Woodward's assessment of Bush

[llad12]

Woodward's assessment of Bush

In Bob Woodward's new book "Plan of Attack", the Washington Post reporter makes several revealing statements about the mindset of our Commander-in-Chief:

'I Haven't Suffered Doubt'
Bush wanted to invade Iraq. What's striking, Bob Woodward's new book reports, is how little he discussed it with anyone
By Evan Thomas
Newsweek

April 26 issue - It was Monday, Jan. 13, 2003, and President George W. Bush had just told his secretary of State, Colin Powell, that he was going to war in Iraq. "You know you're going to be owning this place?" inquired Powell. According to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's new book, "Plan of Attack," Powell "wasn't sure whether Bush had fully understood the meaning and consequences of total ownership." No matter. Bush said something to the effect of "I think I have to do this," and Powell, in essence, saluted and carried on. The whole conversation took 12 minutes.

That's what passed for debate in the Bush war cabinet, at least as the White House is depicted by Woodward. Early press accounts about Woodward's latest behind-the-scenes narrative suggested that Bush kept even his closest advisers in the dark about his decision to go to war because he was afraid of leaks. The real news, however, is not that Bush was secretive about his war planning, but rather that there was so little consideration of the consequences. In Woodward's telling, Bush was deeply involved in the details of the invasion plans from the moment he first grabbed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's elbow in November 2001 and asked, "What kind of war plan do you have for Iraq?" But at no time did the president sit down with his war cabinet and debate whether the war on Iraq would distract from the war on terror—or whether the risk of postwar Iraq's becoming a failed state outweighed the reward of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Woodward, Washington's premier investigative reporter since he and his colleague Carl Bernstein broke the Watergate story more than 30 years ago, has not lost his knack for opening up otherwise secretive government officials. (When Woodward calls, some Washington insiders anxiously joke, "you play or you pay.") While he does not name sources, Woodward apparently had access to all the main players and interviewed Bush for more than three hours. Woodward was criticized by some for painting too rosy a portrait of the president as a resolute and bold commander in chief in "Bush at War," his 2002 book about the president and his top advisers in the wake of 9/11. The picture that emerges this time is less flattering.

In Woodward's portrait, President Bush is single-minded, and possibly simple-minded, in his resolve. He seems to have relied more on divine guidance than the considered opinions of his top advisers. Bush told Woodward that as he approached the final decision to go to war, "I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will ... I'm surely not going to justify war based on God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4767542/

Divine guidance? Messenger of his will?

Does Bush really believe that he knows the will of the Almighty? Does he truly think that he is on a mission from God?

This man is frightening. The more I hear about Bush, the more it seems that he really is a naive, simple-minded fool.

He does not deserve a second term.

 

[ash2ash]

I am not willing to levy all of the same criticisms, but I do find it troubling that according to Woodward's book, Bush informed a Saudi Prince that we were going to war before informing the Secretary of State.

No offense to the Prince, but I don't think that anybody could come up with a credible argument supporting Bush's decision on this. Given Colin Powell's history and reputation (and oh yeah, he's the Secretary of State as well), he certainly deserved to be notified of what was going on before the final decision was made.

I might go and buy the book, but with the Washington Post posting all the juicy bits on its front page for the next 4 days, I may just as well read the website.

On a side note, I attended a lecture given by Bob Woodward at George Mason University about a year ago - right before the war started. My impression of him was that he was a careful and meticulous person who made sure he didn't make claims without backing them up. During the lecture in which he discussed the ongoing run-up to the war, he made very few opinionated comments, and when he did make a conjecture (if you call it that), he was able to come up with several very specific facts to back up his arguments. I guess overall, he came off as a little liberal, but for what it's worth, I would tend to believe that what he writes is either truth or close to it.

 

[maccool]

Bush is not a fool. Naive, simple-minded, arrogant and a bully to be sure, but not a fool. He's like Nixon, only sneakier and much less inclined to think before acting; a reckless gambler, if you will. But not a fool.

 

[llad12]

Bush is not a fool. Naive, simple-minded, arrogant and a bully to be sure, but not a fool. He's like Nixon, only sneakier and much less inclined to think before acting; a reckless gambler, if you will. But not a fool.

That's cute Mac

 

[cleanupguy]

There is absolutely nothing new in this book that we didn't know about. We've been saying this for the longest time. But if people want to turn their heads and not face the facts laid out in front of them, then what can you do? We also have Republican Senate and Republican Congress. They have far far far more money than we do, although when a dinner plate costs $2000.00, it is not hard to see why. At this point, I can think of only 2 things. Republicans have made up their mind about their vote because they genuinely agree with Bush and/or disagrees with Bush, but vote for the party. These are the people who will not listen to any facts. I feel so tired of having to convince them of the truth. :yawn:

 

[jmervyn]

We also have Republican Senate and Republican Congress. They have far far far more money than we do, although when a dinner plate costs $2000.00, it is not hard to see why.

What, the people funding your avatar's namesake don't have money to burn? Typical class warfare BS. Both parties are corrupt, the Dems only being slightly less lucre-tainted than the GOP. Google on Kerry's homes if you aren't a hypocrite.

Kerry could have a smidgen more personal honesty than Shrub, but he's got his masters to contend with. Nader is the only one I would be willing to believe was unsullied. And I haven't seen who is running as an Indi yet, not that it would matter.

At this point, I can think of only 2 things. Republicans have made up their mind about their vote because they genuinely agree with Bush and/or disagrees with Bush, but vote for the party. These are the people who will not listen to any facts. I feel so tired of having to convince them of the truth.

To many, your 'truth' is just as false as what you rail against. You're forgetting another group, which can easily swing the election: People who think Kerry and his allies are full of it, yet finding fault with Shrub for his misadventures. People who don't believe what either group is spouting - like me.

What happens with those votes come election day can't be seen yet - and is one reason the Executive branch is so desparate to make a clean "pullout" from Iraq. Not even artificially lowered oil prices would be enough to convince them if we still are running Iraq by force. But neither would they vote for Kerry, given the economy and the his weak-defense-Dem record.

I suspect that's what the liberal portions of the media and the Dems are really after - disenchant these folks enough with the Administration and they won't show at the booth. If that happens, the Bush-haters can easily win on venom alone.

 

[mullenman]

The more i hear the more i hate the man(if you cna even call him that)

 

[axeil]

Nothing suprising here people, move along...