Bob Woodward: Bush Misleads On Iraq

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Sep 30, 2006.

?
  1. be much worse (as mr.Woodward predicts)

    37.0%
  2. be only slightly worse

    14.8%
  3. remain unchanged

    14.8%
  4. slow progress would be right expression

    29.6%
  5. be improved significantly

    3.7%
  6. in 2007 the insurgents will be defeated completely

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/60minutes/main2047607.shtml

    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

     
  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. 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. 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.

    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. Why "surprisingly"? Did you really expect a serving US General making an official public address to be anything other than "upbeat".

    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. 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. 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. Newflash, Phil, the Soviet Union ceased to exist on 31Dec91- almost 15 years ago.
     
  13. 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. It is a shamless example of blatant anti-Americanism. It is an agitprop of the worst type. Though...