of the evening activities at Camp David after a meeting of Bush and his War Council. Major government figures such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice, counterterrorism chief Cofer Black, Ashcroft and others are present. Powell and Rumsfeld apparently declined the president's invitation to dinner, but the others, with their spouses stayed the evening.

"Rice led the group in a sing-along of American standards including "Old Man River, "Nobody Knows the Trouble I've Seen" and America The Beautiful." The president spent some time at a table nearby, joining others trying to assemble an elaborate jigsaw puzzle."

Incredible! Weren't those interesting song choices? Sounds like an old fashioned family gathering, doesn't it? Ordinary activities for people placed in extraordinarily responsible and world-shaking situations? How DO people unwind after charting the course of world history and planning for the defense of the United States?

Tenet's successful plans for aiding the Northern Coalition are history now. These ferocious fighters were only too eager to settle old scores with enemy War Lords and oust the Taliban. The only thing is, as victory approached for the Northern Coalition, the defining lines between the Northern Coalition and their enemies sometimes seemed to become fuzzy as enemy fighters slid from one side to another at opportune moments? In the end, the common bond of religion and language sometimes seemed to overcome political differences between the Afghan fighters. The victorious Northern Coalition often found tolerance for former enemies who promised to mend their ways and let them go home to their families. A tough act for Bush and Co. to deal with! Who can we trust in Afghanistan? Who is friend and who is foe?

I haven't found much information on Cofer Black, the CIA chief of counterterrorism thus far. I WAS able to discover some part of the job definition of Black, who described himself earlier in our book as "an aggressive man." I sure hope so.

One of his functions is to identify organizations and individuals who intend harm to the America and exclude them from entering the country through a "Terrorist Exclusion List." (TEL) That is a tough job indeed! It seems to me that it's a BIG problem to distinguish the alien members of these organizations before they enter our country, particularly since we enjoy such an open and free society.

There are a zillion opposing journalistic editorials pointing out the wrongness or rightness of American policies. As Larry pointed out in an earlier post, President Bush and his Cabinet have a dreadful responsibility and it is hard to fathom how they stand the constant pressure of their duties.

Harriet

Ella, you asked a good question. Unfortunately there is no good answer and any attempt to synthesize an answer hinges on a final just settlement of the Israeli/Palestine War that is truly acceptable to BOTH parties. Unfortunately the U.S. because of political considerations is not been in a position to serve as an impartial referee and no other Nation currently has the leadership position required to fill this role. As things now stand neither side will make the compromises necessary.

Sometime this evening C-Span2 has scheduled an interview with David Frum to discuss his new book "The Right Man." (Click Here). I heard the announcement on C-Span1, but they may have been announcing for C-Span2. I think they said 8:00 central time, but you had better check.

David Frum was a George Bush speechwriter during the first year of the administration. In this capacity he figured in the writing of most of GWB's post 9/11 speeches. He is the author of the "axis of evil" phrase in the State of the Union address that was "axis of hatred" in the original draft. I heard him interviewed on NPR last week. His book seems very much another version of the Woodward book but more from one man’s inside position.

The “axis of evil” phrase that to most everyone seemed quite appropriate in Jan, 2002, in our hindsight today seems to have complicated the problem and perhaps might now be judged a mistake.

Harold, I have always felt that the "Axis Of Evil" speech may have had a great deal to do with activating North Korea's fear of eventual attack by America, and with N Korea's consequent decisions to resume nuclear production.

I'll try to catch C-Span.

Harriet

Harold,the Frum interview is on C-Span 2, BookTV, 9 p.m. ET Saturday and 6 p.m.ET Sunday.

Here is the link to the BookTV schedule. http://www.booktv.org/

Mary

Thank you, Mary.

Harriet

Thank you in particular Mary for the C-Span schedule link. I have made it a favorite so it will be available for future use.

Book TV is 48 hrs, non stop, of non fiction books starting Saturday 8am eastern and ending 8am Monday.

Terrorism......

Rumsfeld made the statement at the Camp David meeting that it "would not be effective to succeed in removing or killing bin Laden.....without solving the basic problem of terrorism."

No, we could not solve all the terrorism in the world, but eliminating bin Laden and al Qaeda would have solved our current problem with terrorism. They were the ones who used terrorism on our country. Osama bin Laden told the world through tapes and interviews exactly why he intended to use terrorism against the USA. It had nothing to do with the Israel/Palestine problem, but much to do with King Saud and the 50,000 princes and George HW Bush and the Carlyle Group building an Air Base and stationing American troops in Saudi Arabia. He only added the Israel/Palestine problem when bombs began to fall on Afghanistan, and he needed backup.

Getting Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda would certainly have solved the problem of September 11, 2001. A colossal failure of National Security, and an even bigger one of not bringing to justice those who planned and plotted this terrorist act. Saudis planned it, Saudis carried it out, and Saudis paid for it. When the connections with the Saudis are known and why they haven't been brought to justice, then we may solve our current problem. I expect no solution from this administration on that front, as they have shut down all avenues of investigation on the connections of the Bushs and the Saudis.

Bush was told by the CIA in a briefing before he became president that Osama bin Laden was one of the top three problems facing this country. The other two were weapons proliferation and the increasing power of China. We are the biggest weapons proliferators in the world, and Bush had already been to China giving them more access to the American market. So he took the information and did nothing about any of them, focusing instead on his big tax cut for the rich.

No solutions so far, but a lot of added problems mostly of their own making.

GOOD EVENING EVERYONE!

I just listened to the author of what is probably the second most popular book on the Bush presidency after the Woodward book which is still on top of the NYT bestseller list. Can you imagine how many books will be written in the next 50 years about what we are - WHAT ALL OF US - are experiencing at the present time!

Thank you all for telling me about the program and I'm sure most of you watched it also. Please let us know what you thought!!!

First, let me say I hope David Frum writes better than he speaks! Hahahaaaa But he admires the President very much and he need not have written of such admiration - he's out of the White House (wasn't he in there just for a year as an economic speech writer?), so he has no obligation to defend Bush in any way.

However, he spoke very highly of him - his compassion (you will read of Bush's emotions all through Woodward's book - the tears, the difficulty of holding back his emotions). He also believes the man is completely in command of the job, not an intellectual but one that is focused, disciplined, moderate and restrained.

I particularly like those last two adjectives - "moderate and restrained" - he is not quick to action even though the country, Frum stated, was "blood-red and enraged" after 9/11. However, he does believe that Bush will not quit until he is assured that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq either through peaceful negotiations or force.

He did use the phrase "triumph of Afghanistan." Is that how all of you envision what happened there? Was it a triumph to bomb the country, leaving it in shambles with an uncertain government? Time will tell.

However, I do think he is right when he said that the "right man is not based on popularity" and gave examples. President Bush, though, was given a very good indication of the country's opinion of him when the people of America voted in a Republican Senate and House of Representatives - don't you think?

As for my personal opinion, it is on hold. I don't know the man well enough or long enough to judge until 5-10 years down the road (if I should be alive then!). I didn't like either candidate for the office of the Presidency in 2000.

back later, eg

Hello Fifi! We are certainly in agreement with your statement that "eliminating bin Laden and al Qaeda would have solved our current problem with terrorism. They were the ones who used terrorism on our country."

Obviously it was not an easy task - and the FBI failed in so many aspects. Without going into the book I mentioned yesterday in too much detail they had so many leads that were not followed - inexcusable, the Arab pilots taking lessons, etc. We've all read about in numerous publications and heard it on TV.

Let me just quote one paragraph:

"Certainly American arrogance played a role. How could people with unpronounceable names living in caves threaten American might and technology? But al-Qaeda had a sophisticated appreciation of America's vunerabilities. The FAA allowed knives up to four inches long to be taken on airplanes. Without any difficulty, the hijackers could pack knives and box cutters that they would use to threaten passengers and creq. Thanks to lax reulation and the airlines' shortsighted fixation on cost cutting airline security had long been a joke.

However, the book does say that between 1993 and 1999 the FBI prevented 40 terrorist acts that would have killed tens of thousands of people. One was an al-Qaeda plot to blow up the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, the United Nations, and the FBI's New YHork Field Office. Read the book to find how they uncovered those who were plotting.

And since 9/11, although threat after threat has been made, someone, somewhere, is doing a very good job of keeping us safe (I'm sure it's undercover work and will not be disclosed for years).

I must stop! Thanks to all of you for making this such a great discussion! I love coming in here and reading your posts - it's America talking! We are all hoping for the best, even though we do not excuse the past!

Just a quick p.s. to say THANKS HARRIET AND HAROLD FOR YOUR POSTS! Harriet, in the index in the back you will find many references to Cofer Black - a legend in the agency, one of those fellows you read about in thrillers that know how to work undercover and "get their man." Woodward calls him a "throwback to the era when the agency was filled with colorful and eccentric figures."

And a quick "thank you" to Mary and Seldom. Let's hear your opinions of Bush's actions after 9/11. The more opinions we get, the better informed we will be.

I did watch David Frum speak about his book, The Right Man. I agree that he is not good at speaking, but that is not his forte. His profession is word manipulation, propaganda at the source. If I got anything out of this talk, it was that this Whitehouse is run as a purely political operation. Everything they say or do is tied to the public ear, and how best to manipulate that into votes.

He did speak of Bush as moderate and restrained, but that came out of the political operation of word manipulators, and his wife who called him down when he was trying his Wild West, "Wanted dead or Alive" theme, not Bush himself. In Woodwards book, just a couple of Bushs initial responses to the situation.

When Cheney called Bush to get permission to shoot down American airliners full of civilian passengers, his response was, "You bet". The American airliner still in the air at that time was the flight over Pa. where the passengers were attempting to get control of the plane. If in the middle of a flght for their lives, they had been brought down by an American fighter pilot, would this have been a moderate and restrained response. I don't think so.

His initial response was, "We're going to find out who did this and we're going to kick their asses." He only became moderate and restrained when he found out that it was his buddies the Saudis who had done the criminal act. The tone changed after the Saudis came calling.

Why has the Bush administration fought against an investigation into the Sept.11 terrorist attack? I think the answer to that question will be the book that defines this presidency much more than David Frums finger to the wind to sell a book. According to news reports on his leaving the Whitehouse, it was widely reported that he was fired, but allowed to resign.

Ella,

Here I am again, catching up after another trip to Texas.

Mr. Carlton’s quote of the “trifecta” remark wasn’t the only one reported. It was widely reported at the time. So widely reported, in fact, that President Bush made it publicly in some speeches, but worded in such a way as to make it somewhat more palatable to the American public. Just the same, the import was unmistakable. Perhaps you missed the news sound bytes of this statement. But, I can say that I didn’t. I saw it and heard it.

As for Mr. Carlson’s source, the article leaves one with the impression that the statement was made just between the two, to start with. So it would be a fair inference that the source would have to be the President, or, his budget director, Mitch Daniels. Judging from the wording by BW, I am inclined to think that it was Mr. Daniels.

In any event, I agree that we should question all our sources in the media. Which brings me to your observation that since BW hasn’t been sued, what he purports to be direct quotes “must” be true. Nothing could be farther from the truth. All it means is that either those whom he claims to have quoted “liked” his characterization and, therefore, saw no need to sue, or those whom he has quoted are “public” persons who know that a lawsuit for a false quote is practically impossible to win under such circumstances. That’s often how politics works. BTW, if the lack of a lawsuit is the yardstick by which we measure the veracity of the author, then the Carlson quote must also be true. He hasn’t been sued either!

Finally, getting back to the book, another example of the kind of person this man is, can be found in other unchallenged quotes from BW. One example can be found at page 158, where the President describes Condi Rice’s job, in so many words, as the responsibility of coaxing him out of his little impatient fits. It seems to me that the responsibilities of the National Security Advisor should be described in much broader terms than that. Your point that Ms. Rice is no nanny is well taken. But, the problem is that it was the President who was, more or less, describing her that way!

Another, at the bottom of Page 145 and continuing on Page 146, where BW questioned him about making Ms. Rice aware that he was planning on being "provocative" in his dealings with the war council. His response:

“Of course not. I’m the commander—see, I don’t need to explain—I do not need explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”

Any leader of a world power who thinks that conducting war planning by a series of charades aimed at his advisors is a literal fool! And, that is precisely what this man is gloating that he was doing. It’s incredible to say the least. And, what I find most troubling is the feeling that the reason that he wasn’t willing to make himself absolutely clear is that he was “flying in the fog”. He couldn’t explain himself because he didn’t know what he was doing to start with and the “act inscrutable” charade is a commonly used device for such people.

The problem with BW’s description of that exchange is that it merely reported it, without any analysis. Of course, how could he offer an accurate analysis without abandoning his author’s “role” as “cheerleader”? The criticism of this book has its basis in such naked reporting in the place of in depth analysis.

As for the state of the FBI and its computers, although you are correct that he must be held responsible, it is also true that the federal government is way behind the retail world when it comes to technology. If you knew the state of the Air Traffic Control computers system, you would refuse to fly.

And, that is not to mention the fraud that was purposely committed against the American public by the lie that President Bush instructed his “team” to tell regarding the security of flying in the days, weeks and months following 9/11. BW described this at Page 112, where he described Condi Rice’s recommendation to the President that he beef up security at the airports. He wrote that, “Putting the National Guard in the airports lent an aura of heightened security.” Notice that it wasn’t that security was actually heightened? Only that it created an illusion! Set apart from the paragraph before it and after it, was this sentence:

”The reality was that the country was open and vulnerable.”

The question is, how much of our so-called Homeland Security is still only an illusion???

After all, our borders remain so porous as to allow a truck load of terrorists to cross at will, with all the explosives they would need to destroy another building full of victims!

THANKS, FIFI! Really!! You think David Frum was fired? Why? I, too, thought it was strange that he left after only a year and he used a remark made by Card that the White House is an honor, not a career, to explain why he left. Perhaps he saw an opportunity to get a book on the market very soon? Make some money? But isn't that what writers do? Is it wrong?

To continue with our scheduled pages Bush started handing out orders the second day at Camp David. It seems to me that everything that CIA Director Tenet asked for was given; some of the orders drastically changing previous limitations on the CIA - giving the CIA the ability to use mercenary forces for intelligence operations even though such actions carried risks for the United States.

This is the stuff of books and don't you believe that writers of all ilk are attempting to find out what the CIA is doing undercover these days? Of course they are!!!

And I believe, too, that every possible investigation is being done to round up those responsible for 9/11. For the past year almost daily we have heard of arrests and surprisingly many residing here in our county.

The ACLU is complaining of actions taken against the Arabs who are here legally, it's sad but necessary or is it - WHAT DO ALL OF YOU THINK ABOUT THIS "RACIAL PROFILING?"

Is it reminiscent of rounding up all the Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor?

Where did BW get this information about the CIA, do you think? He tells us about a TOP SECRET document called THE WORLDWIDE ATTACK MATRIX (p.78). Should we know about this, should other countries?

It's in broad language, of course, but it does make one shudder to think of the power we are giving this agency. What will be the results of all of this 5-10 years down the road? What will be the outcome?

---

I got sidetracked there for a minute - I wanted to type in this paragraph before going much further - and please note this quote of Bush: (p.84)

"Bush's other concern was one that he did not express to his war cabinet but that he would say later was part of his thinking. He knew that around the table were advisers-Powell, Cheney, Wolfowitz-who had been with his father during the Gulf War deliberations. 'And one of the things I wasn't going to allow to happen is, that we weren't going to let their previous experience in this theatre dictate a rational course for the new war.' In other words, he didn't want them to use the war on terror as an excuse to settle an old score."

These are words tape recorded by BW - the President's own words; we don't know if he said them in response to criticisms in the press or after thoughts, perhaps, but they are his words.

It must be very hard for a young President to be surrounded by men whose experiences far exceed his own, especially in the field of military action and war.

Why did he appoint them? Of course, he didn't expect to be a war-time president; perhaps he felt comfortable with them; perhaps he knew they were capable having served his father well.

Someday we will know!

Let me hear your thoughts as we continue on the journey!

I

GANDY! I JUST NOW SAW YOUR POST! WONDERFUL ARGUMENTS! I LOVE DEBATING THE POINTS IN THE BOOK AND YOU ARE A WORTHY OPPONENT!

In the first place, your Carlson article in the paper was an innuendo, not what I call a “direct quote” – the kind of remark that has quotation marks around it such as you find in the BW book. Direct remarks made by President Bush.

Yes, if Bush made sound bytes about Carlson’s article I did miss it; it was not reported in papers or magazines widely because I do read them and I try to keep up; but one cannot watch or read it all.

Bob Woodward is too well known by the publishing world, reporters, the public to attempt to mislead anyone about what the president said or what his sources said. He did tape record two interviews with President Bush. Read “A NOTE TO READERS” again at the very beginning of the book! Can you believe that Woodward would lie about anything when he is at the peak of his career and has published so widely? He has a reputation that I’m sure he is proud of and that is one of honesty.

I turned to page 158 and read the quote about Rice; however, I don’t believe you went far enough (incidentally I agree that Bush has no polish at all; he is very human and says things that, in retrospect, he regrets); Let me quote a paragraph below the remark made by Bush that you quoted:

”After she returned from the residence, Rice called Rumsfeld. ‘Don, I think tomorrow you need to be able to tell the president what the real timeline looks like, because I think his expectations are not in line with what you’re going to be able to say. I think he will be all right with that, but is important that he really now have a clear view of how long we’re talking about.’

‘I’ll be ready to do that,’ Rumsfeld replied.”

Rice is requesting the Secretary of Defense to brief the President and he agrees to her request. Not exactly the “Nanny” role or even a lesser role you gave her.

I must stop here, GANDY - I’ve posted too much this evening and will continue with your remarks tomorrow and will try to go faster through the book! I haven’t caught up with you yet although I have read it through once.

We can each point out differences – isn’t it fun! I feel like I’m back in high school and on the debate team again! THANKS FOR THAT!

LATER, EG

Only have a minute!

Did anyone see Tim Russert interviewing Bob Woodward last night on CNBC? I just caught the last 15 minutes of it. Russert said he has read the book twice now and will read it again! You can understand why can't you? It's hard to pin events down. Russert said that from the book he got the opinion that Bush was inconsistent with his opinions and BW said that's true - they change with events and he likened that to the Democrats and Republicans who, according to him, change opinions daily and gave examples.

ELLA, since it is young Moslem men of middle eastern descent that are responsible for actual and/or potential attacks in the United States, I think it DOES seems sensible to profile them, particularly in airports and public places.

Many of us who don't fit any terrorist descriptions, in EVERY age category, have been subjected to stop and search techniques in airports and accepted it in the hope of greater security for all. My son has been stopped and searched on past flights. He fully anticipates the possibility of another personal search in the airport when he flies later this week, and is prepared to accept it good-naturedly. I've always been pro-ACLU in the past, but now I wonder... why is the ACLU making such a fuss?

Being singled out for security checks, in tandem with other American citizens is NOT, in my opinion, akin to the more extreme measures that Japanese-Americans endured during WW2. It's sad that ANYONE should have to be subjected to profiling, but it does seem to be a necessary adjunct of the times in which we live.

I went hunting for the Carlton Op-Ed piece online, if anyone else cares to read it in its entirety. It also contains an innuendo that the government had some prior information about the 9/11 attack that they're protecting from exposure. The following link will produce a Baltimore Chronicle Archive page of Local news only.

http://www.charm.net/~marc/chronicle/archives.html

Click on the link to National news on the left of the screen and scroll about 1/3 down the ensuing page. The article is called: "How Bush Hit the 'Trifecta' on 9/11--and the Public Lost Big-Time." There's also an interesting nest egg of public letters responding to this July, 2002 article. Unfortunately I couldn't find a more direct link.

During the prior Democratic administration, whenever Clinton took some sort of military action against terrorism, the press screamed that he was trying to divert from Lewinsky and his impeachment proceedings. Now, I have read some innuendoes in the press that Bush is hoping a new Gulf War will divert attention from our faltering economy? In both cases, such actions would be unconscionable and I doubt that they are true.

It is SO hard to distinguish truth from innuendo and the stakes are so very high in these insane times.

Harriet

ELLA, I would agree that it's difficult to pin down the many events and personalities in the book. Kudos to you for your clear and descriptive posts and your challenging questions.

How well you're organizing this difficult subject!

Harriet

Ella, you ask where or how Bob Woodward got all his information on the CIA. He wrote a book on the CIA called, "Veil" back in the 80's. I read the book, and it had some controversy connected with it. It seems that he claimed to have visited William Casey in the hospital before he died of a brain tumor, and had a conversation with him, when his family said that the CIA director was comatose.

He has said that he had high level connections inside the CIA for years, and I wondered if a couple of the ones used in the book may have been his source for much of the information. I do not mean George Tenet, but others included.

The new powers that George W. Bush has given the CIA will probably come back to haunt this country. They had some of these powers before and abused them, and given human nature will do so again. Meddling in other countries internal affairs has led to blowback on this country time and again. The debacle of Iran comes to mind, when our CIA helped put the Shah of Iran on the throne, which in time caused the Iran hostage crisis, the creation of Hezzbolla, taking of American hostages in Lebanon, and terrorism on a large scale.

Ella,

Apparently, you misunderstood my meaning regarding the Carlson quote, or whatever you choose to call it. Let me try again.

Not only did Carlson attribute the statement to President Bush, but, later after it had been widely reported, the President himself restated it, in substantially the same form, but reworded, in public. It wasn’t that he commented about Carlson’s quote. He, the President, made the statement regarding his having “hit the trifecta”, in a manner to engender the impression that he was only making a joke, an incredibly bad joke, as it were.

What is important here, at least in my view, is the fact that he had the bad character to even think about it in such terms and that BW saw no need to mention it in the book. While, in contrast, he went out of his way to comment on President Clinton’s character in his book, Shadow, with regard to the former President’s bad habit of fudging on his golf card. BW went on about it, as if cheating on one’s golf score were the ultimate sin! And, if you had read it, you would agree that the manner and placement of his remarks were at least incongruous and added nothing to the narrative. The way I see it, what’s sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose. That’s unless, of course, an honest analysis isn’t really one’s goal. And, that is what I’m talking about here. One need not engage in outright lies in order to make a point. BW’s failure to make an attempt to analyze his subjects is a glaring omission in a book such as this. And, the example above, his failure to even mention the President’s “trifecta” statement, is worse because it is a deliberate omission. It is insidious because it is dishonesty by omission.

Likewise, you’ve misstated my description of the exchange concerning Ms. Rice and the President. I did not give her the role of a Nanny. Rather, the President did so with his description at Page 158. It was his characterization of her and her role that I criticized. As I said, it seems to me that the responsibilities of the National Security Advisor should be described in much broader terms than merely being responsible for coaxing him out of his little impatient fits. Your quote is interesting because, those were not the President’s words. They were BW’s description of her reaction to the conversation she had just concluded with the President, who in his ignorance held unrealistic expectations. She smartly prepared Rumsfeld for what was to be expected the next day.

Which brings me to your questions about the “young” President’s reaction to a seasoned “team”. The thing that strikes me first was your remark that the people he had surrounded himself with had served his father well. I can’t agree that the elder Bush was well served by these people. As I pointed out earlier, his single term in office was neither a distinguished one nor an honorable one. For all intents and purposes, he was run out of office a failure, having perjured himself, failed to complete the job of eradicating the scourge called Saddam and having been responsible for an extended period of economic crisis. A President with such a record cannot validly be considered to have been well served by his advisors, IMHO.

Moreover, I was struck by your description of the young President surrounded by men, not to mention women, who were much more experienced than he. The fact that he was surrounded by men and women who were likely his intellectual superiors as well came immediately to mind! Now, to my mind, that was much more intimidating than the level of their collective experience. His remarks about being the commander and the President and the lack of perceived responsibility to explain himself say a great deal in this regard.

And, finally, Fifi is absolutely correct about the controversy surrounding BW’s claims about William Casey and his sources in the 80’s book on the CIA. I clearly remember that controversy. It seems that our journalistic icons often overplay themselves. It has happened to BW on more than one occasion. It even happened to one of the most respected historians of our time recently. Stephen Ambrose has come under fire for plagiarism, as has historian and Harvard Overseer Doris Kearns Goodwin who left "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" for an indefinite period of time under a cloud of controversy. Just because a writer is well respected and at the top of the profession, one cannot assume that they are above reproach.

Hi HARRIET – yes, I agree we must continue to interrogate those that proper authorities feel might be involved in terrorist activities, regardless of constitutional rights of citizens – after 9/11 Mueller, Director of the FBI, according to BW, reported that they had a staggering 331 people on their watch list – all residents of this country. (p.117) President Bush was floored at the number of people in our own country that were suspects and decided that the American people had suffered enough trauma and were not going to be told about this.

He said “This enemy is elusive, very sophisticated. These aren’t a bunch of poor people that are desperate in their attempt. These are cold, calculating killers.” (When we see direct quotes such as the above, I think we can believe these are remarks made by the President and tape recorded by BW).

Thanks for the link also, Harriet! I agree that innuendos cannot be believed; someday we will know the truth but far into the future, I’m afraid.

Thanks, FIFI, for your post. BW will never reveal all his sources, that’s true – will we in our lifetime find out who “Deep Throat” (Nixon’s nemesis) was? Not until all parties to those tragic times are dead (and probably all of us also!).

Let us hope that the powers that the CIA have been given are not abused and do not cause us undue situations; however I do believe it may be necessary at the present time as the terrorists are situated globally. Am I wrong in stating that the tragedy of 9/11 was hatched in Germany? Did I hear that correctly?

I was reading in our book (trying to catch up today) that it was Cofer Black that flew to Moscow to “seek help from top Russian diplomatic and intelligence officials and received support. One Russian said that: “I have to say you’re going to get the hell kicked out of you.”

Later in the book the CIA experts said their policy was (1) this was not to be a war against Islam, and (2) this was not a war against the Afghan people; instead they were going to study what the Russians had done and do the opposite.!!!!

The strategy worked didn’t it? Does anyone know how many forces we still have in Afghanistan? Would you say that we have done all we can to help the people there? Some of you stated earlier that they thought the Taliban was regrouping again in the country. I would like to know the status of the country; we don’t hear a thing about that situation now as the media’s attention is on Iraq.

Anybody know anything?

GANDY! Again I just read your last post and you are right in so many aspects. I remember the incidents with Ambrose and Goodwin; as a matter of fact we have talked about those in the history folder I believe or somewhere in the books! Of course, journalists make errors; they are human. Can that be justified in that manner? It's up to the reader I expect.

Perhaps you are right in this statement - "BW’s failure to make an attempt to analyze his subjects is a glaring omission in a book such as this. And, the example above, his failure to even mention the President’s “trifecta” statement, is worse because it is a deliberate omission. It is insidious because it is dishonesty by omission."

I have not read other books by BW, as you and FIFI have, so I yield the floor to the two of you. Did he analyze those he was writing about in other books. Is that his purpose - to analyze? Or to just report? I don't know how BW sees himself - as an analyst or a reporter - or can you be both?

I find Condi Rice to be an equal with the other advisors in the White House and perhaps a bit more in tune with the President's wishes than most. I have read the entire book and will not change my mind in that respect.

Thanks for your post, GANDY!

WHERE DID EVERYONE GO TONIGHT? IS THERE ANYONE LURKING OUT THERE - OLLY, OLLY IN FREE!

As I was reading further in the book today it was so plain to me that these same meetings, the same discussions have been going on, possibly still going on, as the impending war in Iraq comes closer. For those lurking, I'll type in a paragraph that describes one situation that we don't think of normally:

"The Pentagon and the State Department faced a familiar problem of how to secure overflight and basing rights from foreign countries for operations that were not fully knowable until the conflict was under way. Nations that are considering what kind of rights to grant want specific information about the type, length and size of planned operations before granting any permissions. But defense officials had no idea whether a conflict might escalate and demand larger operations. So the military tended to over-request, pushing for as much as possible and thus delaying or prolonging negotiations."

Do you suppose these foreign nations demand written contracts for all of these rights they are granting?

Did any of us ever think we would hear the story of the cross from a Russian president, a former KGB operative? Amazing! For those who do not have the book yet, Putin's mother had given him a cross and he had it blessed in Israel; furthermore he told Bush that the cross was in a dacha that burned down and the only thing that mattered to him was that cross which was rescued.

TIMES - THEY DO CHANGE!!!

And while reading today it also struck me that BW must have tape-recorded all of the Principals listed in the book because from page 119 - 126, there are direct quotes from Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Cheney and Powell.

As Larry said quite a few posts ago, they didn't know in which direction to go as they sat planning a war; there were so many factions to discuss and so many ideas - they couldn't decide which was the most important. They had decided WHAT they needed to do - "divide Talban from the al Qaeda and to divide other Taliban from Mullah Omar."

Cheney remarked that their first priority was to go after the al Qaeda camps; then focus on the Taliban miliary; but others had differing thoughts. Powell had said, "That is not uppermost in our minds right now." Rice had said otherwise, "It's a very repressive and terrible regime. The Afghan people would be better off without it. We will see what means are at our disposal to do that."

And meanwhile Tenet is cranking up his secret teams to meet up with the Northern Alliance and he says - "But we'll hold off going hard on the Taliban to see if we traction on the notion of either a change in Taliban leadership or some other way to break with al Qaeda."

Rumsfeld has his say in this meeting - "Look, we have to say things in a general way because we don't know what we're going to do until we get there." (He is furious that the Pentagon was still coming up dry on war plans.)

DOES THIS SOUND AS THOUGH ANYTHING WOULD EVER GET DONE? BUT IT DOES AND IT DID!

Would love to hear your thoughts!

Ella, I am a lurker and have been enjoying the dialogue. I haven't read the book and don't plan to--sorry. I am akin to the salmon--swimming up stream--I think I am in the extremely tiny minority who is convinced there will not be a war. I think Bush is giving his very all, so to speak, to frighten sad damn into UN compliance. So having said this--I will get out of here and continue to lurk. Thanks for the good posts everyone-- keep it up.

dig girl, So Good to See You Here. OH I do hope you are right about Bush just putting pressue on Sad Damm oh yes I caught that. I remember you from the Az. Bash.

Ginger

Ella, it is true that the plans to get into Afghanistan seem to get bogged down in this part of the book. It takes much diplomacy to get all the fly over rights and bases set up in other countries, since Afghanistan is a landlocked country. I thought Colin Powell did a good job, but the CIA with their bags of money probably talked louder and got results also.

When reading about the CIA operatives going to these countries and Afghanistan with lockers of US currency (in 100 dollar bills). There certainly were no banks in northern Afghanistan, at least where the northern alliance was, and the US dollar is not their currency. I suppose it must be accepted on the black market for goods and services.

The CIA had been in contact with the Northern Alliance long before GW Bush became president. The US had been giving them some assistance and arms. The death of Massoud was a blow to their alliance, which had been fighting since the Russians left, to get back to Kabul. Without the Northern Alliance this story would surely have been a different tale.

Afghanistan had been at war since 1979, and it had almost completely devastated their country, thus Rummsfelds complaint of not enough targets to bomb. Their population had been decimated by war, with millions dead, and millions more refugees. The country collapsed in upon itself, in what I have described before as an analogy of a drug raid, called a kickdown.

The Northern Alliance kicked in the door, and the Taliban and al Qaeda ran out the back door. They caught some of the users, but all the dealers got away. The same way it happens in the war on drugs.

Speaking of drugs, I have read nothing on drugs in this area of the world recently, which as everyone knows is the center of drug production. Since so many journalist were killed in the Afghan war, I think there must not be many there reporting, and if they are they are staying close to safe havens.

Fifi, I believe I heard on the news just within the last few days that the drug business from Afganistan is very active again. This seems to be about their only commodity for foreign sales, illegal as it is.

I was struck by the danger of carrying around the millions of dollars that the CIA agents had when they went back into Afganistan. What a dangerous job but it appears that they were the key to getting things underway in that country.

Several places in the book it mentions how frustrated Donald Rumsfeld has been over the lack of war plans. I also had no idea of all of the background work needed to get permission from the various countries. I am fairly confident that we are paying a big price for every agreement that we get. Every country wants something from us. I expect this is what has been behind the reluctance of France and some of the other countries to be supportive and to continue to be stumbling blocks. It probably means a few more millions for their country. Guess I am a bit cynical.

Larry

Ella,

I may be too much of a cynic. Because my take on the cross story was somewhat different. I immediately thought of how easy it would have been to manufacture such a story, what with the Russians’ intelligence service being fully aware of the President’s religiosity and his complete lack of experience in the conduct of foreign affairs, particularly with an adversary as wily as this one!

The fact that he accepted the story without so much as a blink of an eye is kind of scary. Fortunately, so far, there doesn’t seem to have been a negative effect flowing from the “trust” established between the two leaders on their first meeting. Putting the best light on it, one might say that it was Putin’s intention to put the new and inexperienced U.S. President more at ease in order to establish such a trust. Who knows?

Regarding the lack of analysis in BW’s books, you have touched on part of the problem, albeit briefly. BW is a journalist, not an historian. In contrast, the historical narratives of authors such as Haynes Johnson, who wrote, Sleepwalking Through History – America During the Reagan Years, are replete with in depth analysis and exhaustive documentation. The reader isn’t left wondering or guessing where each quote came from or who really said what.

In his book, Shadow, which was subtitled, Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate, his style was much the same and the reader was left to do much of the analysis of the real effects of Watergate on the five presidents who followed Nixon. That having been said, I will concede that he did a bit better, there wasn’t a complete lack of analysis, in Shadow. What was noteworthy about his approach in that book was that it covered the first 4 presidents in the first 225 pages of the book allotting only 38 pages to Jimmy Carter and just a few more than that, 54, to the Elder Bush, and then spent the remaining 287 pages on President Clinton, followed by an epilogue of a little over three pages! And, to be fair, he did include a section of “Notes” at the end of the book. Something that is notably missing in this latest book!

As for your question, it seems to me that an historical narrative should not only report the events, but also present some sense of the motivation of the characters and background involved. Otherwise, a simple timeline table would accomplish the same goal.

When the CIA operatives, headed by Gary, were deployed into Afghanistan after 9/11, there was a new set of rules for the liaison team. In all past operations Cofer Black had given orders to his teams and the SENIORS that they "could not ambush bin Laden's convoys because it would be deemed assassination." Now, President Bush had signed a new intelligence order that removed this restraint. (From p. 141)

"You have one mission," Black instructed. "Go find the al Qaeda and kill them. We're going to eliminate them. Get bin Laden, find him. I want his head in a box."

"You're serious?" asked Gary.

"Absolutely," Black said. The new authority was clear. Yes, he said, he wanted bin Laden's head. "I want to take it down and show the president."

I wonder, will we EVER know if this part of the covert operations mission was a success? If bin Laden was actually killed during the bombing of Afghanistan, the al Qaeda certainly kept the secret. The occasional audio tapes that have surfaced in the past year, purporting to be the voice of bin Laden, have been investigated minutely by the CIA, the FBI and the press. They've been replayed constantly on news broadcasts, debated on TV, and discussed by the American public. Yet no one can say for sure if bin Laden is dead or alive. If he IS still actually alive, I feel that the level of loyalty he commands presents a real threat to the United States, especially in view of all of the generous rewards offered for his capture.

I have read (wish I remembered where) that there are strong historical and cultural traditions surrounding the sanctity of "guests" in Afghanistan. The custom is that if an Afghan has offered the hospitality of his home to someone, he has also accepted the obligation to protect and defend that guest with his life if necessary, just as if that guest were a member of his OWN family. It is a STRONG tradition.

Shortly after 9/11, President Bush demanded that the Taliban surrender bin Laden. The head of the Taliban answered, as if it explained everything: "HE IS OUR GUEST."

The hostilities that followed were predictable. Some Afghans may still feel that they owe protection to bin Laden, even WITHOUT political agreement?

Harriet

DIG GIRL! Hey, I like the way you are digging, keep it up! No war! I’ve heard a couple of commentators ask if it could be Bush’s policy to spread fear into the heart of the Iraqis, but they also speak of the terrible expense to do it and the fact that when you build up for a war, the soldiers, sailors, pilots are geared for action and it would be hard to back down – I hardly think so, do you? Wouldn’t it be a wonderful relief if Saddam revealed all and Bush and his warmongers were satisfied? The troops come home with nary a dead body!! We would rejoice! Keep the faith! Glad you are enjoying the discussion, we are too!

FIFI – you know the history of Afghanistan better than some of us, what drugs do they produce (or did you mean that?) Can they grow poppies there to make heroin? I don’t know much about the drug world and what comes from what countries and feel very ignorant even to bring the subject up.

The Russians were fighting in Afghanistan for about 10 years – why? And at that time we were helping the Aghans win the war against the Communists. The poor country must have suffered a lot from all of that!

What did the Russians want from that poor country? I had not thought about the prior history of the country other than the above, so enlighten us. We did discuss a book written by Michener – “CARAVANS” which was about Afghanistan and here is a clickable to it if anyone is interested: CARAVANS by Michener and there are pictures of the country here: Photos. Also a magazine from Aghanistan with articles (back issues): Magazine

The book took place back in the 40’s and followed the different tribes from gathering places to others – nomads. It was very interesting and you know that Michener wrote novels based on true facts (he had been to Afghanistan several times and loved the country).

HI LARRY! I thought about payments also for all the places we are using to land planes and equipment. TOO MUCH to contemplate at times – money, money, is it being spent well? Or should I ask?

GANDY! You thought Putin made the cross story up thinking the young, inexperienced president would swallow it and possibly be less critical and more friendly to the Russian president? I’ll be darned – we are impressionable people! I loved the story, I swallowed it, but you could, of course, be right. I have read stories of the old line Germans who still believed in God and heaven long after they had to deny him in Hitler’s era. So, I thought Putin might also have believed!

Yes I agree, BW is a journalist, not a historian, I don’t think he attempts to be. I love historians and read and discuss many historical books (see our Archives for names of same) even though the best of them (Ambrose, Goodwin and even McCullough – yes, he made an error and misquoted T. Jefferson) make their mistakes.

Possible, Harriet, thanks for your post and thoughts! Will we ever know for sure if he is dead? How will we know? Being a Muslim and everyone protecting Muslims and being an Arab and among Arab friends, would any give him up to the "infidel."

Having the power to kill and even having the power to assassinate a leader of a country (Iraq) is something very new to America. I'm trying to think of something in our history that might compare. Wasn't it rumored that we assassinated someone in Chile - a president, or some South American country (it's very vague). But we are not the innocents we pretend to be - we have power - superpower and I hope we use it wisely! The history books will be full of all of this in the future - historians are taking notes daily!!!

More later - eg

It is rumoured also that one of our PMs was assassinated by the CIA some years ago. It was in relation to our anti nuclear stance I believe. There was a program on TV recently giving the history of this affair. There was no denial from the America Embassy in NZ. If there was not truth in the matter would not the Embassy have been screaming blue murder? There has been no law suits against the makers of the documentary. We will never know the truth but we will always wonder.

Carolyn

Hi Carolyn: Who knows? You never heard anything more in your newspapers? Hmmmmmmm

An article in our paper this morning written by Joel Brinkley of the New York Times says that International support for the war on terrorism is weakening because of human-rights abuses by the U.S. HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH charged in a report published yesterday. The report.......cited the Bush administrations's detention of so-called enemy combatants without formal charge or access to lawyers, closed-door deportation hearings of terrorism suspects, and the refusal to abide by the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners at Guantanomo Bay, Cuba. (it goes on)

And another very long article with the headline - War Movement slowing despite troop buildup.

Also a reminder that on Thursday night on the History Channel there is going to be a report by an ex-Iraqi scientist describing his role - he escaped from Iraq and arrived in the U.S. in 1995. This report is part of a series on possible new conflicts in the region of the Gulf War.

Oh, golly, we must get back to the book!

later, eg

Ella, yes Afghanistan is one of the largest heroin producing countries in that part of the world. They grow the poppies and prepare it the ancient way. They sell it to middlemen, and their amount of profit is low, when compared to the enormous profits made by the middlemen and distributor. Some of it is sent north toward Russia, most to Europe, and some to America. Being landlocked Afghanistan sells much of its drugs to Pakistanis, who are connected to the distribution network.

In Pakistan the brown heroin can be purchased at any taxi stand. A young English journalist of Greek and Mexican heritage was found dead in a hotel in Pakistan from heroin. There was a long piece on him in one of the magazines after his death. He had gone into Pakistan soon after the bombing of the Embassies in Africa, to try to reach Afghanistan and get an interview with Osama bin Laden. He was there for Sixty Minutes of CBS. The Pakistani Intelligence Service refused him admittance to Afghanistan. The infamous ISI which is equivalent to our CIA, created the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan and had so much control over that country, they should have been charged with abetting Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Instead our tax money is now supporting this group.

The journalist had traveled to Afghanistan as a young student and was gone for a few years, when his family did not know where he was. When he returned to England he was a heroin addict, and a convert to Islam. He had battled his addiction for years, only to succomb to temptation when he returned there, and it cost him his life.

I have also read that Russia had a terrible problem with their young soldiers when they returned from Afghanistan. Many were addicted, and the Afghans provided it to them. I hope that our young soldiers are being protected from this horror.

......

ELLA, I wish the rest of the world that decries conditions at Guantanomo Bay would be as vocal when American nationals are captured or brutalized. I haven't heard of any starvation at Guantanomo. Have you? Has anyone investigated the conditions under which the comrades of our detainees are being held in Afghanistan? Betcha it's not as good as the conditions we provide?

GANDY, your take on Putin and his cross was very interesting. I never thought of questioning that particular story. I do believe that our president feels more simpatico toward someone with religious faith. How scary if Putin is manipulating him in this area.

As the book progresses, Bush is being portrayed as a man who can sometimes display a temper, but who is careful to discipline and control his impulses. He also seems to have a strong sense of the power of the presidency and no particular shyness about using those powers even though his original election mandate was not strong.

The fear seems to be that the Bush administration will chip away at our civil liberties. Yet, in all times of war our government has taken on discretionary powers which were disbanded when normal times returned. So far, America has always returned to center after a period of excess.

The civil liberty abuses of the McCarthy era were extreme, and I worried that America was turning into a police state back in the 1950's. Fortunately, reason finally prevailed.

Do any of you feel that THIS era is more dangerous to civil liberties?

Harriet

THANKS, FIFI, for that information – you used the words “brown heroin” – is there a difference between that and the white? And you can buy the stuff at a taxi stand? Would we know if any of our young men who were there became addicted? I doubt their commanders would want the public to know that!

Tomorrow we start on a new section of the book, pages 170-251. To sum up these last pages, it is the preparation stage of the war on Afghanistan and you said it so well, HARRIET, when you said our President has a strong sense of the power of the office and is not shy about using those powers.

However, I think he is aware of tough situations for the president. I’ll quote this paragraph and wonder if he still feels this way in the present situation with Iraq:

”The idea of attacking an enemy, a command I had never given before, is and still is a significant decision by a president. And I wanted to make sure that the people understood that we were getting ready to attack and that I wanted a clarification of their points of view.”

Here is a web site you might be interested in, which indicates people have a viewpoint different tha the President: Protest Movement

Am wondering why the U.S.A., who buys everything else, could not have bought radio time on the Al-Jazeera station and stated our position? Didn’t you get angry when you heard Osama bin Laden talking on tape on that station? Why couldn’t we?

And did you ever the military phrase “boots on the ground” used for soldiers? Those are men in those boots – don’t care for that connotation at all.

Bush seemed at times to be in a hurry to get movement, to get the bombs dropped in these many meetings. He says at one point that we would be showing our will because the first air strike would be followed by a second and a third. It was going to be a continuous bombardment, however, he was told by Rumsfeld and Rice that Afghanistan was still in the 15th century and it was not as if they had big targets to go after.

It’s good to read of their concern for CSAR (Combat Search and Rescue) being in place before they start bombing! And I wonder also if we are going to do the PSYOP (psychological operations – dropping leaflets with explanations) on Iraq and what they will say? WE ARE BACK TO FINISH WHERE WE LEFT OFF?

Harriet, no I don’t feel we are in danger of losing our civil liberties; some may be curtailed until the threat is over, but we can still speak out against the war, we can write against the war, we have all our freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution – why do you ask?

Bush told McLaughlin he could start with a joke "only if it's good."

Here is the joke; "McLaughlin told of visiting Russia undercover as a tourist and stopping where the first shot had been fired in the Russian Revolution. The guide said 'That one shot was the most powerful shot ever fired. It went off and went for 70 years of straight destruction."Bush chuckled.

I certainly saw nothing funny about it.

Pge 169

Ashcroft said "We're thinking about a national neighborhood watch system." Citizens would call in strange behavior or suspected terrorists

Not a protest over his statement by anyone. What kind of people are running our country?

In his confirmation hearing Ashcroft promised no more of his old nonsense.

We went on an Elderhostel to Cuba in 2001. They do have a neighborhood watch system. Have to admit Havana is one of the safest cities in the world.

NEITHER DO I, SELDOM! It's not funny, the Cold War wasn't funny, the fear we felt then wasn't funny, let's just be happy that is over; sometimes it seems in the course of human events (is that from Lincoln?) we must always have an enemy somewhere; always have a war -we even had a dreadful one right here in our own country - the Civil War, the worst of all. Young men die in wars, sons and husbands that should be at home living their lives in peace.

About Ashcroft - he's a bit off, don't you think? Of course, after 9/11 everyone was a bit off and struggling to find our way back to normalcy again after the horror of the Twin Towers. Never would the American people be looking at their neighbors - HEAVENS! NAZI GERMANY RESURRECTED.

THANKS FOR THE POST, SELDOM!

Have you been noticing how many times throughout this book a reference is made to the Vietnam War? A nightmare that will always haunt us, isn’t it?

And the planners in this book make the point that the United States has never figured out how to win a guerrilla war, we depend too much on planes and bombs. Superpower! We are arrogant do you agree? We want to show off our power with planes and bombs and missiles and our latest weaponry.

And how worried these planners are over issuing a “white paper” – presumably a press release – and I would expect that the same problem is facing these same people in the White House today, wouldn’t you? How to proceed? What to tell the press, the American people – how much to tell, how much detail.

Another similar problem the Bush administration is having today that they had before going into Afghanistan is our allies, getting them into place - Rice mentions the Aussies, the French, the Canadians, the Germans. Do we have any of them committed in this present situation with Iraq? I don't think we will have any until the world believes we have evidence that Iraq has weapons of M.D. Were those empty canisters enough evidence?

There was a trivia question on a TV show last night about how many Iraqis have entered our country since 1991 and the correct answer was 50,000.

Why would they want to come to a place where the woman bare their heads and they wear slacks; liquor and cigarettes are sold; people are not afraid to criticize their government, we worship different Gods? And why do we let them come?

Since this book was written mostly from notes taken from meetings of the National Security Council, I thought it might be interesting to know more about the NSC.

The National Security Council and the CIA were created by an act of congress in 1947. Truman was president at the time. The NSC was set up with four statutory members, the president, vice-president, secretary of state, and secretary of defense. There were two advisory members, the director of CIA and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The setup was originally thought of as a way of providing the chief cabinet members with a regular forum in which they could influence or at least advise the president before he made important decisions.

A major change came during the Eisenhower administration. The NSC had originally been given a small staff, headed by an Executive secretary. The staff was incorporated into the Executive Office of the President (EOP) which gradually transformed the presidency into another swollen bereaucracy. In a way the staff became the presidents, not the NSC's. The assistant to the president was promptly dropped, and the title of National Security Advisor was adopted.

The taking of the staff into the presidents domain along with the national security advisor, led to the original members of the NSC being left out of important deliberations. This was especially true in the Reagen administration, and also Nixons.

During the Johnson administration the NSC staff numbered 35, few of them military, most on loan from State. The worked from an office in the basement.

Under Nixon, his national security advisor, Henry Kissinger, hired 155 staff members, managed a budget of $2,900,000, and moved out of the basement. He also operated around and outside the National Security Council, as also happened under Reagan.

Under Reagan the NSC had at least 4 NSC advisors. The last one John Poindexter organized the staff into twelve directorates or divisions, all duplicating those of the State Department.It was large and varied enough to carry out the president's wishes covertly from the rest of the government. By this time the staff numbered over 1,600 and as one study put it, constitutes a bureaucracy probably as compartmentalized in structure and Byzantine in its workings as any in the federal government.

As we know Condo Rice is the present National Security Advisor. Steve Hadley the Deputy NSC advisor seems to run the staff of NSC, and I do not have a count of how many that includes. Does anyone know? I do know that at one time the NSC staff was in the old executive office building. Condo Rice has an office next to the president, around the corner from the Oval Office.

According to Condo Rice, she herself does not give the president advice unless pressed. This led me to the conclusion that her role was not that of advisor, but something else. When I spoke of her role as that of a nanny, I did that in the context of her being sent to George W. by his father GHW Bush. I think this is the role GHW Bush sent her to do, and the fact that she is able to wear both hats successfully, speaks to her tenacity.

In an url that Harriet put up from the Baltimore paper, I read an article on Condo Rice by Yolanda White, a black professor. In it she said, "Maybe it's not National Security she was hired for, but national pacifier."

I have settled on her job description as a "personal assistant" to the president. In that capacity she can cover just about anything, and I think it is probably one of the most demanding jobs there.

Does anyone think we will be given an inside book on the deliberations going on right now in the NSC? I think not, but we are given an insight in the thinking on Iraq on Sept.12, 2001 by some of the members, who wanted Iraq on the table, even though Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were the terrorists of Sept.11, and they knew it.

......

Fascinating information, FIFI, thanks for that. Perfect example of how it is possible to grow in our government - each National Security Advisor wants to show their authority and the way to do that is to grow in personnel and budget. You become important, you have a big staff and a big budget and therefore you should be listened to.

For a time I worked in a department of the state and I know that you never try to save money, you spend all you are given, you grow positions and personnel and then ask for more money to prove your importance!

We had wondered what Afghanistan is like today, I didn't find any information about military there but I did find this - note the US facts - one shows that our State Department Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (did you know there was such a dept?) had provided funds totaling $110 million to the United Nations and other international organizations, as well as to non-government organizations (NGOs) to carry out programs for Afghans. Such programs include health care, shelter, vocational and literacy training, and education. Click here: Afghanistan 2003

I didn't read them all, perhaps there are some that tell about the military personnel.

SELDOM! I MISSED THIS IN YOUR POST - "We went on an Elderhostel to Cuba in 2001. They do have a neighborhood watch system. Have to admit Havana is one of the safest cities in the world."

Cuba? Where - Havana? Were many people around you were able to speak English? What did you study? Did you feel uncomfortable? When you say "neighborhood watch system" I'm not sure what is encompassed in that expression. We have a sign on our street that says that - neighbors are to watch for any strangers looking in windows, driving up/down the street, and watching our children - that sort of thing. Is that what you mean?

I'm going to quote a few sentences from the book here:

"Bush had said repeatedly during the presidential cmpaign: No combat troops for nation building, the American military did not exist for that purpose. ...... Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war."

Everyone in the room knew they were entering a phase of peacekeeping and nation building. Rumsfeld knew it. Powell knew it"

Of course, little did the former candidate know what a huge task was in front of him - perhaps no candidate should make such statements or promises. There are still troops in Afghanistan - I just cannot find the number, but I would think substantial, wouldn't you?

However, from the above clickable you can see that much aid (from different organizations and countries) is flowing into the country. They have not been abandoned yet.

I would imagine that plans for Iraq after the collapse of Saddam's regime are now being discussed.

Let's hear from some of you on either Afghanistan or Iraq!

Thanks Ella for that clickable. I read several of the articles, and the over riding concern of all seemed to be security. One of the articles by the non governmental organizations such as Care told about attacks on their aide workers where one was killed and two seriously injured. They say that to do their job, they must have better security. They feel the US military is into reconstruction and security has taken a back seat.

I heard a 5 second sound bite on television that 4 US military had been shot in the last four days in Afghanistan. Some were in serious condition. They ship them off to Germany at our base hospital there, and we hear little else about them.

According to each report I read, Afghanistan is still a very unsecure and dangerous place. Woodward says in the epilogue the US has about 7,000 US military there, doing mostly rebuilding projects and guarding President Kharzi.

......

I have listened with fascination as some TV talk show hosts discuss the future of post Saddam Hussein Iraq. The unspoken contention is that there will definitely be a war and we will win it. I have heard it said that the Iraqi people will be grateful to see him go and might HELP us?

I remember that the invasion at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba was based upon the same sort of beliefs also. Someone sure miscalculated back in 1961. I wonder if the same erroneous optimism is prevailing now? I think most Iraqi, living in a land where the media is tightly controlled, have no way of learning any of the reasons for the international enmity against Saddam and are likely to want to defend their homeland.

The only certainty that I can make out is, that when all the dying is done, America will step in with money to rebuild Iraq. The poverty, hunger and poor social conditions that are currently Saddam Hussein's fault will become OUR responsibility. OUR national debt and OUR taxes will increase and funds reserved for OUR social security may possibly be further endangered. I don't understand how people can contemplate the concept of war so casually. I am so worried for our young soldiers who are going into harm's way.

Harriet

Harriet, I agree with your assessment of the cost of war. I don't think this president has any concept of what it will cost, and doesn't really care. He never really had a job or earned money on his own, he was always bailed out by his father and his fathers friends, who were seeking influence in high places. He is spending our future and that of our children like the drunk in a bar, who sets up the house, while his own children are sitting at home hungry.

As for the human cost of the war, again this president doesn't have a clue about that cost, because he stayed out in Texas dodging the draft, and lived at the Chateau Dijon while young American boys went off to fight and die in Vietnam. Dick Cheney dodged the draft as did Andrew Card and Karl Rove. Powell seems to be the only one to ever see action, and he is the one always pressing for a solution that does not necessarily include war. I'm sure the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs also saw action. Other than that what we have is a bunch of Chicken Hawks, who refused to serve their country in time of war, but seem mighty anxious to send someone elses son to fight and perhaps die.

......

It is interesting to note that here and in Australia our old soldiers of the RSL and the RSA are against war with Iraq. These are the men who fought in WW2, Korea, Vietnam etc.

Carolyn

Here are two articles in today's news that might be of interst:

http://www.azstarnet.com/star/today/30119IIRAQ-SAUDIS-NYT.html

And the follow up:

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=0&aid=119084128_breakingnews_story

If at first you don't succeed........

We already knew the outcome of this book, and how it more or less transpired by reading the paper, magazines, and watching television which played around the clock during the 100 days after Sept.11. My interest in the book and this discussion revolved mainly around the cast of characters who were involved in the decision making. Being a reader of biography and memior, who believes that real life is always more interesting than fiction, I would like to read everyones impression of each character.

My impression of Donald Rumsfeld after finishing this book is best summed up by a discussion about the creation of an Afghan army. Rumsfeld wondered why they didn't just let the Afghan war lords create the army.

Colin Powell had to explain that Karzai was the man selected to unite Afghanistan into a strong central government, and not go back to warlords carving out their own territory and fracturing the country once again. The central government would be useless if each section of the country had its own separate army, which would be the case if the war lords planned it. The president needed to be the leader, not the war lords.

Rumsfeld on his own without his hundreds of backup staff, gave an answer that showed his lack of judgement. Being intelligent and quick with a quip does not give one good judgement, and in my opinion he shows time and again his lack of it.

Rumsfeld continually undermined Powells diplomatic work. Leaks from the Dept. of Defense caused trouble for Powell on more than one occasion.

Rumsfelds bringing up Iraq and wanting to put it on the agenda the day after the attacks of Sept.11, even though Tenet of CIA said plainly that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible for those attacks. The word opportunity was floated by more than one in those meetings. Rumsfeld and Cheney seemed to be the main ones pushing this agenda for the opportunity to attack Iraq.

Rumsfeld opposed a plan of nuclear weapons reduction with Russia. He lost his argument on every point.

In Woodwards interviews with other players in this saga, he described Rumsfeld as universally disliked by those who worked with him and for him. He was described by one as an "Egomanic cleverly disguised", who thought he himself should be president.

My summation of Rumsfeld, beware of short egomanics who think they should be president. Shades of Ross Perot!

......

Right on, Fifi!

Arab News is Saudi Arabia's english version newspaper. Interesting articles and especially if you click on "opinions."

Click here to access it. http://www.arabnews.com/

Explore these;

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FP%2FFrontPage%2FFrontPage&cid=1002116796299

and this http://www.tehrantimes.com/

and this http://www.metimes.com/

OH, WHAT A PLEASURE IT IS TO READ ALL THE COMMENTS YOU HAVE MADE! THANK YOU SO MUCH

And the varying opinions we have – WILL THERE BE WAR? IS IT POSSIBLE THERE MAY NOT BE?

HARRIET stated – “The unspoken contention is that there will definitely be a war and we will win it.” I hear that, also! But DIG GIRL (thanks for the clickables) brought up another set of questions – is it possible that Saddam may go into exile? If pressured by Arab nations, is that a possibility? I’ve heard that, too.

By the time this discussion is over perhaps we will know. I’ve also heard that Bush will announce his plans on January 28th in his State of the Union address – have you heard that? Will NATO back him or the United Nations? Or any country? I would love to know what is going on in the White house today.

FIFI – Rumsfeld is low on my list of favorites described in this book also – further, I have not liked him in the few press reviews I have seen him give.

CAROLYN – we all agree that old soldiers, those that have seen real war, are never ready to rush into another one! I’m reading Bob Kerrey’s book – WHEN I WAS A YOUNG MAN – and I am impressed with what he has to say. He did fight in Vietnam for a short period, was wounded and sent home, but long enough to hate war – if you will pardon me for getting off the subject for a few minutes, I want to quote from his book:

”The war (Vietnam) was corrupting everything. Journalists were willing to do anything to get a scoop and businessmen and government officials were trying to make a buck. Military and political leaders struggled to look as good as possible, and alcohol, prostitution and drugs prevailed. I knew no American who talked about winning the war or who seemed to believe we could.”

And another quote:

”We thought we could win a military war without winning a political one and were bitterly wrong. We underestimated the determination of our opponents, and we trivialized the willingness of our allies to pay the price necessary to succeed.”

Certainly, I don’t want our discussion to get into that war, but war is hell! We often don’t understand the politics of another country – you know, it amazes me that after WWII we were able to establish Japan as a democracy (or free enterprise system) – an Asian country - we knew little of their culture, but they are highly respected in the world of economics today.

Isn’t it amazing!!

---

There is a poll on ABC News Online wherein you can vote for/against the war and the last I saw of it there were over 10,000 votes – 14% for and 86% against. What did you think of the anti-war demonstrations over the weekend? Will they be effective?

I’ve also been told that you can call the White House (202-456-111) from 9-5, M-Friday, and you will get a recording asking whether you support or oppose the war – THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO HEAR! Really! I will do it and let you know (tomorrow being a holiday I don’t know???)

There is a sentence on page 189 – Woodward’s words, but……..”The president, focused as always on the public relations component, asked Defense …………..”

There are very few places in the book where Bush and the NSC confer with Congress, have you noticed? He certainly got angry (the words were “a long stream of Texas profanity”) with Congress (pages 198-199) and threw his authority around a bit much!!!

And in the case of Iraq:

Congress has given Bush all the authority he needs to declare war - he has already sought and received Congressional authority for military action against Iraq. This was the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq that passed both houses of Congress about Oct 11,2002. This resolution that was widely supported by a substantial percentage of Democrats as well as Republicans was widely interpreted in the press as Congressional authority for military action with or with out the blessing of the UN. A web copy of this resolution is at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/10/attack/main525165.shtml

Later, eg

THANKS, DIG GIRL - I READ THEM ALL!

Here's one - take the poll on ABC Newsline here: ABC ONLINE

But I voted and here are the results:

"This week's question is

Do you believe there is a case for war against Iraq?

Yes 12% No 88% 18515 votes counted"

Is anyone in the White House listening?

I tried to vote, but got this message:

"We're Sorry...

Due to high traffic this page is temporarily unavailable. Please try again in a few minutes.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused." ...

I have it bookmarked and will try again later.

Perhaps the Whitehouse is listening, and decided to put an end to it,
tout de suite....

Ella, thanks for the polling data. The Bush Whitehouse is very interested in polls, and you can bet that Karl Rove has his ear to the ground. That is why you are now hearing about the Saudis and others trying to get Saddam to retire, and leave town. The support for Bushs war on Iraq is eroding even as I write.

Remember what Rumsfeld said about providing proof of Osama bin Laden as the leader of the attacks on Sept.11. Powell was being pressured to provide some evidence to other countries, especially in the middle east. Rumsfeld was dead set against providing any proof. His reasoning was that the next time they planned a war, they might not have as much proof as they had on bin Laden, and it would set a precedent. Was Rumsfeld thinking ahead to Iraq?

Larry Hanna, Harriet, Ella and all others who post here, would like to hear your opinions of the principal characters. I hope to write about Colin Powell next, and the impression I got of him in this book. Plus I did read his book some years ago, and wish I knew who I loaned it to last, so I could reference it.

......

>It is interesting to note that here and in Australia our old soldiers of the RSL and the RSA are against war with Iraq. These are the men who fought in WW2, Korea, Vietnam etc. <<

All of your vets feel that way or just some?

Interesting over statement of data.

Ella, those were not really “canisters” that were discovered in Iraq. This is a very important distinction, because if they were merely storage canisters, they would mean little. But, if they were “warheads”, and that is precisely what they were, then they suggest something far more sinister. The warheads were not dusty old equipment that had been inspected years ago by the UN inspectors, and bearing the old inspection tags, as were some of the other remnants shown in TV reports lately!

These were shiny new warheads, stored in relatively new bunkers. All that they lacked was to have the chemicals or biological materials loaded in to them and mounted on rockets. Just as important, is the fact that, if they had the warheads, there are surely a similar number of rockets waiting in some other bunker for those warheads.

Furthermore, those warheads are very likely to have been missed when the Iraqis were hiding their weapons of mass destruction in anticipation of the current inspections. That being the case, there are likely to be many more that Iraq managed to successfully hide!

The existence of these warheads is certainly evidence that can be described as “smoking gun” evidence for the reasons above. It is analogous to finding a whiskey bottle lid in your adolescent son’s bedroom. If he had the lid, it’s likely he had the bottle and the contents, as well.

Fifi, at first glance the notion that the warlords shouldn’t have been allowed to form the army seems to be less than well thought out. But, on second thought, I’m not so sure. The argument that there was a necessity to keep the country whole seems to me to be unfounded.

Throughout the book, BW keeps coming back to the Administration’s concerns about the animosity between the tribes in the North and those in the South. It seems to me that the situation lends itself to a natural division suggesting the formation of two separate nations, a North Afghanistan and a South Afghanistan. Why force the two regions to get along with our military might in a merged nation? Let them live and exist apart.

Persivel, I am a vet from the Viet Nam era. However, I was fortunate not to have been assigned to SE Asia. So I didn’t have to fight or face the dangers the combat vets did.

I am among those who believe that an attack on Iraq is necessary and that short of a miraculous change of heart by Saddam, it is the only way to stop his support of terrorism. I’ve spoken with other vets, both combat vets and non-combat vets, some Viet Nam vets and some Desert Storm vets, and few are against the use of military force against Saddam. Likewise, we have friends who are in the military and they are unanimous in their support of Bush’s plan to use military force against Saddam.

I have no doubt but that others here will tell you that they know vets, or they are vets, who feel differently. It all demonstrates how divided a nation we are on this question and on this adminstration.

>It all demonstrates how divided a nation we are on this question and on this adminstration. <<

You could be right Gandy, but we have no accurate numbers available for either side of the isssue. It seems that many aare divided on politicval grounds,Democrat versus Republican, and will broach no solution unless it is consistant with the party line.

I am not a Bush supporter, but I would certainly hope that the use of the military not be ruled out as an option.

Gandy, Your #165 well taken as to war heads. This is a fairly long article, the meat (IMO) being "four down and 29,984 more to go!"

http://www.azstarnet.com/star/today/30120nU.S.-Iraq.html

As to vets speaking out against their CIC'policies--noncoms may but doubt many commissioned officer will-Somewhere deep down inside of me I have this vague recollection that Officers do not EVER speak out against the admin which ever party in power. One never knows when one may be recalled. Just a old fuzzy memory--right? wrong?--and I tend to be wrong so don't pounce--OK?

There is overwhelming opposition for war amongst the vets here. There is much discussion at the clubs.

Carolyn

Have not you seen the protester All Over The World. With that said I also must say that I do think that our leaders know more than they are putting in newspapers with good reason not to.

I am so glad we have this discussion to be able to speak our thoughts in an adult way with no decention. Thanks Ella.

Ginger

Having read Colin Powells autobiography, "My American Journey", I had already formed a positive opinion of him, and this book reinforced it.

Early in the book we are told there existed a distance between Powell and the president. A wariness without a comfort level.

Powell is undermined in almost everything he does by the political office run by Karl Rove, and Karl Rove is simply doing the presidents bidding. The political office plants stories in different magazines and with reporters about Powell that is negative, and questioning his influence and importance in policy decisions. All with Bushs approval.

At the very beginning of this administration an American military spy plane off the coast of China was forced to land and taken hostage along with 24 crew members. Powell was given the task of obtaining their release. He did so after 11 days. The Whitehouse did not want him on television to take credit. I found it amusing that the political office run by Karl Rove and Karen Hughes were the ones who decided who could go on television or speak to reporters.

Nothing in this administration moves without the political office. According to David Frums book, Rove has a poll for every possible scenerio, and nothing moves without a poll or a finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. Bush started campaigning the day after he was sworn in, and hasn't stopped since. All at the taxpayers expense I might add.

Woodward documents the disagreements between Powell and Cheney, and even gives us a picture of Powell and Rumsfeld going at each other. We know that Bush uses the political office to undermine his efforts. Condo Rice does seem to be sympathic to him, but never at the expense of whatever Bush wants. She would feed Powell to the buzzards in a heartbeat if Bush said do it. He seems to have few allies, other than his trusted deputy.

He said that in his position of Secretary of State, he seemed to be getting assignments and reacting to one minor crisis after another. He was not formulating foreign policy as he had expected to do. Foreign policy seemed to be run out of the political office.

I think Bush is lucky to have a man like Colin Powell in that position, and at the end of the book when Woodward asks Bush to tell him about Powells contribution, Bush gave a tepid response. He said, "And you've got to have a diplomat. I kind of picture myself as a pretty good diplomat, but nobody else does. You know, particularly, I wouldn't call me a diplomat. But, nevertheless, he is a diplomatic person..."

With that kind of endorsement,(and I almost gagged typing it) anyone think Powell will be around after 2004?

......

I think Colin Powell will be so disillusioned he will not come back even if Bush Jnr by some miracle was re-elected for a second term. I think we would not be looking at an imminent war if Colin Powell had run for President in the last election. Although I am not at the same end of the political spectrum as Mr Powell I have the utmost respect for him. I think his potential as a great Statesman has been grossly undervalued by his boss. He does have much respect from many nations.

Carolyn

Perhaps this is not the correct discussion to post this, but it is interesting. Are the Saudis finally waking up?

http://www.arabnews.com/Static/apactforreforming.asp

Guess they will go after Israel!

Well, that sounds like a plan..

We go after Iraq and they go after Israel...

Now what?

Colin Powell has been here. He comes across as sober, sincere and dignified as well as very intelligent.

Carolyn

GWB will come across as a Nero if he goes into this war. He should be looking elsewhere. His actions could be the fall of the USA.

Carolyn

kiwi lady (Carolyn) I do agree with You that GWB action maybe the fall of the USA.

Rumsfeld Apologizes for Remarks on Draftees

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, responding to growing criticism for recent remarks about draftees adding "no value" to the U.S. military , offered a "full apology" yesterday to veterans groups and their supporters in Congress.

"Hundreds of thousands of military draftees served over the years with great distinction and valor -- many being wounded and still others killed," Rumsfeld said in a letter sent last night to the American Legion, Vietnam Veterans of America and other veterans organizations. "The last thing I would want to do would be to disparage the service of those draftees."

The defense secretary's comment two weeks ago in response to a question about legislation calling for reinstituting the draft. In his remarks, Rumsfeld said he opposed the proposal, adding that draftees added "no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time."

Three leading Democrats who served in Vietnam, Sens. Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Rep. Lane Evans (Ill.) said in a letter to Rumsfeld yesterday that "we are shocked, frankly, that you were apparently willing to dismiss the value of the service of millions of Americans."

The letter asked that he apologize to them and their families.

more

Ella, I feel that the use of military force to remove Saddam is the only alternative left to us. We have tried virtually everything else and nothing has worked. This inspection nonsense that is going on right now has been tried and Saddam clearly outfoxed the UN inspectors the first time and he is doing the same thing this time around. The recent discovery of the warheads was a fluke that isn’t likely to be repeated.

As for the threat that Iraq represents, I am amazed that folks are so short in memory. It is public knowledge that Iraq operated terrorist training camps, including the training of Al Qaeda terrorist operatives, operated a program to develop chemical weapons, biological weapons and nuclear weapons, including the construction and testing of a so-called “dirty bomb”, a conventional bomb attached to a nuclear payload that can be detonated in a public place to disperse radiation.

When we refer to chemical and biological weapons, many folks automatically think about bombs or rockets to deliver such weapons in a battlefield environment. But, there are also ways to develop these materials into weapons that can be carried by an individual into public places just as the “dirty bomb” can.

Iraq played a part in the second NY bombing conspiracy in the Spring of 1993, killed 28 of our military men in Kuwait with its SCUD missiles, and used chemical weapons against its own people that it can just as easily deploy against U.S. citizens and military here at home and abroad.

The bottom line is that Iraq isn’t just a threat to our citizens and military abroad, he is a threat, through the use of the weapons described above either directly by Iraqi terrorists or as weapons supplied to other terrorists bent on attacking the U.S.! He has sponsored terrorists against us in the past and there is absolutely no reason to assume that left to his own devices he will suddenly have a change of heart. The article posted by Seldom illustrates the problem in stark terms. The Arabs will never accept the situation in Israel and stop sponsoring terrorism until they are forced to do so by force of arms.

As for historical treatment of Bush, the jury is still out, because his term in office hasn’t yet ended.

If it ended today, he would be judged in terms very similar to that of his father. He has failed to manage the economy in an effective way, satisfying himself, instead, to tinker with favored right wing agenda items, such as rolling back environmental laws and labor protective laws. Likewise, he has failed to finish the job in Afghanistan and failed to bring the primary individuals responsible for the 9/11 attacks to justice. Despite all the talk about a war in Iraq, we still have Saddam in power and the UN engaged in ineffectual “inspections” looking for Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction rather than Iraq complying with the UN resolutions placing the burden on it to prove it is has dismantled and destroyed them.

By any measure, this administration is distinguished by its failures rather than accomplishments and it will have to make a big turn around, before it ends, to be judged in a positive way by history.

Seldom, this is precisely the sort of thing that I have been talking about here and in Political Issues! While the Saudis claim to be our allies, they continue to act against us and our allies. The Arabs claim that Israel is unlawfully on Palestinian land, the entire territory of Israel, and contrary to their claims have never amended the Palestinian Charter to remove the provisions that hold to this notion.

This is why negotiation will never solve the situation in the Middle East and why we are going to have to eventually force the Arabs, by force of arms, to peacefully accept the Israelis and stop sponsoring terrorism!

THANKS, HERMIONE, for the information about dear old Rummy who stuck a big foot into his mouth with that remark! What he said was, of course, utter nonsense and the world took note of it, I’m sure. My husband and many of the vets on Seniornet were draftees and performed their job well and are proud of their service.

Perhaps I should tell you that my daughter, a Lt. Colonel in the Army Reserve Medical Corps, was in the Gulf War and was subjected to scuds. She knows the terror of them; fortunately she came home with no after effects and considers it an experience that will never be forgotten. She has two more years until she is ready for retirement from the Reserves; but, as of recent date, she has been informed that her unit will not be drafted this time.

GANDY – Not only am I not convinced that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and will use them againstus, but countries, such as Germany and France, are not convinced. See this article, which is just one of many: United Nations find No link between Al Qaeda and Iraq

Similar articles and opinions of knowledgeable people on talk shows has reinforced this opinion. If Bush ever gives the world knowledge of “hidden” or “secretive” weapons in Iraq, then we can all sigh in relief and let the war begin knowing that our cause is just. Why does not our government give the American people the knowledge they say they have that Iraq is hiding weapons of m.d.

I have not read “that Iraq operated terrorist training camps, including the training of Al Qaeda terrorist operatives” anywhere, Gandy, but I am sure you have and I would welcome any sources that you can give.

Neither am I convinced that “force of arms” will deter any Arab countries from attacks in the future on Israel. Actually the confrontation between the Arab countries and Israelites is one of long standing and may never, at least in our lifetime, be settled. I’m not sure that the United States, which has tried diligently in the past to settle their differences, can ever be anything other than a friend and lend our services in a neutral way – we cannot arbitrate their animosities nor can we by force get them to agree on any principles.

Speaking of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we have our own, of course, and it was interesting to read this on page 218 of our book:

”Rumsfeld launched into a discussion of what should be said publicly about the possible use of U.S. weapons of mass destruction if the other side used them. It was a frightening prospect, but it had to be addressed.

Look, Cheney retorted, we just need to say we reserve the right to use any means at our disposal to respond to any use of weapons of mass destruction. That’s the Gulf War formula-what had been said in the 1991 war on Iraq and that’s what we ought to do. Ultimately, the use of such weapons was a decision that the president would make.”

We admit publicly that we have such weapons, right? If you were not a U.S. citizen how would you feel about the possibility of a United States preemptive strike against an enemy (e.g.Iraq) using these weapons of mass destruction that we admit we have stocked. Is it possible that we are feared by some countries?

I think that bush has something and will wait until the day we launch our attack to give it up..........

But I doubt that it will be enough to change world opinion about him as a leader.

He will get his war, and he will get his oil, but this country may suffer greatly because of it. We are not prepaired, IMHO, for the consequences of his actions.

Hermie, thanks for posting that article on Rumsfeld putting his foot in his mouth. My opinion of him has not changed, only been reinforced.

I have tried to give my impressions of the players in the book we are discussing. I was surprised that Andy Card sat in on the deliberations of the NSC so often. He is the Chief of Staff for Bush, and I don't ever remember reading of that position sitting in on NSC meetings. In several of the meetings he was giving opinions and discussing options. Like Bush he was a draft dodger, and in one section chided Bush for trying to play the General and micro-manage the war. Card told him to leave the war to the Generals.

Bush goes to Camp David every weekend when in Wash.DC, and Condo Rice and Andy Card in almost every instance are there also. Evidently Condo Rice travels everywhere with him, even to his home in Texas. She also seems to sit in on every interview that Bush gives. Even when Bush asked Woodward to take a tour of the ranch, there in the back seat of the pick-up was Condo and the woman Secret Service agent.

In the book, it is stated that Rice convened the principals, Powell, Rumsfeld, Tenet, and Card without the president. This seems to suggest that Card is one of the principals, or an extra babysitter. He's short also, very important when you stand next to the president for a photo op.

......

Hahaha FIFI! I love your sense of humor about Card being short - and it may very well be true. Here is an article about Andrew Card, before he became Bush's Chief of Staff:

Andrew Card Profile

Many conversations among the Principals were about the Pashtuns and other ethnic groups in Afghanistan and I found a good explanation of the various groups in Afghanistan. Reading this you can understand the problems faced in attempting to engage the populace of the country and attempt to appease them all.

Ethnic Groups of Afghanistan

Allow me if you will just to quote one paragraph, Tenet speaking here about the tribes:

"Some of them are into vision and some of them are into money. We need to administer to both."

BW goes on to state that a "vision about the greater good of Afghanistan was too abstract, heady and distant a prize for some tribesmen-but they understood and would gladly accept cash. The CIA was continuing to dispense millions and the agency was arming many. Afghans responded to 'weapons and a sense they're on the winning side.'"

Do you suppose anyone keeps the books - or an accounting of how many millions have been spent and on what?

Tomorrow our schedule says we will take the remining pages of the book under consideration and discuss them. Before we get there, however, I just want to ask if you remember all those "alerts" we got from the government not so long ago? Well, of course, you do, silly question.

Why aren't we getting them now? What is different? Why did we get them then? What did they mean?

There are a couple of paragraphs in the book about them and I'll quote them for those who may be lurking without the book:

"The reports of threats were so intense that Tenet recommended that the FBI take the unusual step of issuing a national warning of possible terrorist attacks 'over the next several days.' He did it so forcefully that FBI Director Mueller had little choice but to act. The warning went out in the late afternoon: 'Certain information, while not specific as to target, gives the government reason to believe that there may be additional terrorist attacks within the United States and against U.S. interests overseas over the next several days.'

If Mueller had failed to comply, and there had been a terrorist attack, he might never have been forgiven. But the warning lacked details because none of the credible intelligence had specifics such as time, place or method of attack. It was more the high number of intercepts and other intelligence reporting that triggered Tenet's reaction. Given what had happened on September 11, better to overreact than underreact."

In my house we wondered what we were supposed to do? Crawl under a table? Hahaha (that was Cold War philosophy) Were we to stay home? What did any of you think about those alarms from the government?

The president said later, "National alerts are very interesting issues, if you think about it. First of all, we never had had a national alert......How many national alerts does it take to numb the American psyche?"

Really, Mr. President! Not all of us have bunkers deep under the White House to retreat to and he makes comments like "interesting" and "numbing" our psyche! I was a little angry over those statements.

He goes on to say:

"We came to the conclusion at this point in time that a national alert was important to let the enemy know that we were on to them......"

I've always thought that bunker under the White House was built when Truman ordered the White House gutted and completely rebuilt. Does anyone know anything about it?

Ella, the alerts were given at a time when the president was going out two or three days a week all over the country to give a speech about Iraq, and rev up the war mongering. It was all about the elections and Karl Rove said long before the elections that they would run on war and fear. In order to keep the fear level high they had an alert at spaced intervals. I took Karl Rove at his word, because he was telling this to the Republicans, and thinking it would never be known outside the conference. I paid not one breath of attention to their alerts. Notice that after the elections they have all of a sudden stopped.

We must remember that Bob Woodward only had the transcript that they wanted him to have. They only released what they wanted known to the public, and all those conversations that went on before the meetings that is not in this book would really tell the true story. Plus they removed everything that would make them look bad or stupid.

The use of the press by this administration which is the most secretive since Nixon to undermine with lies and inuendo, and the press willing to go along with the charade leaves me doubting a lot of what is written. Especially if it comes out of the political office of this Whitehouse. I feel they used Woodward also, to further their agenda. Two people who have left this Whitehouse, have stated that everything that is done is decided in the political office, even war.

Karl Rove has been studying Goebbels.

......

I've been thinking the issues over deeply in our current political situation and I've come to the conclusion that the more I hear and read, the less I seem to know. I veer with the wind as I read our book and listen to one political pundit after another expounding on media talk shows. The truth is that the patriotism I've felt all through my life is conflicting with my hatred of war.

ELLA, you noted in your post #184 that America also has weapons of mass destruction and WE would never tolerate the interference of any foreign power in our military development. Good point!

Yet, Saddam, representing Iraq, AGREED to disarm and discontinue all weapons of mass destruction after the Gulf War. Saddam had proved himself to be an untrustworthy "bad guy" when he tried to annex Kuwait. He showed himself unrepentant when he burned Kuwait's oil fields during his retreat in the ensuing Gulf War. "If I can't have Kuwait's oil, then NO ONE gets it!," Saddam seemed to be saying. He used poison gas on his OWN people. Bluntly, this is a regime of brutal and aggressive oppression, willing to use ANY extraordinary means to advance in power. The United Nations Inspection Teams and sanctions were an attempt to curb this unscrupulous bully WITHOUT resorting to his assassination. Saddam AGREED to accept these sanctions. Yet his consequent behavior has always proved him to be a danger both internationally and within Iraq.

Yes, other nations would consider the conditions imposed on Iraq to be unacceptable and demeaning to THEIR national pride if they had to knuckle under to the same demands. Yet, perhaps other nations are more responsible and worthy of trust. The United States has never, in the modern era, used ALL the military weapons at her disposal. Even when we lost in Viet Nam we never resorted to nuclear weapons to change the verdict. We never used poison gases or biological weapons. America has VOLUNTARILY limited herself to conventional warfare even when we were on the losing end of a conflict. We still are resented internationally, but the world should also consider the magnitude of our constraint compared to the vastness of our capabilities. Would Saddam Hussein limit himself in a similar way? I think not.

However, in the end I believe a preemptive war is justified only if Iraq was connected to the 9/11 attack on American soil. Where is THAT connection? Where is the proof? The thing that gets me so confused is, are we going to war because Saddam Hussein is a bad guy? In that case we're going to have a whole line-up of nations waiting for their turn to be attacked! That "Axis of Evil" speech that President Bush made wasn't too smart in my opinion.

When I listen to all the principals of BUSH AT WAR making speeches, I get twice as puzzled. I can't translate the "political-speak" vernacular and figure out the straight facts. The truth is, I'M CONFUSED. I need a good crystal ball to forecast the outcome of the different courses of action.

Harriet

Harriet, you are right about the confusion of conflicting stories, and what is being said by this administration, and what the rest of the world is saying. If you will remember Bush on the campaign trail and what he said about Iraq then and after he got the presidency, you will realize that Iraq was in the pipeline long before Sept.11 for the removal of Saddam Hussein and takeover of Iraq. It will have to be done in 2003 as next year is an election year, and they didn't want to do it then.

In the book we are discussing, Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted to immediately go to war with Iraq, even though George Tenet,CIA had told them it was Osama bin Laden who was responsible for Sept.11, and he was in Afghanistan. They had already stepped up their agression against Iraq in the summer of 2001. We had special forces in northern Iraq, and of course we control Iraq from the air in all but the center around Bagdad. The more I read, the more I understand that Iraq was doomed from the day George W. Bush was sworn in as president.

There have been many regimes just as despotic as Saddams regime but the USA has stood back and let it all happen. For instance they stood back together with other western nations while the Indonesians massacred 250,000 Plus Timorese and their human rights record is abyssmal even now. They did know about it but for their own reasons even put one of the despots into power. Genocide was going on in Indonesia for two decades before anyone stepped in. There are other instances of genocide too many to mention where noone cared.

Does this not make one suspicious that there is more to this war than meets the eye. Oil deposits-highest quality in the World and plenty of it?

Carolyn

Good heavens, FIFI! Whew!!! You think the alerts were all propaganda from the Bush team? And I thought I was cynical – you got me beat!

When do you think any of this might come to light? Do you also think the anthrax letter bombs sent to various people were also from the Bush team? Where do we stop here?

Somewhere I read (wish I could remember where it was) that after Bush graduated from Yale, he set out to prove to his father that he could do something on his own – he certainly had not gotten into Yale because he was a stellar student – he got in because he was the son of an alumnus – who got in because he was the son of an alumnus – and so he applied and got accepted at Harvard Business School. THEY ALSO HAD HEARD OF THE BUSH DYNASTY AT HARVARD! Hahahhaha And he was so proud to announce the fact to his father. Is he still trying to prove something to his father? Perhaps he is telling Dad I can do you one better – I’ll get Saddam, Dad!

HARRIET – WE ARE ALL CONFUSED AT THIS POINT. Everytime you turn on the TV you hear the commentators or someone from the State Dept. or a Congressman speaking and none of us know what to believe. THE WHOLE WORLD IS CONFUSED - it seems to me that other nations want more proof before we declare that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. WE DO, TOO, before we go to war. Bush calling Saddam a liar does not make it the absolute truth to me or to anyone. He has convinced even Colin Powell to take the stand – I never thought Powell would stand up and tell the world we have enough evidence to go to war!

Thanks for your post, Carolyn! Of course, the world is suspicious of our motives in this oil-rich land. Is the Bush administration also responsible for the rumors that Saddam may set the oil fields on fire or may pollute the Persian Gulf with tons of oil unless we rush in and stop him. That is the latest propaganda I’ve heard.

Of course, we are cynical! How to stop this madness??? I doubt we can! On page 253 Woodward says that Powell thought the weeks after the beginning of the Afghanistan bombing campaign were a “dark and confused period. More than usual, it was unclear what was real………As the former top military man, he found it best to try to ‘stay in his lane’ as he put it, pay attention to his role as chief diplomat and avoid military second-guessing.”

Do you think Powell is still attempting to play the role of chief diplomat? What is Powell doing?

On page 256 Woodward says:

”Bush’s leadership style bordered on the hurried. He wanted action, solutions. Once on a course, he directed his energy at forging on, rarely looking back, scoffing at-even ridiculing-doubt and anything less than 100 per cent commitment. He seemed to harbor few, if any, regrets. His short declarations could seem impulsive.”

He is a frightening man at times to be our president, isn’t he?

Ella,I want to respond to your:

He is a frightening man at times to be our president, isn’t he?

I know I am in the wee minority! I think Bush is just the right man for the times. He has gotten the UN to do more than they have done in-- what? 14 years. He is meeting a true madman head on. sad damn has said he wants to be the ruler over the US and ALL of the mideast. I am convinced he has supplied terrorists and will do so again if and when Bush stops the bellicosity toward him. I think Bush has pegged the devil just right. He has the middle east so bound up worrying about sad damn that they have not made much over the abduction of Arafat's wife in South America.(Jordanian Times about 3 days ago very small article and no follow up!)

sad damn has laid a trap for himself, IMO. The inspectors KNOW there were 30 thousand war heads when they left 4 years ago--he was supposed to claim them. He didn't.They have found 12+. They also know exactly how many barrels of chemicals he had 4 years ago. He hasn't claimed them. He has threatened to kill scientists and their families if they speak with inspectors. This is in violation of the UN. Inspectors will give him more rope with their B grade!IMO, of course.

I find it VERY interesting the various Senators of the intelligent committees of BOTH parties continue to support Bush. They couch their words CAREFULLY--they have not said they don't know what Saddam has or has done --they say the American public should be told more.

Interesting, IMO.

DIG GIRL! I stopped in for just a moment before going out to do a few errands (even though it is dreadfully cold here, we should be used to it living in Ohio - but we had such a mild winter last year I think we have forgotten COLD!).

You make me happy that someone believes in Bush and his determination to go to war! We all hope he's right and isn't it great that we are all disagreeing so politely to each other! I APPRECIATE THAT SO MUCH! It's a quality that only Americans have perhaps - because we know we can! The people of Iraq cannot criticize their leaders; hence we only know a little of what is the truth. Their newspapers and radios only expound what Saddam believes.

My husband believes just as you stated - that Saddam has all these weapons hid so successfully that we can never find them. He says, sardonically, that all they had to do was dig several holes deep in the sand and cover them over - how could we ever find them?

I wish it was a year from now - two years? And this was all over and the world was at peace again and all terrorists were rounded up and jailed and the whole business has disappeared!

In the paper this morning an article said the government is interviewing 50,000 Iraqis living in our country to ascertain what, if anything, they know.

The idea of America starting any war - a preemptive strike - without adequate proof of wrongdoing is something I never thought to see. One commentator said that in order to fight a war on terrorism, we have to resort to using it. Seems wrong!

But I do appreciate your opinion - ALL OPINION - IT'S AMERICA SPEAKING.

Ella, perhaps I didn't make myself clear on the alerts. Karl Rove stated that they would run the elections on the war issue. Hence, when the alerts kept coming out, and suddenly stopped when the elections were over, led me to believe they were used more for propaganda purposes, than for real threats. As a matter of fact they put out one alert, that they themselves said was by an unreliable source with no one else to backup his story. They later admitted this when confronted by the press. The FBI, CIA, and National Security team failed to alert this country when they should have, and had good reason to. The later alerts were mainly to cover their own failures, and to keep the fear factor up for the elections. Their words and actions are what I base my decisions on, nothing else.

NO, I do not believe the Bush administration was responsible for the anthrax attacks. The FBI has traced it to our own labs in Ft.Detrick, Md. but so far no one has been arrested.

All governments receive thousands of threats daily. There are a lot of unstable people out there. I am reminded of Harry Truman who was president during a world war, and yet he walked down the streets of Washington for his daily walk. Not only was he threatened daily, but was actually attacked and shot at by fanatics. He continued his walks, much to the dismay of official Washington, and died an old man at his home in Mo.

Now we can no longer visit the Whitehouse, unless invited, and I am not expecting an invitation any time soon. Plus the Whitehouse has been cordoned off to such an extent, that you can no longer walk by the fence and see it from the street.

......

Ella, Did you perchance see Ted Koppel's Nightline last night? It is starting to come out just how much Iraq has imported to the country by illicit buys in the past couple years. B-C-N weaponry and means of delivery none of which he has accounted for.. The news today-- same info from the inspectors. Bush has to keep the pressure on IMO.

Ella Sez:

"The idea of America starting any war - a preemptive strike - without adequate proof of wrongdoing is something I never thought to see. One commentator said that in order to fight a war on terrorism, we have to resort to using it. Seems wrong! "

Hmmm! Do you remember the "rude bridge which arched the flood, with flags to April breeze unfurled; where the embattled farmers stood and fired the shot heard round the would?"

I certainly hope that we have do cause. I would hate to think that we would kill our own young me over a barrel of oil.

By the rude bridge that arched the flood.
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.


The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.


On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We set to-day a votive stone;
That memory may their deed redeem,
When, like our sires, are sons are gone.


Spirit, that made those heros dare
To die and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee.<br

Emerson's lovely poem for a snowy and lovely peaceful day today!

But let's take one war at a time - we know how that one turned out!

THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTERESTING POSTS!

In looking over the book, my thoughts today are the following:

All of the members of the War Cabinet are expounding the same lines on the various talk shows and I wonder how worried they might be if they disagree with Bush’s proposals - might they be worried they will get sidelined and dismissed as the Treasury Secretary was? None of them are exactly going hungry, but, at the same time, think of the humiliation of being banished from their positions of power?

At one point in these latter pages SIGINT (phone, teletype, communications intercepts, code breaking, overhead satellite photography and radar imagery) reported to the White House that something big was coming down, quite possibly a threat to the White house. Bush declared he wasn’t leaving – “if they get me, they’re going to get me right here.”

However, Cheney told the president: “This isn’t about you, this is about our Constitution (continuity of government) and that’s why I’m going to a secure, undisclosed location.” He was not asking permission, he was going. We didn’t see him for quite a long while and BW says that teams capable of detecting the presence of nuclear material were roaming around Washington for weeks and also teams were sent to six other cities.

Did any of you pick up, as you read the book, the sense that the worst possible the press could do (or anyone) was to compare President Bush to President Clinton? There are several instances, but on page 278 a military analyst said on the NEWSHOUR WITH JIM LEHRER that Bush was practicing the “Bill Clinton approach to warfare – thinking small!” And he stated in his next meeting with the NSC that “we’re losing the public relations war,” - Bush cares a lot about public opinion – could it be the next election is on his mind? Hahaha We all know it is.

Commentators think the coming war with Iraq will either win or lose his bid for reelection.

And no longer is Bush "thinking small!"

What is on your mind today?

Sorry! My point was that the leaders in this country have participated in pre-emptive strikes. The "rude bridge" was and initiating one.

Percivel - Isn't there a controversy over who fired the first shot in the Revolutionary War?

Was anyone surprised that Powell was chosen to give a brief speech and a press review today?

Powell, as all of us know, is the conciliator - the one who debated, vehemently at times, for support of the U.N. and our allies - the one who angrily opposed Cheney's view and Rumsfeld's view that we should go hell-bent for war.

On page 346, Powell stated that "war could trigger all kinds of unanticipated and unintended consequences."

He didn't mention anything like that today. Has he been won over completely?

How much time are we going to give Iraq before the first bomb?

What did you think today of Blix's report and Powell's reply? Or are you going to wait and express your views after Bush's speech tomorrow night?

Was Powell's speech supposed to prepare the American public for a broader warlike speech by Bush?

The comment about Bush not wanting to be compared to President Clinton. This during a time when the members of his National Security team were using a plan that was devised by the Clinton National Security staff. The head of Clintons NSC office and others gave the Bush team the plan to go after Bin Laden after telling them he was one of the biggest threats to our country.

The Clinton team had given the CIA more money and manpower to set up teams around Afghanistan, make contacts with the Northern Alliance, which had already been done. They were giving the Northern Alliance help in their battle against the Taliban. As the CIA operative says in the book, they were outfitted in good uniforms and well armed. Their goal was to arm and outfit the Northern Alliance, and send in teams of special ops to assist in their drive south. This is exactly the plan that the Bush team used.

The part of the plan that was not followed through on, was closing off an escape route for Osama bin Laden and his followers. This would have required a large contingent of American soldiers, and Bush was the one thinking small. After Kabul fell to the Northern alliance, the Bush team response to al Qaeda was bombs and missles. Without troops to stop their escape, they were simply bombing empty caves.

I listened to two former NSC advisors discuss this on C-span, and the above is a short version of what they said. There were also several newspaper and magazine articles on the same subject.

I did not expect this book to tell where they got the plan, but the fact that they followed it almost to a T, does tell me they used it. It was a good plan, even if Clintons team did plan it. The fact that Bush couldn't even give credit where it was due, shows what a small minded person he really is. I think Bob Woodward gave the Clinton team a line or two saying they laid the groundwork, but that was Woodward on his own, not the Bushites.

>Percivel - Isn't there a controversy over who fired the first shot in the Revolutionary War? <<

Not to my knowledge unless you wish to call the "Boston Massacre" the first shot. If that is the case, perhaps the "Boston Teaparty" can also be seen as an act of aggression.

Ella, you ask if Powell has been won over completely. In the book, we see Powell putting his position out front and arguing for what he wanted to do. When the president made a decision, Powell always carried the message, and followed orders. I think he has lost the argument this time, and will of course follow whatever the president says.

Bush intended to go after Iraq from the day he was sworn in. He gave himself away in to many speeches and remarks. The fact that Powell held off Rumsfeld, Bush, and Cheney until at least making an effort to get Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network in Afghanistan, was a tremendous effort. Not only did they not eliminate al Qaeda, they seem to have lost interest as soon as the Northern Alliance took Kabul.

From that day forward the focus has been on Iraq, and Bushs obcession with Saddam Hussein. War in Iraq must be fought in the winter if possible, as the late spring, summer, and fall are much too hot, and sandstorms are a problem. I am beginning to wonder if going to the UN may have been a way of buying time, because of the time and effort it takes to move an army for war. They have been moving men and material to the middle east all during the time the inspections have been on going. It is like saying, "Look at us, we are co-operating with the UN" and at the same amassing a large army on their borders. Buying time.

The last line in this book states:

"We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation."

Percivel, I suppose that the Boston Massacere (March 5, 1770) might be considered the first shot, but it was not a battle in the military sense. During the course of a protest mob of citizens facing an poorly trained army unit, the army fired into the mob killing and wounding several. John Adams as an attorney defended the british officer in charge. Another canditate for the first shot was the April 1775 Battle of Lexington made famous by the Emerson poem with the line "fired the shot heaqrd around the world" Click Here for very comprehensive American Revolution Time Line.

HI FIFI – THANKS SO MUCH FOR THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE PROVIDED TO US, you write so well and I love to read your posts.

Your statement – “I think he (Powell) has lost the argument this time, and will of course follow whatever the president says” is my opinion also. He’s done very well to gather what coalition forces we have at this time; but I heard another commentator say that when the time comes for war, we will have all the allies (including France, Germany and Russia) with us. Only time will tell if that is true; let us hope so!!!

Yes, I agree, it does take a remarkable amount of time to get all the forces needed in place for a war. How long did it take the Elder Bush to get all those 500,000 soldiers there – it was months as I recall – and I’ve heard also that they must fight in the winter – it soon gets so very hot in the spring and summer although one commander (forget the rank) said his men were trained to fight in any weather.

Perhaps for those who are lurking, I should explain your last sentence, FIFI, in the context of where that remark came from. Isn’t it just like a reporter to end a book on such a dramatic remark!!!

On Feb. 5, 2002 about 25 men representing special forces and others gathered in Afghanistan near the Pakistani border; they buried a piece of the demolished World Trade Center and piled stones on top of it and read a prayer. They dedicated the spot to all the brave Americans who died on 9/11 and after the prayer, the man who had prayed said “we will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.”

It didn’t come from the administration, it came from the hearts of those who fought there, those who did not capture the enemy (bin Laden), and those who were dedicated to seeking him (and other terrorists) out wherever they may be hiding.

We’ll gather here together in the morning after our President speaks tonight with our thoughts on his speech.

PERCIVEL – THERE IS SOMETHING ON YOUR MIND AND I DO WISH YOU WOULD ELABORATE A LITTLE! Are you thinking there is a comparison to the Revolutionary War and this aggression? Can you believe there is a parallel? If we did not fire the first shot we certainly meant to start a war; a very small group of divided colonists (some were loyalists, others patriots) against mighty Great Britain. I’m constantly amazed that they had such courage!!

Now we are a superpower and are intending to wage war on a much smaller country – and again we have a divided opinion among Americans - there is a comparison there! However, in speaking of divided opinions we can also point to the Civil War; WWI and WWII.

Thanks, Harold, for your post on the Revolutionary War – I gave (loaned) my John Adams book to a nephew and never got it back. And I want it!!!

FIFI - my daughter was in Saudi Arabia for six months, arriving there in December; coming home in May. She is full of emotions about that experience; terrified of the scuds, loving the country and the few Arabs she got to know at the end; hating the POW's their hospital unit took care of as they were very uncooperative with the nurses and called them whores and prostitutes (wearing slacks and not covering their heads and bodies, etc.). Their hospital was located in the west near King Kalid City (sp?) - remember that movement Schwartzkopf made to the west; their hospital was part of that and the Iraq soldiers surrendered by the dozens - those that were wounded were sent to her hospital unit. She had an interpreter and guards, but she says she hopes she never hears another "call to prayer" (can't think of the word for that) where each patient had to get out of bed no matter if they tore their i.v.'s and kneeled to pray.

The worse weather they encountered were the rains - torrents - their tents were knocked down and they spent hours filling sand bags around them to hold them up and they, of course, were waterlogged for days.

Ella asks:

"PERCIVEL – THERE IS SOMETHING ON YOUR MIND AND I DO WISH YOU WOULD ELABORATE A LITTLE! Are you thinking there is a comparison to the Revolutionary War and this aggression? Can you believe there is a parallel? If we did not fire the first shot we certainly meant to start a war; a very small group of divided colonists (some were loyalists, others patriots) against mighty Great Britain. I’m constantly amazed that they had such courage!! "

If you read back, I was responding to the assertion that the USA had never iniated action. I was using the Revolutionary period (because ot tends to be common knowledge) to point out that the USA has iniated military type action a number of times. The reference to the Boston Massacre was in response to your question about who really fired the first shot.

Do you ever win wars? Ask the families of the military people who were maimed or killed. The government never took care of the medical problem of veterans of Desert Storm. And Wall street typically says war is good for "THE MARKET"

You are right many of the men (and women) who served in desert storm have not had their illnesses validated. How many of these young men and woman have either been rendered sterile or have suffered birth defects in their children and how many have cancer!

I really feel the Bush administration looks at the ordinary young men and women of America as expendable. How many children of the privileged will be serving in this next war. Not many will be on the front line that is for sure. This has always been the way and it is not right. This war will be the first of many- it will fuel terrorism. I know I am not an American but I am a mother and I feel for all mothers who will be facing the fact that their son or daughter may come home in a body bag or be disabled for life.

Carolyn

VN, desert storm vets are being seen by the VA--There are some specific issues coming out of the Gulf War and vets ARE being seen and illnesses covered. Bush got this thru a few months ago against much opposition by congress (is my understanding).

You might want to read the first paragraph or two in this article Re; secret data and sad damn--the rest is political AZ stuff!

http://www.azstarnet.com/star/today/30128ELieberman.html

A convenient bill when he knew long before he took office he would be taking America to war again. How many years did these vets suffer under both parties.

Carolyn

Huh? "he knew long before he took office he would be taking America to war again"

Crystal Ball at work?, maybe.

Iraq was on the agenda long before Sep 11. Read Bob Woodwards book.

Carolyn

Regarding biological and chemical weapons, the USA has more of that in stockpiles than the rest of the world put together. We signed an agreement to get rid of it, but it has not been destroyed. There is such a stockpile that has been weaponized and now sitting in rusted and leaking missiles, rockets, and shells that it will take up to seven years to begin to get rid of it. This is only one stockpile that is about 50 miles from me, and there are others scattered all over the US.

We have not destroyed our own weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and I think that should be our priority now as these weapons pose a great threat to the people of this country. The people who live near this storage dump site are very fearful for what might happen to them from these leaking rusted warheads filled with dangerous chemicals and gases that kill on contact. Iraq is on another continent, separated by an ocean. I am much more concerned with what is here near me, than what is on another continent.

The government of the United States of America is responsible for my concern for dumping chemical filled warheads in my backyard, not Iraq.

......

What would happen if some of the biological cultures got out of the laboratory. Could never happen? Well it could- we humans are known to make mistakes.

Carolyn

Kiwi writes:

" How many children of the privileged will be serving in this next war. Not many will be on the front line that is for sure. This has always been the way and it is not right."

The advantages of wealth and power exist in every nation and culture. It is evident in many places in addition to war. Initial enrollments in major schools and universities tend to be determined by zip code rather than talent and this is true of public education as well.

Need we go into politics where the cost of running for office exceeds the life time income of most individuals, almost guaranteeing that the "winner" is either already wealthy or soon will be?

Using your argument, we should do away with all government as well as war because government gives the rich advantages.

Percivel your statement......

Using your argument, we should do away with all government as well as war because government gives the rich advantages.

I have seen noone here argue for doing away with government. We do need to change the laws that give incompetent rich frat boys advantages. Change the laws that give them the advantage, and get competent people in government. That will not destroy government at all, but strengthen it.

Fifi sez:

"I have seen noone here argue for doing away with government. We do need to change the laws that give incompetent rich frat boys advantages. Change the laws that give them the advantage, and get competent people in government. That will not destroy government at all, but strengthen it. "

The argument was that we should not go to war because the "rich" never serve in the front lines. By the same token, we should not have government because government benefits the rich more than anyone else.

It is always interesting to listen to the "me" generation. Everything is great as long as everyone else does the sacrificing, and this can be said to be true of rich, middleclass and poor.

In New Zealand a Dustmans son could become Prime Minister. There is very strict limits on campaign funds for individual representatives. That is a the beauty of our system - The rich do not rule our house. Some rich people may be elected but they are not elected because they are rich. The funds allowed are very very tiny here. One of our most famous Prime Ministers in NZ came out of a housing project!

However there were many of the privileged who got desk jobs in WW2!

Carolyn

Any poor person will give their lives for a just cause and to defend their country from attack. The problem with this war is there is no proof that Iraq intends to attack the USA and it was not the nation of Iraq who committed the 9/11 atrocities. That is the objection to this war.

Carolyn

WHAT - NO COMMENTS ON BUSH'S STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH?

He had a great speechwriter - who did it, do you know?

I thought he was much more effective in this speech, calmer, less strident, more of a leader.....

But twice he said "if war is forced upon us." Who is doing that?

What did you make of his idea that sometime in the future we are going to have hydogen-powered cars? Hmmmmmm A threat to the oil-rich countries?

We have to pass a law to make cloning humans illegal? Is anybody doing it (except that Clonaid company which will not give anyone proof)? What a world we are living in!

He proposed billions - no trillions - of new legislation - what did you all think of any of them?

This "bioshield" he talked about - does anyone have knowledge of it?

He made the case that "WE DO NOT DEPEND ON OTHERS" - he means to go it alone to attack Iraq if no one supports us! He said "perseverance is power" (I think that was in reference to the war in Iraq). His whole speech is in our paper this morning

Good speechwriting here - I can't quote it exactly but something like TO THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ, I say that it is not the enemy that is surrounding your country, it is the enemy that is ruling your country.

That task force for AIDS in Africa - the millions we will give to help - Bush's description of the situation there left me teary-eyed (as it was intended to do, but still) - they have a dreadful condition to attempt to solve.

I have a question - If we are attacked with biological weapons - do we counterattack with like weapons? How are we to handle this if it does happen?

WHERE ARE YOUR OPINIONS ON THE SPEECH? I KNOW YOU HAVE THEM!!!

Ella I watched the speech and yes it was very clever and I heard Karl Rove speaking. I listened very carefully to the numbers. If the USA goes to war it will be very costly both in dollar terms and human life. I do not think if the war is protracted there will be enough money for all the programs planned within the federal budget for the next few years so much of this rhetoric does not really mean anything but it does sound good.

The Hydrogen car- this would signify that reports are true the USA's oil reserves will be very low in 15yrs time. This is a figure I have seen mentioned several times in different reports a 15yr life.

I believe research is already very advanced on this method of fuel and is mentioned in a book called "Suppressed Inventions". I believe this fuel could be in production much sooner than the 15yrs mentioned.

I am more convinced now than ever that there will be war.

Carolyn

To me Bush sounded like a parrot saying nothing new and held what we wanted to know till last and did not finish it but said it will be told on Tues. Listening to it was a waste of my time. I thought I might like Bush but as it turns out so far to me he is puting us and the world in a worse depression than we have ever seen. Where is this money coming from? When I get money they tax it, when I spend money they tax it and then give money to the countries that stood on there shores rejoiceing (sp) when the Twin Towers fell. The tax cut will only help the rich. Don't they see the poor families on the street because of lost Jobs mostly because the rich sent our jobs overseas so they could make more money. Those that have no jobs cannot buy as they have no money.

There I released how I feel about this and feel better. Won't be able to cancel it either but thats ok as I do feel much better speaking my peace.

Ginger

The President seemed determined to move toward war in last night's State Of The Union speech. During the post analysis of his speech, newscasters commented that many Democrats had come around to acceptance and support for a second Gulf War, both in the Senate and in the lower House. Very, very ominous...

Sometimes when I listen to President Bush speak about "the defense of freedom" and "keeping the peace" I get an uncomfortable image of a demagogue mouthing positive rhetoric while pushing the buttons of war. Can that be happening in our America? Yet, isn't war always rationalized as a way of promoting peace in this strange world that we live in? It's outside of my experience...a president so willing for war against another nation without specific proof of aggression.

Here's an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer interviewing a former Foreign Service Officer who was once stationed in Baghdad. Professor Chase manages to remain pro-peace without being anti-American, although he is NOT pro-Bush.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/5052929.htm

About the speech itself-- I was relieved to hear that the president envisioned allowing elders a choice between remaining with traditional Medicare or changing to some other variation.

I think it's a great idea to have a central agency analyzing intelligence about terrorist activity...makes it easier to correlate all that diverse information. It's also a sensible precaution to stockpile vaccines against bio-warfare. Help for Aids in Africa? Gosh, how about more help for Aids in the United States instead?

I don't know where all this money will come from. If many of these ideas had been proposed without a shadow of formal war hanging over us and during the Clinton surplus of funds, I would have been completely enthusiastic. Now I worry that, as CAROLYN and GINGER suggested, they will lead to financial disaster in our economy, or maybe just fade away as military spending increases.

I worry that the ban on abortion and cloning will, intentionally or unintentionally, impede stem-cell research and the medical advances it could promote. The supply of embryo cells from voluntary abortions might provide a pathway of research for many health problems from paralysis to macular degeneration? It will be hard to see those medical possibilities abandoned for some abstract "family values" morality. I hope I'm understanding this connection correctly?

I think we SHOULD find an alternative to oil and gasoline in our cars. If we did, Iraq could take its oil and *** it.

Harriet

Carolyn, Ginger, and Harriet have all given great comments on the speech last night.

Ella you asked many questions and I will try to give a brief answer to some of them.

Bush spoke for about an hour, and for a man who is starting his third year in office, he devoted less than three minutes to the actual state of the union. The rest was promises without the money to pay for it, and a promise of war that will have to be paid for. We are spending about a billion a week on the movement, supply, command, support, payoffs, and bribes to other countries to get them on our side, and that is just for starters. Turkey alone wants billions for their co-operation.

You ask who did the speech, I heard a commentator say that Michael Gerson, and Karen Hughes worked on the speech. When he began to speak he was droning like, this is so boring...ho hum. Very uneven as I heard it. They began working on the speech last year, and I heard that he had been practicing for four days. Of course the entire speech is on a teleprompter, and he simply reads it. The only two lines that he spoke with conviction were about war and his intention to have one. This from a man who refused to serve his country when it was at war.

"If war is forced upon us". This is like his famous peace is war, straight out of Orwell. Nothing is being forced upon us, this is pure demagoguery.

Hydrogen cars....There are already cars of this type, and buses that are running now in select areas. The problem is not the car, even gasoline cars can be easily converted. The problem is the distribution of hydrogen. It took many years to have a gas station on every corner, and getting that kind of distribution network set up will take time. My son works for United Technology and they have worked on this for several years and have prototypes out now. This is not new technology. I wrote about this in Enviornmental Issues over a year ago.

His quote to Iraq, "it is not the enemy surrounding your country, but the enemy that is ruling your country." This is about Bush's obcession with Saddam Hussein, he is saying in effect that I will throw my country into a war to get one man and destroy him. It does not matter to Bush that others will die. A person who can so easily condem innocents to death to get one despot, is joining the growing list of despots himself.

Ella asks, "if we are attacked with biological weapons-do we counterattack with like weapons"

This administration has said that if any weapons are used against us we will use any in our arsenal that we see fit. We have Atomic, biological, chemical, thousands of bombs, rockets, missiles, and enough weapons to wipe out the world.

And we all know whose finger is on the button, and he will be held responsible.

......

Fifi Carolyn, Harriet I am so glad that I was not the only one who felt that way. Thank You so much as I thought maybe there was no one out there that felt the way I did. I am so afraid the deed will be done before the secret is revealed is why he did not give us the information but then it maybe he did not want Sadam etc to know and it does make sence to me if that is the reason. With all his fiddling I must give the man a reasonable doubt but do not retract my post and am not wissy washy, just a hopefuly fair person.

Ginger

There's been some talk about Arab states trying to negotiate with Saddam to leave Iraq and live in exile. The only problem is that no one really believes this power-mad dictator will agree so this provides only a limited amount of hope for averting war.

Most everyone, including anti-war partisans, believe that Saddam probably does have a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. With a whole desert to hide them in, the odds of the U.N. inspectors finding the evidence are extremely small.

We've got a remarkable amount of double-think going on these days. Goodness, I certainly propound a lot of contradictory logic myself. I don't want my beloved America to do a preemptive strike without proof of Iraq's menace...but I certainly anticipate with terror that Hussein will subject our troops to biological or chemical warfare. Obviously, I believe in my gut that he's hiding weapons. How's that for not making sense?

Here's another anti-war editorial from New Yorker magazine. The author makes an analogy between the game show techniques of Reality TV and the planning techniques of Bush's war cabinet. As soon as I read it, I thought of all of us in this discussion. It's funny and scary at the same time.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030203ta_talk_saunders

Then I read another article from England's Observer newspaper. It's as hawkish a look at our world as I've seen in print to date.

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,877841,00.html

Hey, why should I be confused all by myself?

Harriet

Kiwi sez:

"The problem with this war is there is no proof that Iraq intends to attack the USA and it was not the nation of Iraq who committed the 9/11 atrocities. "

Unless this is just your opinion, you misstate the facts don't you?

There is proof that the NATION (sic Saddam)gave money to support the attack on the WTO. The FACT is that there is proof, but you choose not to accept the truth.

There was also proof the Saudis gave money to Al Quaeda. If Hussein gave money to Al Quaeda I have not seen the proof the money was earmarked for the WTC attack. If GWB is sincere with his reasons surely the Saudis should be the enemy too. But no they are counted as friends. May I remind you too that USA money was given to Bin Laden in the past. Biological weapons were given to Hussein in the past.

The attack on Iraq will not bring peace. In fact it will destablise the Middle East. The ordinary people in the other Middle East nations will rise up and the leaders of the nations will have the option of being deposed by uprising or backing away from supporting the USA. We are living in a time of the greatest potential devestation of human life we have been faced with for centuries.

Carolyn

Harriet Your first clickable has move on to a different articule I think not sure tho. The second clickable to me where it was suppose to go and I did like it. Thanks for posting them.

---

Carolyn, I agree with this, We are living in a time of the greatest potential devestation of human life we have been faced with for centuries.

Hi Percivel.

Ella, Where are you?

Here is an articule from todays South Bend Tribune.

National budget forecast darkens

ALL OF YOU – CAROLYN, GINGER, HARRIET, FIFI, CAROLYN – we have our own poll right here in this discussion and I want to thank you for your wonderful posts and your opinions.

In attempting to summarize your opinions, it seems to me that most all of you agree that 1) Bush is leading us right into a war that is wrong; 2) his spending programs are outrageous; 3) this war, if it becomes a war, is about oil – I loved Harriet’s statement that Iraq can take their oil and ***** it! Hahaha 4) Saddam will not be exiled; 5) Saddam has a stockpile of weapons of M.D. and will probably use them if/when war comes and 6) but Bush has not given us evidence of same.

Is that what we all believe? I’ve tried to summarize your posts, but like Harriet, I’m confused also. I don’t know what I believe at times, because I don’t want war; however, I would feel better about the coming war (my belief) if we had proof that Saddam has these weapons and if we had a coalition that believes the same thing!

Wouldn’t all of you feel better if we had the same cooperation from the world that we had in the Persian Gulf War? Why are some holding back? I believe it is France and Russia???

But PERCIVEL, I believe you alone have a different view? You believe there is evidence that Saddam gave money to those who flew those planes into the WTO? I wish the rest of us felt that positive; perhaps then we would not be so confused about the reasons for going to war.

FIFI – I didn’t know that Turkey was holding out for money, but I do know that we need Turkey as a base to come from the North into Iraq. I know we will pay the cost if necessary.

Did all you read Harriet’s article in the New Yorker where Saunders relates that his “if I had to choose, I guess I would have to say that my favorite guilty pleasure is the new series "How Weird Is That?," in which a group of bureaucrats who have never themselves fought in a war are locked in the "Decision House" and allowed to select any country in the world for America to go to war with, for reasons they must invent on the spot” – good article! And true (well, Powell is an exception and exceptional!)

And the article from the Guardian – “The Prime Minister has made the case for the need to deal with Saddam for some years with consistency, though with far less public notice before 11 September 2001. Accused of becoming America's poodle, he, in fact, sticks to a potentially unpopular course because he believes this to be right, and that the threat from Iraqi weapons is real. He does so with courage and clarity.”

America’s poodle??? Hahahaha Wonder how Tony Blair feels about that remark? But he has been so positive, if you have listened to any of his speeches, that we must protect our nations from this evil Saddam who will use his whole arsenal of weapons of M.D. Bush could not ask for a better partner!

Although tomorrow is the last day for this discussion, let’s leave it open for awhile and post a few more articles or opinions about the news that may be forthcoming – the daily news!!!! Why isn’t Woodward (with his apparent endless contacts and resources) investigating the sources (if any exist) of evidence that Saddam has these terrible weapons?

Where is our intelligence? Why isn’t someone leaking something (it always happens!) from the administration showing us this evidence that Bush believes he has?

THANK YOU ALL AGAIN FOR THIS WONDERFUL DISCUSSION – I HAVE ENJOYED IT TREMENDOUSLY, IF NOTHING ELSE, WE HAVE VENTED OUR ANGER AT OUR PRESENT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS! If this continues, President Bush is headed for trouble in the coming election of 2004 which will begin at the end of this year.

Ella Thank You for leaving this discussion open. I liked your post.

If ever the world needed to understand each other's differences, it is now and as all you astute individuals are aware, religions separate us, divide us, cause animosity and wars!

On March lst we are going to begin discussing the book "ABRAHAM, A JOURNEY TO THE HEART OF THREE GREAT FAITHS" by Bruce Feiler who believes that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have one common ancestor, Abraham, and he discusses how all three faiths derived their religion from this one patriarch. He further believes that if we could understand this we may begin to heal all our present day wounds.

If you are interested in learning more of his views about Abraham and these three great faiths of the world, post a message here: ABRAHAM, A JOURNEY..

You may want to read the reviews of this book at Barnes & Noble - click here: ABRAHAM, A JOURNEY...

Ella, Thank you for inviting me to participate in this discussion. As a loyal lurker I have learned much from the various posters. I know I am very much alone in believing this "War thing" is a bold, blustery campagain to unseat sad damn.Bush will go down in history as a mad man or brilliantly courageous. I believe he has sacrificed a second term for this. And there are many who will say, "good riddence"!

The expense of the build up is great in $$s, but hopefully, IF sad damn is unseated peacefully the money spent will be worthwhile. Dribs and drabs of info work their way into the press--we have had troops (special covert ops)in Iraq for months working with the Kurds but that is just now coming into the press.

As for why we are there--I am also firmly convinced: sad damn has had much to do with terrorist groups supplying same with money and equipment. We all know he has WMD--we know he has not said he plans use them (nor has he threatened us with them until now!)--but I think he is going to be nailed as a rogue supplier of long standing to terrorists .

For this admin to give their data on this puts many covert operater's lives at great peril. And, too, if US had given the info out earlier it would appear (IMO) the US was controlling the UN inspectors.

As the World community gets the horrific info they too will believe in getting this guy out--we need to keep the pressure on him to get him out-- peacefully. All IMO, of course.

I hope this is still here in the morning.--This is the type of action that Bush's bellicosity MIGHT bring to reality. One can hope!

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=7&aid=D7OSOQN00_story

Dig Girl Thank You for the clickable. I like it and do hope this all works out for the best as we all do.

Kiwi Sez:

"May I remind you too that USA money was given to Bin Laden in the past. Biological weapons were given to Hussein in the past. "

Your original statement was that there is not connection between Iraq and the attacking of the WTC. These donatiions prove that there is a connecton.

Please defend your statments and don't bring in the Saudi problem. I suppose that this means that your origninal statement is indefensible.

"1) Bush is leading us right into a war that is wrong; "

Not sure that all of us can agree with this and I am not a Bush worshiper.

Ella, it is good to see some folks here conceding that Iraq actually has WMD. The entire discussion about the validity of the use of military force against the Iraqis is always hinged on that question. The UN resolutions require that Iraq disarm, not that it play a hide and seek game with the UN inspectors.

Once the question of whether Iraq possesses WMD is settled, and it seems to be that many folks are finally realizing that Iraq does have WMD, then the only issue to be decided is how long we should wait before acting to enforce the UN resolutions.

As for Bush’s speech, I missed it. But, I have some opinions based on sound bytes and print news stories about it. As I’ve already made clear, I support the use of military force to disarm the Iraqis. So, I’ll move on to his remarks about “Homeland Security”. I have a big problem with this so-called reorganization called the Homeland Security Act because it ignored the two frontline agencies most involved in national security, the very ones that bungled pre-9/11 warnings! What we have is the President focused on reorganizing an agency that has practically no role in national security, the Department of Health and Human Services, while leaving the CIA and the FBI completely out of the Act. I find that absolutely incredible and is precisely why I consider the Homeland Security Act to be nothing more than a shell game aimed at accomplishing longstanding right wing goals, such as attacking the rights of union government workers.

And, Harriet is certainly correct to worry that the President’s right wing agenda will impinge on legitimate medical research when the right wingers get the Rethuglicans to attack stem cell research.

As for Bush’s remarks about hydrogen powered fuel cell autos, the single most noteworthy aspect of his “plan”, if it can be called that, is that he proposes to throw millions of dollars at the auto manufacturers, but, there is no requirement, not one, that the money actually be spent developing the very kind of car that he referred to. At the same time, he has had plenty of time since his election to put real commitment to research for alternative sources of energy, but, failed to do so. If we are serious, as a nation, about this issue, we should have been funding independent research that can be made available to all energy producers and manufacturers. Instead, we are doing the same thing that we do in the pharmaceutical industry. We are encouraging a situation where a single manufacturer may claim patent protection and gouge the public for products developed with public funds!

Finally, now that we have had a discussion about a book by a cheerleader for this administration, we should have a discussion about a book by an author with a somewhat different goal. I suggest we discuss David Brock’s book, Blinded By The Right – The Conscience of an ex-Conservative or Haynes Johnson’s work, Sleepwalking Through History – America In the Reagan Years

Hello Dig Girl - thanks for the article and this statement, to which I agree - "Bush will go down in history as a mad man or brilliantly courageous. I believe he has sacrificed a second term for this." Sometimes I wonder if we know this man; allow me to quote an article written by Jane Eisner for the Philadelphia Inquirer quoting from the book by David Frum (mentioned here before):

"George W. Bush is a very unusual person: a good man who is not a weak man. He has many faults. He is impatient and quick to anger; sometime glib; even dogmatic; often incurious and as a result ill-informed; more conventional in his thinking than a leader probably should be. But outweighing the faults are his virtues: decency, honesty, rectitude, courage and tenacity."

Hello Percivel! Nice to hear from you again. I agree not all in the country think he is leading us to war - we are divided in our opinions as we saw as we watched TV and read our papers the last two days.

GANDY! Good post and sorry you missed Bush's speech. I thought it was well written if nothing else - haha I read an article about Bush's statements on the hydrogen-powered vehicle and they agreed with you - it is decades away and isn't very practical. Today - right now - we have on the market these vehicles that are half and half - powered by gas and electricity and they work. I believe Honda makes them???? I'm no expert here but a nephew is California bought one and likes it - why isn't Bush touting that? That would cut pollution in half if we pushed that.

Of course, all his proposals are going to have to pass Congress and may not make the cut list, may never get passed, etc.

Both those books you suggested look good - I made notations about them in our General History folder and hope they spark interest and possibly a discussion. We need three interested people before we can begin a book discussion. Click here for where I put them with reviews at B&N:

General History Folder

MANY THANKS TO ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE POSTED AND HAVE BEEN SO INTERESTED IN THIS DISCUSSION. IT IS YOUR INTEREST THAT MAKES IT ALL WORTHWHILE - IT HAS BEEN GREAT FUN! SEE YOU IN ANOTHER DISCUSSION IN THE NEAR FUTURE, I HOPE!

Thank You, ELLA!!

for an open-minded discussion with lots of provocative questions. It's been a pleasure to participate with YOU and a pleasure to read all of the unique and intelligent posts from everyone concerned. I enjoyed our time together.

Harriet