Exclusive Excerpt: Bob Woodward's 'State of Denial'

Always appreciate the viewpoints of those members who aren't lonely losers who troll the internet looking for social interaction and post garbage in order to get it.

I'll check those links tomorrow, late here now.

Aloha.

 

interesting link thks!

thing is, this administration has already lost the iraq war by any measure and its unlikely any Security Council member will allow them any face-saving move...

 

Woodward is an opportunist. He's about selling books and feeding his massive ego. Another guy that should be beat with a tire iron.

 

Why?
Because he reports objectively?
His first two books on Bush, in essence, gave the President accolades.
What would your opinion of him have been, if he had reported favorably to your point of view?
You've made a ridiculous statement.
Captain..Oblivious?

 

Woodward's 'secret' chart wasn't

By Terence Jeffrey

Wednesday, October 4, 2006

Bob Woodward's "State of Denial" got scooped on what was presented on national TV as the book's most sensational revelation -- that enemy attacks in Iraq have been escalating.

The Government Accountability Office and the Department of Defense beat Woodward to reporting this information, and reported it in greater detail.

The government's open reporting on the increasing number of enemy attacks also refutes the charge Woodward made in collaboration with Mike Wallace on CBS's "60 Minutes" on Sunday that the administration kept this "trend" secret to deceive people about how bad the war is going.

Woodward writes about a May 24, 2006, Joint Chiefs of Staff intelligence assessment that was classified "Secret." It included two charts indicating enemy attacks in Iraq were escalating. A bar graph (reproduced on page 472 of the book) indicated that between January and May of this year, average attacks per day had increased from 72 to 113. A line graph (reproduced on page 473) indicated attacks per month had risen from less than 500 in May 2003 to more than 3,500 in May 2006.

On page 476, Woodward concedes that two days after the "Secret" JCS intelligence assessment was circulated in May, DOD published its quarterly report to Congress on the Iraq war and included a similar chart on the attack trend. "Though there was a chart buried in the middle of the 65-page document showing that average weekly attacks were up to over 600," wrote Woodward, "the document put the most positive spin on stability and security."

In fact, where Woodward's "Secret" graph showed only the trend in the average daily attacks from January to May of this year, DOD's public graph showed the trend in average weekly attacks for six different periods of the war. The latest was February-May of this year, which DOD called the "Government Transition" period, when attacks were more than 600 per week. The report stated plainly, "Overall, average weekly attacks during this 'Government Transition' period were higher than any of the previous periods."

Yet, on "60 Minutes," Woodward's second chart from the "Secret" JCS intelligence assessment was presented as evidence the administration had tried to cover up this trend.

"When you say the Bush administration has not told the truth about Iraq, what do you mean?" Wallace asked Woodward.

"I think probably the prominent, most prominent example is the level of violence," said Woodward.

"Not just the growing sectarian violence, Sunnis against Shias that gets reported everyday ... but attacks on U.S., Iraqi and allied forces," Wallace said in a voiceover as the "Secret" chart flashed on the screen. "Woodward says that's the most important measure of violence in Iraq, and he unearthed this graph, classified secret, that shows those attacks have increased dramatically over the last three years."

In another voiceover, Wallace says, "Woodward says the government had kept this trend secret for years before finally declassifying the graph just three weeks ago."

In fact, over the past 18 months, GAO has published written congressional testimony on at least six occasions that presented a progressively updated graph illustrating the same attack trend in Woodward's "Secret" graph. These include testimony released on March 14, 2005; Oct. 18, 2005; February 8, 2006; April 26, 2006; July 11, 2006; and Sept. 11, 2006.

The GAO's bar graphs of the attack trend, readily available on the Internet, are superior to the "Secret" line graph Woodward reproduces in his book because the bars in the GAO's graphs are coded with shading to indicate the percentage of each month's attacks directed at different targets (i.e., coalition forces, Iraqi security forces, civilians, Iraqi government officials and infrastructure).

For example, on April 25, one month before the JCS circulated the "Secret" intelligence assessment cited by Woodward, GAO published testimony prepared by Comptroller General David Walker that features a bar graph headlined: "Enemy-Initiated Attacks Against the Coalition and its Partners, June 2003 through February." GAO sourced the information to the Multi-National Force-Iraq.

Like Woodward's graph from the May 2006 intelligence assessment, GAO's April 2006 graph shows overall attacks rising from less than 500 in 2003 to about 2,500 in February 2006. Unlike Woodward's graph, GAO adds the detail that about 1,500 of these February attacks were aimed at coalition forces, while virtually all the rest were aimed at civilians or Iraqi forces.

GAO did not downplay this disturbing trend.

In a section with the subheadline, "Insurgency Has Intensified and Sectarian Tensions Increased," GAO said: "Over the past three years, significant increases in attacks against the coalition and coalition partners, as well as recent increases in sectarian violence, have made it difficult for the United States to achieve its political and security goals in Iraq. The insurgency in Iraq intensified from June 2003 through October 2005, and has remained strong and resilient."

GAO testimony released July 11 updated the attack-trend chart to include data through April, when attacks numbered about 3,300. GAO testimony released Sept. 11 updated the chart through July, when attacks numbered about 4,500 -- or about 1,000 more than the maximum reported by Woodward, whose chart stopped in May, when JCS circulated the "Secret" intelligence assessment that featured it.

Before and after the "Secret" chart reported by Woodward, GAO took the same information and posted it on the Internet.

--------------------------------

Gee, ktmex, all you had to do was go on the internet to find the "most prominent example"of "Bush not telling the truth about Iraq."

Took me all of 3 seconds on Google to find this:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d061094t.pdf

Of course, Woodward could have too, but then he wouldn't have much of a book to sell, would he?

Maybe you can still get a refund.

ROLFMAO!

 

Woodward's Real Revelation

By Rich Lowry

Tuesday, October 3, 2006

Bob Woodward's latest blockbuster book, "State of Denial," is being sold on its bogus "revelation" that President Bush has been deceptive about poor security conditions in Iraq. Yes, Bush has emphasized the positive, but if he didn't, who would amid all the defeatism? Lately, even Bush has used dire language to describe Iraq, calling the security conditions in Baghdad "terrible" and a "crisis."

The most important aspect of Woodward's book isn't this "news," but the insight it gives into how the U.S. government has arrived at such a middling, uninspired campaign in Iraq — just enough not to win and just enough not to lose. As State Department adviser Philip Zelikow thought after a visit to Iraq in 2005, in Woodward's words, "There was too much barely coping, just getting by and making incremental improvements."

We have been barely coping because we have never made a decision to go all-out, partly due to the restraining influence of Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld. Oddly, given the way he has become a hate-figure for Democrats, it is Rumsfeld who is perhaps closest to the Democrats' preferred Iraq strategy as any other major figure in the Bush administration.

Rumsfeld is not interested in trying to win the war outright, so much as handing the effort over to the Iraqis. According to Woodward, "Rumsfeld said strongly and repeatedly, the Iraqis need to be given the chance to fail and fall on their faces, and only then would they pick themselves up, dust themselves off and come up with solutions."

He has tried to head off anything more robust than letting the Iraqis fend for themselves. In October 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice began to describe the U.S. approach in Iraq as the classic counterinsurgency operation of "clear, hold and build" — referring to the clearing of Iraqi insurgents from a territory and then its securing and rebuilding. Rumsfeld was outraged. Woodward writes that Rumsfeld believed, "It was wrong to say that the United States' 'political-military strategy' was all about what the U.S. would do and not what the Iraqis would do."

This was a constant tension between Rice and Rumsfeld. She wanted to do more; he wanted to do less. They clashed over the creation of Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraqi provinces because Rice wanted the military to provide security and Rumsfeld wanted it handled by private contractors. They argued over security for Iraqi oil infrastructure, with Rice wanting more U.S. involvement and Rumsfeld less. Generally, the result has been a down-the-middle compromise, with the U.S. neither overwhelming our enemies nor letting the Iraqis sink or swim.

If Rumsfeld had had his way, we might have had one foot out the door already. In a meeting earlier this year in Baghdad, Rumsfeld raised the issue of reducing U.S. troop levels with Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki was shocked. "It's way too earlier to be talking about that," he said. Rumsfeld's strategy isn't outlandish in theory, but the fact is that the Iraqis haven't yet proven they are up to the burden he wants to place on them.

The secretary of defense has a tacit ally in minimizing the U.S. commitment in Iraq in top U.S. military commanders. Gen. John Abizaid believes that, according to Woodward, "the U.S. military had done all it could" in Iraq. Asked by his friends his strategy for winning, Abizaid responded, "That's not my job." When the general visited Rep. John Murtha, the cut-and-run Democrat, Abizaid put his fingers close together and said, "We're that far apart."

So it is that Bush's stalwartness in the Iraq War never quite seems to be matched by the means he applies on the ground. His administration has been riven by debilitating divisions on Iraq for too long. Bush should appoint an Iraq czar, whose charge it is to do everything possible to win at this late hour, and who will have every resource of government at his disposal. Lest the next Woodward book cover how the U.S. handled its ignominious exit.

 

yeah well, thought everybody agreed that that was the problem, rummie not dispatching enough nor the right kind of troops to establish and make the peace hold in Iraq, back then... whats changed since this?... apart for the increasing flow of dead and wounded...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141374,00.html
McCain: 'No Confidence' in Rumsfeld
Tuesday, December 14, 2004

PHOENIX — U.S. Sen. John McCain (search) said Monday that he has "no confidence" in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (search), citing Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq and the failure to send more troops.

McCain, speaking to The Associated Press in an hourlong interview, said his comments were not a call for Rumsfeld's resignation, explaining that President Bush "can have the team that he wants around him."

Asked about his confidence in the secretary's leadership, McCain recalled fielding a similar question a couple weeks ago.

"I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence," McCain said.

He estimated an additional 80,000 Army personnel and 20,000 to 30,000 more Marines would be needed to secure Iraq.

"I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops — linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc.," said McCain, R-Ariz. "There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue."

When asked if Rumsfeld was a liability to the Bush administration, McCain responded: "The president can decide that, not me."

McCain, a decorated Navy veteran and former Vietnam prisoner of war, is a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has oversight of military operations and considerable influence over the Pentagon budget (search).

If Senate Republicans maintain their majority two years from now, McCain would be in line to become the committee's chairman, something he said he'd weigh when considering whether to run for president again.

"In a couple of years I might give it some consideration, but not right now," he said of a 2008 presidential bid.

Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said McCain "has frequently expressed his views regarding troop levels in Iraq, and he is an important member" of the committee.

Rumsfeld has "relied upon the judgment of the military commanders to determine what force levels are appropriate for the situation at hand," Di Rita said.

Despite the troop levels, McCain believes military morale remains high, but he acknowledged that involuntary extensions of tours of duty were frustrating to soldiers.

He said Iraq must have a functioning independent government before U.S. troops leave.

"I believe we'll be in Iraq militarily for many years, which would not be a problem to the American people," he said. "I think what is not acceptable to the American people is an increasing flow of dead and wounded."

 

Thanks for the illustration of my point. When Bush had favor in the public, he writes a favorable book. When Bush is out of favor...surprise, surprise, he writes a condemning book. By the way, did you think he was objective when the first two books came out? We all know the answer.
This slug Woodward is still cashing in on Watergate. Nothing more, nothing less. A shameless profitier. He has much company on both sides of the isle.