Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

State of Denial - Bob Woodward

  1. Sep 29, 2006 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003188619

    A White House driven by dysfunction? Is there any new information?

    I love Bob Woodward.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 29, 2006 #2

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Bush Whitehouse - like any dysfunctional family. :rolleyes:

    Bush chief of staff urged Rumsfeld be fired
    By David Alexander
     
  4. Sep 29, 2006 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec06/sb_09-29.html
     
  5. Sep 30, 2006 #4

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    White House Steps Up Rhetoric, Denies Charges
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6168132

    Um, no! People have stopped accepting the propaganda and are starting to be more critical of the Bush regime.
    It should be quite obvious at this point that Bush has no grasp on reality.
    I think more people are aware of the damage Bush has done to the US.
     
  6. Sep 30, 2006 #5
  7. Sep 30, 2006 #6
  8. Sep 30, 2006 #7
    Yuck, e-gads, why does wallace make facial expressions like hes taking a crap in his geezer pants. Those must be big adult diapers hes wearing.

    P.S. You're Kizinger iz very good, ya?
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2006
  9. Oct 3, 2006 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is interesting.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/02woodward.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
     
  10. Oct 3, 2006 #9
    So that explains why Condi called the Aug 7, PDB OBL determined to strike in the US, "historical", she had already heard about it weeks before.:rolleyes:
     
  11. Oct 3, 2006 #10
    Its incredible that people who bear such tremendous responsibility should not recollect blunders in judgement that they made while pursuing secretive plans, plans(I assert ,tentatively, as obviously there must have been something of more import to the admin at the time.) that distracted from the primary focus of the job of the NSA.
     
  12. Oct 3, 2006 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Has anyone else noticed all of the non-denial denials?

    Ah, just like the good ole days. :biggrin:
     
  13. Oct 3, 2006 #12

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    A lot of people involved in the current White House (e.g. Cheney) have ties to the Nixon Whitehouse. Maybe they just thought they would pick up where they left off. :rolleyes:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney#Early_White_House_appointments
     
  14. Oct 3, 2006 #13
  15. Oct 3, 2006 #14

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  16. Oct 4, 2006 #15
  17. Oct 7, 2006 #16

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Interesting comments by Woodward. He comments that Bush is an optimist [which is not based on reality], i.e. Bush is delusional. :rolleyes:

    Bush and Rumsfeld make the statements that the terrorists are on the run, but the reality is the attacks against US troops, the Iraqi government, and Iraqi civilians is increasing.

    Apparently Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld cannot accept that they are wrong - they can't accept that they have failed - despite the evidence that they have. The US will pay a very high price for this failure - especially if Bush is allowed to continue down the path of failure. Bush is absolutely the wrong person to lead the US - he has demonstrated that he is unworthy of the privilege (based on his dishonesty and deceit) and incapable of the responsibility.

    and

    Return of the Taliban

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/

    This is very disturbing. Pakistan has made a deal with Taliban who in turn supports al Qaida! Taliban and al Qaida are safe and sound and growing in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

    So why is the US floundering in Iraq while al Qaida and Taliban are growing stronger elsewhere? Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt?, Sudan?, Libya?, Tunisia?, Algeria?, Morocco?, Indonesia?, . . . .

    The people who funded al Qaida's attack on the US are still out there - somewhere - and its not in Iraq.

    Interviews -

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/interviews/coll.html

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/interviews/crocker.html

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/interviews/rubin.html

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/interviews/saleh.html

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/interviews/tomsen.html

    So Pakistan supported fundamentalist elements in the tribal areas in hopes of having sympathetic authorities in Afghanistan. This however seems to be a recipe for instability - especially with Taliban and al Qaida flourishing in the tribal areas along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2006
  18. Oct 7, 2006 #17

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    FACTBOX-Key points in Bob Woodward's book Reuters Election 2006

    But apparently Card has confirmed Woodward's comments, and it appears that the "Five Key Myths" issued by the Whitehouse are indeed untrue.
     
  19. Oct 8, 2006 #18

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Paul Krugman wrote this back in July of this year. Entitled, "The Price of Fantasy", it would be more appropriate "The High Price of Bush's Fantasies/Delusions". The full article must be purchased from NY Times

    Of course not. :rolleyes:
     
  20. Oct 8, 2006 #19
    The frightening thing about this is that here is the appearance of collusion with Saudi Arabia, in developing American foreign policy.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1302097,00.html

    Was this part of the plan? Let OBL attack the US and use it as justification to implement the PNAC strategy? What did they talk about on that balcony?

    Were they celebrating the scope of the attack, knowing that now Congress, the American people, and indeed the world would support whatever response they decided was appropriate?

    It is no wonder that people believe that Bush deliberately let the WTC and Pentagon be attacked so that he could implement a foreign policy developed in collusion with the Saudi royal family.

    There was a time that I would dismiss such musings as ridiculous. That time is past for me, I believe these men capable of anything.
     
  21. Oct 8, 2006 #20

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    From the Guardian article -
    I saw the expression on his face - he didn't want to believe it. Bush was so focussed (fixated) on getting Saddam, he ignored al Qaida - despite warnings from NSA and CIA. Then he wanted the intelligence community to 'establish' (fabricate) a link between Saddam and al Qaida. The complication here is that - al Qaida was enemy of Saddam. And al Qaida is enemy of House of Saud. Actually it's more complicated than that as the future will show.

    Saddam was a threat to Saudi Arabia - but bin Laden and al Zawahiri were and still are bigger threats (unless the funding is a payoff on behalf of Saudi Arabia). The bigger threat could have and should have been dealt with - but it wasn't.

    Now the problem has become enormously more complex and spread over a much larger geographic region.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: State of Denial - Bob Woodward
  1. Propaganda in the states (Replies: 24)

  2. State of The Union (Replies: 37)

  3. State of the Union (Replies: 35)

Loading...