• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Bob Woodward: Bush Misleads On Iraq

In 2007 situation in Iraq will ...

  • be much worse (as mr.Woodward predicts)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • be only slightly worse

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • remain unchanged

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • slow progress would be right expression

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • be improved significantly

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • in 2007 the insurgents will be defeated completely

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/60minutes/main2047607.shtml

Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward tells Mike Wallace that the Bush administration has not told the truth regarding the level of violence, especially against U.S. troops, in Iraq.
...
In Wallace’s interview with Woodward, to be broadcast on 60 Minutes this Sunday, Oct. 1, at 7 p.m. ET/PT, the reporter also claims that Henry Kissinger is among those advising Mr. Bush.
...
According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes
...
The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. "The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], 'Oh, no, things are going to get better,'"
...
"The insurgents know what they are doing. They know the level of violence and how effective they are. Who doesn't know? The American public,"
...
Woodward reported for two years and interviewed more than 200 people, including top officials in the Bush administration, to learn these and other revelations that he makes in his latest book, State of Denial
Look also at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000293.html

Very interesting reading.
 
#2
Interesting, how many insurgents are in Iraq? Or what is the size of 'rebellous' part of population?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000492_2.html

The target of 325,000 trained security forces "is arguably inadequate to start with," said Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University defense specialist. Given the total population in unstable parts of Iraq and a standard ratio of population to security forces of 20 to 1, he said, "Iraq really needs 500,000 troops and police."
 
#3
Do you sit up late at night, scouring the internet, for BS to put down the United States?

Ever hear of the term: You are biased?
 
#4
Phil306 said:
Do you sit up late at night, scouring the internet, for BS to put down the United States?
not sure scouring is the right expression.... it sort of implies that the info sought for would be hard to find, and god knows that's not the case - there's a plentiful supply.
 
#5
Phil306 said:
Do you sit up late at night, scouring the internet, for BS to put down the United States?
Phil, I hold in high esteem mr.Woodward, American veteran journalist. So I recognize that a freedom of speech in USA is real, not formal. In other words by this thread I rather put up USA, not down.

Phil306 said:
Ever hear of the term: You are biased?
So are you sure that mr.Woodward is biased too? Well, then enlighten me. Who in USA is unbiased. Maybe learned mr.Bush?
 
#6
Woodward is selling a book. He cant do that unless he can create controversy. I saw an interview this morning with General Downey who had just returned from Iraq and he was asked about Woodwards view of Iraq. Surprisingly Downey was upbeat and saw alot of progress with the Iraqi Army and combat police. The downside was the Iraqi police - corrupt and infiltrated by the miltia's.
 
#7
tomahawk6 said:
I saw an interview this morning with General Downey who had just returned from Iraq and he was asked about Woodwards view of Iraq. Surprisingly Downey was upbeat and saw alot of progress with the Iraqi Army and combat police.
Why "surprisingly"? Did you really expect a serving US General making an official public address to be anything other than "upbeat".

tomahawk6 said:
The downside was the Iraqi police - corrupt and infiltrated by the miltia's.
So, reading between the lines, although the good General sounded "upbeat", the reality on the ground is somewhat different.
 
#8
"Phil, I hold in high esteem mr.Woodward, American veteran journalist. So I recognize that a freedom of speech in USA is real, not formal. In other words by this thread I rather put up USA, not down."

Good spin pal. A good 90%of what you post, is negative toward the US and the UK. Its constant.

Doesn't matter who wrote what. YOU are biased and what you post is nothing but negative and biased.

Live with it...
 
#9
Phil306 said:
"Phil, I hold in high esteem mr.Woodward, American veteran journalist. So I recognize that a freedom of speech in USA is real, not formal. In other words by this thread I rather put up USA, not down."

Good spin pal. A good 90%of what you post, is negative toward the US and the UK. Its constant.

Doesn't matter who wrote what. YOU are biased and what you post is nothing but negative and biased.

Live with it...
Phil!

Our friend AndyPipkin also thinks that my posts are 'anti-American' however even he English nationalists (as he positions himself) never said that they are 'anti-British'.

Mr.Woodward is not one of many. He is a famous journalist and he investigated the problem very professionally.

So (and I hope you agree with me) his point of view is very valuable (agree you with it or not) and worth to be scrutinized.

For me the involvement of mr.Kissinger in the process of decision-making about Iraq is something new. And other not well-known details are interesting. For example, the difference between public and classified reports reminded me habits of our Soviet rulers. Situation in Afghanistan was described in Pravda newspaper one way and realistic reports (for the Politburo) were likely quite different.

Would you say that previous phrases are anti-Soviet or/and anti-Russian? Maybe but I don't care. The great feature of this forum that I write exactly what I think (like it anybody or not).

I rarely vote here (because I don't belong to British military). However, personally I think that the situation in Iraq in 2007 will be worse but not significantly, only slightly. Why do I think so? The situation is so bad that there no room for further movement into the negative direction. Why do I doubt that any improvement is hardly possible? Because I don't see new ideas and old ones aren't working.

Well, you could call it anti-Americanism again, but from my point of view it is a poor argument.

Regards!

Segey, your obedient servant.
 
#10
tomahawk6 said:
Woodward is selling a book. He cant do that unless he can create controversy. I saw an interview this morning with General Downey who had just returned from Iraq and he was asked about Woodwards view of Iraq. Surprisingly Downey was upbeat and saw alot of progress with the Iraqi Army and combat police. The downside was the Iraqi police - corrupt and infiltrated by the miltia's.
Oh, for the love of God.

How many times have we been over the fact that under the UCMJ, serving officers are prohibited from speaking out against Administration policy- not to mention the code of silence regarding dissent when US troops are engaged?

Sure Woodward is selling a book, but his general premise is nothing new to anyone who has been paying attention. What the new book brings to the table is Woodward's gravitas, the fact that his last two books have been generally supportive of the Administration, and the unparallelled level of access he has had to Administration insiders.
 
#11
I'll tell you what Sergey, start posting stuff about how screwed up the Soviet Union is/was and I'll change my tune. So will others. Unitl then:

Go pound salt.
 
#12
Phil306 said:
I'll tell you what Sergey, start posting stuff about how screwed up the Soviet Union is/was and I'll change my tune. So will others. Unitl then:

Go pound salt.
Newflash, Phil, the Soviet Union ceased to exist on 31Dec91- almost 15 years ago.
 
#13
Phil306 said:
I'll tell you what Sergey, start posting stuff about how screwed up the Soviet Union is/was and I'll change my tune. So will others. Unitl then:

Go pound salt.
Well, in the context of this thread let's compare approaches for resolution of the problem of Iraqi type.

Soviet Union. Without freedom of speech a desision would be made by a small group of politicians that (at least most of them) live in their imaginary world. Even being aware that they made a mistake without freedom of speech they would pretend that all is OK.

USA. With freedom of speech a desision would be made by a small group of politicians that (at least most of them) live in their imaginary world. Even being aware that they made a mistake in conditions of freedom of speech they would pretend that all is OK.

As you see my post is openly anti-Soviet because of absense of freedom of speech in USSR while American people enjoys this right.
 
#14
[quote="KGB_resident
As you see my post is openly anti-Soviet because of absense of freedom of speech in USSR while American people enjoys this right.[/quote]

Overall, very insightful of you, but even in the USA freedom of speech extends only to trivialities and safe locales. Best not speak against the Bushits at work , for example. People been fired for just having a pro-Kerry bumper sticker.

And really, this vaunted 'freedom of speech' is useless unless you own a media company, and even then you're not going to risk position and profits to tell the truth.

Just look at the difference of cover stories for Time Magazine, European and USA editions.

MOre than just Bush is in a state of denial, this whole country is letting itself be led down a primrose path.
 
#15
WorstPreznitEver said:
KGB_resident said:
As you see my post is openly anti-Soviet because of absense of freedom of speech in USSR while American people enjoys this right.
Overall, very insightful of you, but even in the USA freedom of speech extends only to trivialities and safe locales. Best not speak against the Bushits at work , for example. People been fired for just having a pro-Kerry bumper sticker.

And really, this vaunted 'freedom of speech' is useless unless you own a media company, and even then you're not going to risk position and profits to tell the truth.

Just look at the difference of cover stories for Time Magazine, European and USA editions.

MOre than just Bush is in a state of denial, this whole country is letting itself be led down a primrose path.
It is a shamless example of blatant anti-Americanism. It is an agitprop of the worst type. Though...

In America--as elsewhere--free speech is confined to the dead.

Mark Twain.
 
#16
Dogface said:
merkator said:
tomahawk6 said:
I saw an interview this morning with General Downey who had just returned from Iraq and he was asked about Woodwards view of Iraq. Surprisingly Downey was upbeat and saw alot of progress with the Iraqi Army and combat police.
Why "surprisingly"? Did you really expect a serving US General making an official public address to be anything other than "upbeat".

Perhaps because Downing (it is not Downey) is no longer serving. Do try to keep up.
Do you honestly expect me to keep up with the names and positions of every single serving US military one-star and above? Forget it! If T6 doesn't know who he's just seen, then more fool him. Please get back in your box.

PS. Is this Gen. Downing (ret.) the same Gen. Downing (ret.) who resigned in 2002 over the (lack of) military action against Iraq? You know, the one who cooked up an invasion and occupation plan that would have his paymaster Chalabi installed as Iraqi President?
 
#17
Dogface said:
merkator said:
Dogface said:
merkator said:
Why "surprisingly"? Did you really expect a serving US General making an official public address to be anything other than "upbeat".

Perhaps because Downing (it is not Downey) is no longer serving. Do try to keep up.
Do you honestly expect me to keep up with the names and positions of every single serving US military one-star and above?
I certainly do if you're going to state he did something (or did not do something) based upon his status. If you knowingly do not know what you're posting about, as you just omplied is the case here, you'd be better off posting nothing.
Rrrrrright!!!!!
 
#18
Dogface said:
merkator said:
Dogface said:
merkator said:
Dogface said:
merkator said:
tomahawk6 said:
I saw an interview this morning with General Downey who had just returned from Iraq and he was asked about Woodwards view of Iraq. Surprisingly Downey was upbeat and saw alot of progress with the Iraqi Army and combat police.
Why "surprisingly"? Did you really expect a serving US General making an official public address to be anything other than "upbeat".

Perhaps because Downing (it is not Downey) is no longer serving. Do try to keep up.
Do you honestly expect me to keep up with the names and positions of every single serving US military one-star and above?
I certainly do if you're going to state he did something (or did not do something) based upon his status. If you knowingly do not know what you're posting about, as you just omplied is the case here, you'd be better off posting nothing.
Rrrrrright!!!!!
Damned straight. Check your facts next time you so knowingly post of one's intentions because you know he's a serving officer. It won't then be so apparent that you post so authoritatively from ignorance.


So Downing was "upbeat", and it had nothing to do with him being a serving officer as you stated.
Rrrrrright!!!!!

PS. Have a word with T6 on this as well will you. There's a good chap.
 
#19
Thanks for clearing up that Downing is no longer serving, Dogface, I would however draw your attention however to the second part of my sentence that made reference to the traditional reluctance of retired officers to express dissent while US troops are engaged.

With that cleared up, can we please get confirmation that T6 is talking about the same Wayne Downing who, having retired from the armed forces, was a paid lobbyist for Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress and is currently on the board of Science Applications International Corporation- one of three firms that until July of this year enjoyed a $300m contract to conduct propaganda and PSYOPS in Iraq and still is contracted to the DoD to supply other such services.
 
#20
Dogface said:
merkator said:
PS. Have a word with T6 on this as well will you. There's a good chap.
Where did T6 post Downing was a serving soldier? Only you and crabastic posted such.
He didn't! He didn't even mention Downing. Duhhhhhhh!!! More to the point, where did I ever post that Downing was a serving officer?

T6, in his infinite wisdom, was clearly not paying sufficient attention to what (and who) was before his eyes this morning. He is the twit that started all this by inventing a general that doesn't even exist - apparently! But then, I've only got your word to trust on this!

So, if you expect me, johnny foreigner, to know by name, rank and appointment, every single serving 1-star and above in the US military, then the least you can do is have a word with one of your own and ask him to do the decent thing and actually spell correctly!!!!
 

Latest Threads