"Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, 'Top secret. No foreign.' No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this," says Woodward.
"They describe in detail the war plan for Bandar. And so Bandar, who's skeptical because he knows in the first Gulf War we didn't get Saddam out, so he says to Cheney and Rumsfeld, 'So Saddam this time is going to be out, period?'" And Cheney who has said nothing says the following: "Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast."
After Bandar left, according to Woodward, Cheney said, "I wanted him to know that this is for real. We're really doing it."
But this wasn't enough for Prince Bandar, who Woodward says wanted confirmation from the president. "Then, two days later, Bandar is called to meet with the president and the president says, 'Their message is my message'" says Woodward.
Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election -- to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.
(emphasis mine)
I don't know why he would lie, nor do I know he would not lie...should I really accept it without questioning it? Who were the other sources? did he get the account you mentioned above from the Pres.? or?
RageSk8 said:I don't know. Most likely he got this information from sources that asked not to be mentioned by name. Woodward is a good, respected journalist and I doubt (to the pointing of rejecting) the idea that he is putting his entire career on the line on less than solid evidence. There needs to be an independent investigation into these claims.
Well, independent investigation and "Bush REALLY Should be Impeached Now " are quite different.
RageSk8 said:True, but if the Bush did do the things that Woodward says he did, than Bush should be impeached.
Sure, but no one in here is mentioning that EVERY source in his book except one is anonymous. That's one hell of a way to try to write a credible book.
RageSk8 said:It is called journalism. True, we put a lot of trust in journalists. There is the possibility that Woodward is making this up (very unlikely). Another possibility is that Woodward's informant is lying or misled (unlikely). Do some research on who Woodward is - his character and accomplishments of a journalist draw a picture of a dedicated, honest, a thorough journalist. Again, I really doubt that Woodward would be broadcasting this to millions of people if he wasn't sure about the accuracy of his information. Most of Woodward's other revelations did not surprise me. This one did. Let's see if the Republican controlled congress or Ashcroft do absolutely anything - besides attacking Woodward and stonewalling any inquiry of course - about this.
phatmonky said:Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Read the whole article, it gives a very good perspective on how the media not only reports but creates history, wins-and-loses wars.WASHINGTON, April 6 (UPI) -- Any seasoned reporter covering the Tet offensive in Vietnam 36 years ago is well over 60 and presumably retired or teaching journalism is one of America's 4,200 colleges and universities. Before plunging into an orgy of erroneous and invidious historical parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, a reminder about what led to the U.S. defeat in Southeast Asia is timely.
He would lie about it for the same reason other reporters lie about things. I'm not saying he has (I haven't read his book - and don't plan to), but it would not be at all out of the ordinary if he did.RageSk8 said:So, unless you think Woodward is lying (why the hell would he lie about this?)...
QUESTION: Can you describe conversations between the White House and Prince Bandar about his essential promise to lower oil prices before the election?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you heard from Prince Bandar a few weeks ago about --
QUESTION: He didn?t talk specifically about the election.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- the most recent conversation that we had with him regarding oil prices. And he expressed his views out at the stakeout to you all that Saudi Arabia is committed to making sure prices remained in a range, I believe it?s $22 to $28 price per barrel of oil, and that they don?t want to do anything that would harm our consumers or harm our economy. So he made those comments at the stakeout and we?ve made our views very clear that prices should be determined by market forces, and that we are always in close contact with producers around the world on these issues to make sure that actions aren?t taken that harm our consumers or harm our economy.
QUESTION: There were no conversations specifically about the President?s reelection?
MR. McCLELLAN: You can ask Prince Bandar to --
QUESTION: But from the point -- I mean, conversations are obviously two ways.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- what his comments were. But the conversations we have are related to our long-held views that we have stated repeatedly publicly, that market forces should determine prices.
QUESTION: To follow up on that then, I would gather that the White House view is one of expectation that the Saudis would increase oil production between now and November.
MR. McCLELLAN: Our views are very well-known to Saudi Arabia. Prince Bandar made a commitment at the stakeout that I will let speak for itself. You all should look back to those remarks.
QUESTION: We?re missing the allegation here, which is that Prince Bandar and the Saudis have made a commitment to lower oil prices to help the President politically. Is that your --
MR. McCLELLAN: I?m not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those comments to him. I can tell you that what our views are and what he said at the stakeout is what we know his views are, as well.
QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: I?m sorry?
QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I?m not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those questions --
QUESTION: Is there a deal?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- I wouldn?t speculate one way or the other. You can direct those questions to him, but I?m telling you --
QUESTION: I?m not asking you to speculate either. Do you have knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: I?m telling you what our views are and what we've stated, and I'm telling you what I do know, which is that our position is very clear when it comes to oil prices and what our views are. And Prince Bandar spoke to you all just a few weeks ago out at the stakeout after meeting with some White House officials and expressed --
QUESTION: So you have no knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and expressed their view. I'm not going to try to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those questions to him.
QUESTION: The President is confident that the American elections are not being manipulated by the world's largest oil producer?
MR. McCLELLAN: Our view is that the markets should determine --
QUESTION: The market doesn't. It's a cartel.
MR. McCLELLAN: But our view is that that's what -- that the markets should determine prices. And that's the view we make very clear to producers around the world, including our friends in OPEC.
schwarzchildradius said:GWB takes after his grandfather, not his father ;)
There are several reasons that have been cited by individuals and organizations for why they believe Bush should be impeached. Some of the most commonly cited reasons include the invasion of Iraq based on false claims of weapons of mass destruction, the use of torture and other human rights violations in the war on terror, and the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.
Many people believe that there is strong evidence to support the call for impeachment of Bush. The Downing Street Memo, which suggests that intelligence was being manipulated to justify the invasion of Iraq, is often cited as evidence of wrongdoing. Additionally, the use of torture and warrantless wiretapping have been confirmed by government officials.
The process for impeaching a president is outlined in the US Constitution. The House of Representatives has the power to impeach a president by bringing charges against them. If a majority of the House votes to impeach, the case is then sent to the Senate for trial. The Senate must then vote by a two-thirds majority to convict and remove the president from office.
Yes, there have been two successful impeachment cases in US history. The first was in 1868 when President Andrew Johnson was impeached by the House but ultimately acquitted by the Senate. The second was in 1998 when President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House but also acquitted by the Senate.
If a president is successfully impeached and removed from office, they may also face criminal charges for any illegal actions they may have committed while in office. In addition, they may also face a loss of presidential privileges and benefits, such as a pension and security detail. However, if a president is not convicted by the Senate, they may continue to serve out their term in office.