BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes' (18-Apr-2004)

Subject: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Cruiser
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 09:44 PM

If you did not see this interview, you have got to read the transcript! I will post the link later.


Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Cruiser
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 09:51 PM

Woodward Interview About Bush

Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Cruiser
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 10:01 PM

The following is copied from the 60 Minute transcript about the decision and order to go to war with Iraq. It was largely based on his belief in the "Almighty", a higher father to appeal to:

{Quote}
Having given the order, the president walked alone around the circle behind the White House. Months later, he told Woodward: "As I walked around the circle, I prayed that our troops be safe, be protected by the almighty. Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I be as good a messenger of his will as possible. And then, of course, I pray for
forgiveness."

Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? "I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, 'Well no,' and then he got defensive about it," says Woodward. "And then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, 'He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.' And then he said, 'There's a higher father that I appeal to.'"

Beyond not asking his father about going to war, Woodward was startled to learn that the president did not ask key cabinet members either.
{End Quote}

Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 10:09 PM

Dear Gawd-- a dramatizing psycho in the White House! Sheeshe.


S

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 10:09 PM

Thanks for posting the link, and thanks to CBS for posting the transcript! I heard most of the interview. Pretty scary stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Cruiser
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 10:15 PM

This is chilling and makes me wonder if Bush is referring to the Rapture: Bush "We will all be dead"

{Quote}
How does the president think history will judge him for going to war in Iraq?

"After the second interview with him on Dec. 11, we got up and walked over to one of the doors. There are all of these doors in the Oval Office that lead outside. And he had his hands in his pocket, and I just asked, 'Well, how is history likely to judge your Iraq war,'" says Woodward.

"And he said, 'History,' and then he took his hands out of his pocket and kind of shrugged and extended his hands as if this is a way off. And then he said, 'History, we don't know. We'll all be dead.'"
{End Quote}

Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Peace
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 10:16 PM

DougR: I seldom do this, but you have gotta read the transcript! Sheeeit!

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Peace
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 10:17 PM

Cruiser: This is a time I wish I had a TV. Thanks for posting the link.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Cruiser
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 10:29 PM

You are all welcome. I don't want to condemn all people who base their actions on a belief in an "Almighty" or "God" or "Vishnu", but to go to war not based on objective, rational evidence is criminal.

Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 10:29 PM

This is sickening and worse than anything I wanted to believe.

I believed Bush was mistaken, and thoughtless, and arrogant, but I didn't think he was truly evil, or mad. I seem to have been wrong.

A man who believes he is on a mission from God is terribly dangerous.

I can't say how upset I am.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 10:30 PM

I don't think Bush was referring to the fundie rapture. I think he was just stating the obvious to avoid answering the question.

The only thing really damning about the interview was the claim that Bush misdirected funds appropriated by Congress for the war on Afghanistan, to the build up for the Iraq war. That is illegal, but do you suppose any of the powers that be that should respond to that with investigations and calls for impeachment will speak up?

We won't hear it from the Democratic party, that's for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Johnny in OKC
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 10:52 PM

Will someone please mention the title of Bob Woodward's book?
I missed it.

Interesting interview. The part that got to me was the
mention of George Bush's aversion to "Fancy Pants Intellectuals".

Were these Bush's actual words, or those of Woodward?

Who are these Fancy Pants Intellectuals? Scholars, scientists,
economists, environmentalists? University professors, senators?

We certainly don't want any Fancy Pants Intellectuals telling
us how to run the country!

Bob Woodward is a truly great American and a patriot.
And probably a Fancy Pants Intellectual. He's in for trouble now.

Love, Johnny
Fancy Pants Intellectual in
Oklahoma City

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 11:01 PM

We watched 60 Minutes for the first time in years, specifically to watch this. It was damning.

Even more damning, though, was a CSPAN program, on just before, with John Dean talking about his new book, Worse Than Watergate. This book spells out, in detail, how this presidency is the most secretive of all in our nation's history. He also flat-out called Cheney a "co-president." Bush told the ambassador(?) (or some bigwig)from Saudi Arabia we were going to war before he told most of his cabinet, including Powell.

Every person who works in this administration was subjected to an FBI background check except Bush and Cheney. It goes on and on. He also points out several scenarios which may cause them to remove Cheney from the GOP ticket, including insider trading which is being investigated by the SEC, right now. Cheney sold all of his Halliburton stock for top dollar, just days before a bunch of asbestos suits were filed against it, dropping the shares down to $13 and he knew it was going to happen. (We knew this, already, right.:-) Dean also said he didn't think Bush could pass an exam on his own policies...he leaves that to Cheney and Co.

I hope many, many people take the time to read these books.

Which one of them talked about how the media ignored all these red flags, Dean I think? He pointed out that scandals are caused by the media, plain and simple. He also does not understand the media just folding up during this presidency, though he gives many reasons he thinks may have caused this to happen and he draws a lot of correlations, about all of it, between dumbya and Nixon.

Remember to VOTE!

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 11:03 PM

Plan of Attack...it is my understanding that Woodward was quoting the shrub with that "fancy pants" bs.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Johnny in OKC
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 11:05 PM

Thank you, kat laughing, I will look for it.
Johnny

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Cruiser
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 11:08 PM

Johnny,

Woodward's book is "Plan Of Attack"

Here is the discussion of "fancy pants intellectual world" which may be Woodward's description of those Bush calls the elite. Not quite sure if Woodward quoted Bush on that phrase.

{Quote}
How deep a man is President George W. Bush? "He's not an intellectual. He is not what I guess would be called a deep thinker," says Woodward. "He chastised me at one point because I said people were concerned about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. And he said, 'Well you travel in elite circles.' I think he feels there is an intellectual world and he's indicated he's not a part of it … the fancy pants intellectual world. What he calls the elite."
{End Quote}

Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: bflat
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 12:04 AM

I think the interview confirmed what many of us believe to be the case and that is that Dick Cheney calls the shots and Bush is the titular head.

Ellen

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 12:24 AM

"We are in the clutches of a giant with the brain of a chicken."

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 12:32 AM

To me this interview has all the power of the Edward R Murrow broadcast that brought down McCarthy.

The fascist radio spin machine today will strive to make this momentous interview a farce. I hope the farce will be on them.

HERE IS MY OFFICIAL PORTRAIT OF GWB

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushvictory.jpg

BASED ON THE WOODWARD INTERVIEW

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 12:47 AM

You all seem to think this interview was some sort of scathing indictment of GW. It doesn't look like that to me at all. There's something fishy about this interview, although I haven't put my finger on just what I think it is yet. I don't trust Woodward, and haven't since the Clinton administration, when he seemed to be helping the opposition with their attempted defacto coup. I think he's shilling for somebody, but I haven't figured out who I think it is yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Cruiser
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 12:48 AM

Hey Donuel,

Can you make one up of George Bush and Dick Cheney as Puppet and Puppeteer? Like the Charlie McCarthy Dummy with ventriloquist Edgar Bergen?

That is why they have agreed to testify before the 911 Commission together instead as individually, as requested by the Commission. Bush is not intelligent enough to speak for himself.

Thanks,
Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Cruiser
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 12:58 AM

CarolC,

Since we are diametrically opposed on our views about this interview it reminds me of that song again by Jim Stafford:

"Lucille, me and you got an altogether idea about a real good time"

Did you read the transcript or have you listened to Mr. Bush's own words? He is close to being insane and at best he is an irrational ignorant fool who I am ashamed of as our leader.

Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 01:06 AM

John Dean was on Bill Moyer Now several weeks ago in an in-depth interview. It would do well to get a transcript of that.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 01:35 AM

Dean/Moyers transcript at

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript314_full.html

down toward the bottom

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 02:19 AM

He may hate Bush but he seems to like Colin Powell just fine, Carol C. I read it as an edorsement for Powell. I think you might be right. There is definitely something fishy.

Compared to Bush, Powell is the better man. However...

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 07:54 AM

Bush already responded personally to the show. He said:

"This won't affect John Q Publik"

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 08:15 AM

It is well known inside the Beltway that this is Powell's kiss and tell book, written by a very famous ghost writer who works for the Washington Post.

I don't trust Woodward either, for the same reasons that Carol mentioned. Since the last Bush administration, Woodward has done a lousy job of analyzing all his insider information in his books. He is too much a part of the Beltway establishment, and doesn't have the objectivity that another writer could have brought to the book, had Woodward been wise enough (and less of an egomaniac) to bring another writer with more detached perspective on board to do the analysis part of his books. Bernstein was an excellent writing partner for him. It is too bad he has decided he can do it all on his own with his books. He really can't.

His previous book about Bush was actually pretty positive. Go back and look at "Bush at War" by Woodward, and you'll see there isn't much new in this book, except to update it with Iraq and more of Powell's perspective.

As to this interview being damning--I would say not. That's hyperbole from the Bush haters, IMO. The interview with Clarke--now that was damning.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: SINSULL
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 10:05 AM

The shocker for me is that he didn't bother to ask Colin Powell's opinion on going to war with Iraq because he already knew it. Does this mean that he only listens to his Secretary of State when they agree? If they disagree the President doesn't want to hear the reasons? Scary.

Also Cheney and Colin Powell are not on speaking terms. How does that work?

It is pretty obvious from the quotes about Powell's feelings on Iraq that he was a willing participant in interviews for this book. Wonder how long he will survive in the Bush administration? And given Powell's ratings with the general public, can Bush afford to dump him before the election? How might that affect the black vote?

Meantime the body count climbs. Thousands of families mourn and there is no way out. If US forces pull out of Iraq civil war will follow. If they stay, suicide bombings and terrorism will never stop.

AND where are the replacements for the already overworked troops, who are being forced to stay an additional six months, going to come from? I see another clause being added to the Patriot Act reinstating the draft if Bush is re-elected. Legal? Why should it be?

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 10:49 AM

I don't trust the "objectivity" of nameless guests, guest. Try again with a name attached.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 10:56 AM

Just 'lower the bar' said the flaccid commander...
'let 'em wrestle it out in the muck
for our power is strong as our long gerrymander
intimidates those we don't buck'.

These clever profane... on the verge of insane
do not prattle about for wellbeing
Instead they decare, "common people, beware...
your freedom is ours..." the unseeing.

So as fancier pants do their well thought out dance
Fear is the star of this freak show
They jip us with rants, and then steal the romance
Of a 'freedom' that Bush does not know
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 11:55 AM

I'm not endorsing Bush, Cruiser. I just think that interview probably isn't serving the interests that you and others here think it is, and the same probably goes for the book.

I'll tell you what that interview looks like to me. First of all it's fluff. Really. It looks to me like he's trying to look like he's objective so people will trust him. Then, he throws out a few incidents that make it look like he's objecively criticizing Bush and Cheney, because he can't not criticize them and look objective. But he hasn't really said anything significant at all. And that satisfies people who want to see criticism of Bush, while at the same time, it doesn't really do anything to support their claims against him. He's doing the opposite of damning with faint praise.

The result of that sort of thing is that people who are staunchly pro-Bush can say, "well if that's all you've got, then you haven't really got much of anything at all".

If you want to read a genuinely scary article about the Bush administration and the Neocons who drive it, read this article. It's a bit long, but it's a fascinating read:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040223&c=1&s=lind

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 12:26 PM

Here's a small excerpt from the article I linked to above:

"The cynical way in which the Bush Administration lied to Congress and the American people to justify an invasion of Iraq planned years before September 11, 2001, by Wolfowitz and many of his PNAC allies came as no surprise to me, a former neocon. In an anthology titled The Fettered Presidency published by the American Enterprise Institute in 1989, Irving Kristol wrote that "if the president goes to the American people and wraps himself in the American flag and lets Congress wrap itself in the white flag of surrender, the president will win.... The American people had never heard of Grenada. There was no reason why they should have. The reason we gave for the intervention--the risk to American medical students there--was phony but the reaction of the American people was absolutely and overwhelmingly favorable. They had no idea what was going on, but they backed the president. They always will.""

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 12:29 PM

And let us not forget, the parent company of CBS' 60 Minutes, and Mr. Woodward's publisher Simon and Schuster, is one and the same.

They call this sort of promotion of parent company products on the networks "synergy".

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 12:29 PM

I am not so sure; I think if the fact that he is a two-faced, ignorant, fork-tongued son of a bitch gets enough exposure, well enough documented, it will penetrate the bubble of gleeful insanity about "Trusting the President". Enough presentation of the facts and even the slow-wits will have an inkling that something is wrong in Wolfalot.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 12:40 PM

I disagree Amos. The same sorts of blindness to government and corporate malfeasance is also happening in most of Europe, a lot of Asia, most of Latin America (Venezuela being an exception until the coup attempts).

I'm not saying it is a conspiracy. I think it is a siccessful take over of the western democracies by a global cartel of plutocratic capitalists that is causing the media to look the other way.

Now, that ought to cheer you up.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 12:43 PM

But that's the thing, Amos. This writing by Woodward diverts attention away from a lot of very key players, like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and others, and makes it look like it was just Bush and Cheney who were responsible. If the public accepts this notion, we may see Bush and Cheney disappear in the next election, but we'll very likely still have the other Neocons running the show from behind the scenes, as they have done in other presidencies prior to that of GW. Note the reference to Grenada in my excerpt.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Peace
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 12:54 PM

One of the nice things about a new president is that he will likely choose new advisors. That would get the Neocons out. They and their agenda--and their bedmates, the multinationals--would then have a harder time enslaving the people of this world. One can but hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 01:17 PM

They've been around for a lot longer than GW's presidency, brucie. They won't be disappearing just because Bush doesn't get re-elected. That's the whole point. People like Woodward are trying to make it look like the only people who were/are responsible for what's going on are Bush and Cheney. Bush and Cheney are expendable. The Neocons have gone underground. Unless people are aware of all of the key figures in the Bush administation (and other administrations), these people will never go away. And the "multinationals" (I assume you're referring to the powerful corporate interests who really pull the strings) own the Democrats just as much as they own the Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 01:40 PM

CarolC:

Let's not get apathetic here -- I cannot believe that getting Bush out and replacing him with KErry will not make some improvements, unless Kerry is as much a liar as GW is.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Peace
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 01:40 PM

There you may be wrong, Carol. Wolfowitz and Cheney are Neocons. They stem from the remains of MJ 12. I know some are deeply embedded; however, getting some lice out is a good start.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 02:02 PM

I'm hardly apathetic, Amos. That's why I'm posting this stuff to this forum. It's so easy to mislead the US public. If we wan't to be real participants in the process, rather than just dupes, we need to really know what's going on.

Not sure what your point is, brucie, but Wolfowitz and Cheney aren't the only Neocons in the Bush administration who are shaping US policy. Getting one or two out isn't going to change the way the US does business with the rest of the world. And besides, even when the Neocons are ostensibly "not in power", they're still working the political process from wherever they happen to be.

Do I have any suggestions about what people should do about it? Not really. But before people can figure out what to do, they need to understand the agendas that really drive the people we elect to represent us, the people whom the US government is supposed to be 'by', 'of', and 'for'.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Strick
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 02:06 PM

"The shocker for me is that he didn't bother to ask Colin Powell's opinion on going to war with Iraq because he already knew it."

Not surprising since in another part of the interview Woodward says that Powell had been "pounding" the president and everyone else with his opinion for months.

Crusier, you do realise that 60% of the population will be relieved to learn that the President prayed before deciding to go to war, don't you? That's all that first passage you cite says to most of us.

I have to agree with Carol. There's something about this that's kind of wimpy. I don't know that I think Woodward is skillful enough to pull of the kind of misinformation campaign she thinks this might be, but this just isn't that damning unless you were already opposed to the President. Yet another point that on further confirms the existing polarization.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 02:10 PM

I think Strick has just made my point for me.

(Mighty kind of you, Strick ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Strick
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 02:19 PM

Ah, but Carol, is it because Woodward didn't find damning things he should have or because lacked to the skill to present what he found in a more damning way, or that there just wasn't anything that damning to report in the first place?

I'm just too bored with most conspiracy theories to put to much credence in them. Occam's razor.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 02:28 PM

"Unless people are aware of all of the key figures in the Bush administation (and other administrations), these people will never go away."

Including convicted felons, like John Poindexter. Of course, one can look to the information in Woodward's book about the diversion of Afghanistan funds to the build up for the Iraq invasion, and say that the Wolfowitz, et al are just felons who haven't been convicted yet.

BTW, in case y'all don't remember who John Poindexter was, and what he got caught doing? He had Condi's job, got caught diverting funds in the Iran/Contra affair.

But then, both the Democrats and the Republicans let that special prosecutor law expire, now didn't they?

Poindexter was tried and convicted in April 1990 of five felonies, including: one count of conspiring to obstruct official inquiries and proceedings, two counts of obstructing Congress, and two counts of false statements to Congress.1 U.S. District Judge Harold H. Greene sentenced him to a six-month prison term. In November 1991, Poindexter's convictions were overturned on appeal. In December 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case.

Now he works for Bush/Cheney, running the new "information agency" Bush created "to improve the flow of information among the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies involved in the war on terrorism."

Remember last week, when Bush said he was looking at ways to "reform" our intelligence agencies, purportedly to pre-empt the 9/11 commission's recommendations? Well, it was no pre-emption, folks. Once again, the creation of the Information Awareness Office headed by Poindexter, has been the plan all along.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 02:34 PM

CSPAN should have a transcript of John Dean's session in a few days. IMO, it was of much greater importance and had much more depth to it than Woodward's appearance. Dean brings out all of the players, not just bush
& cheney. He also attempts to provide some answers and some future scenarios. He also explains how they gutted the Freedom of Information Act, as well as our environmental protections.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 02:35 PM

Thsankd, Carol -- sorry I misinterpreted.

Here's some more information on the Neocon social structure.

Interesting skeleton.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 03:03 PM

As I said in another thread, Strick, the use of the term "conspiracy theories" in the context of discussions like this one is just an attempt at obfuscation using a thinly veiled 'argumentum ad hominem'.

Ah, but Carol, is it because Woodward didn't find damning things he should have or because lacked to the skill to present what he found in a more damning way, or that there just wasn't anything that damning to report in the first place?

I'd say that what he wrote has nothing whatever to do with what he found or didn't find, and everything to do with promoting an agenda to divert the public's attention away from the real issues. Woodward is just a media shill. He's hardly the final word on anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Peace
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 03:07 PM

Carol: Read what I said. Everything doesn't have to be just the way you see it. SSDD. Getting some out is better than leaving the ones we know about. That is simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 03:10 PM

Brucie, are you toying with me?

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Strick
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 03:11 PM

On the contrary, "conspiracy theory" was how I interpreted your point on Woodward, that he was intentionally using a misdirection to boost the Bush administration by over dramatizing what he found. What would you call what you think he might be up to? What gave you the idea I was attacking anyone? It can't be an ad hominem attack if it wasn't meant to be derogatory (i.e., an attack) or a reflection on either you or him. I just find it hard to believe anyone in the news business would trust the subtle kind of ploy you describe would work. It assumes the public is too intelligent, or certainly more intelligent than I think the media usually thinks we are.

Others seem to point to Woodward's journalistic integrity, but I agree, he's hardly the final word on anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 03:13 PM

What would you call what you think he might be up to?

I would call it "politics as usual", Strick.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Strick
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 03:16 PM

Fair enough, but in this instance, I had no intent to participate in an ad hominem attack, Carol. I just disagree for the reasons stated. It's too subtle and too complicated.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Cruiser
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 03:40 PM

Strick,

No! I do not want anyone praying to ask an imaginary "being" for advice on sending people to their deaths. What I am about to say is not going to be popular.

Mr. Bush might as well be praying to the Easter Bunny, Peter Cottontail, The Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or any other imaginary character for advice instead of his Almighty God, his Higher Father. They are all in the same category: Fables/Myths.

Mr. Bush drops the "G" word in all his speeches. He does not base his decisions on any rationalization of the facts.

The "voices" he hears in his "mind" are his own, not some anthropomorphic big voiced "man" (Father). I don't want voices in his head making life threatening decisions for this Nation or others. I want him to listen to human voices, the intellectual elite that he could never fit in with. Instead, he is so insecure about his lack of intellect and is not a deep thinker, so he falls back on "God" for direction.

Bush is a religious fool. I voted for him because I thought he was at least a moral man and his religious belief was harmless (similar to Ronald Reagan's). My view has changed and I have never had such disdain for any other politician that I have for Bush.

My concern is there are many religious fools world-wide that will pit their Gods against each other for the finite years of our species. I have to accept this, but the result is I am always going to be caught up in this nonsense for my years of life on this beautiful planet.

There are many fine religious people world-wide, but why they must give credit for their high moral standards to an imaginary "Almighty" is astonishing. Why can't they just give themselves credit for being decent human beings instead of looking skyward for "guidance" and "answers"?

Strick, prayer or belief in the "God Hypothesis", like conspiracy "theories", also do not fit Occam's Razor. They do not meet the Principle of Parsimony of the Razor. The assumptions of both prayer and God are untestable. They are not the simplest answers to any model. They lead only to more inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies which is what the Razor seeks to avoid. Occam's Razor requires reasoning, which is not evident in prayer or belief in Gods, of any stripe.

Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 03:49 PM

Cruiser,

My, that's a mighty rational approach you got there, podnuh? Handsome, too!! :>))


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Cruiser
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 04:03 PM

Amos,

Thank you Sir.

I am just trying to comprehend the often incomprehensible: Ergo, how did we let ourselves get into this quagmire?

Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 04:14 PM

Cruiser said, "I am just trying to comprehend the often incomprehensible: Ergo, how did we let ourselves get into this quagmire?"

I think we did it by trying to comprehend the incomprehensible, and rather than being content not to know, we invented answsers. Even now, when we comprehend more than we did, many people want to stick with those inventions, or belief systems.

Some of the best proof of this position is the fact that the "gods" we invent all have human attributes -- jealousy, wrath, tenderness, revenge, love, hate, etc...Who said that a triangular race would invent a three-sided god?

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 04:27 PM

IMHO, Woodward's book is the one that will open the public's eyes to this administration. Though the form it takes is glossy and Woodward is overly cordial in his presentation, I think this is the most damaging evidence yet expressed... the sheer lunacy of this 'faith based' foriegn policy has been exposed down to it's very roots. The polarity that now will occur around this issue will be substantial and enduring.

Bush's personal "God" is running this country and going to war. This is a (not so) subtile intimation... that George is the acting hand of "god" and his endeavors are divinely inspired.

Does anyone really believe this?... "God made me do it".
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Strick
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 04:38 PM

"Bush's personal "God" is running this country and going to war. This is a (not so) subtile intimation... that George is the acting hand of "god" and his endeavors are divinely inspired."

Maybe you don't understand. Note that at the end of the first of Cruiser's quotes, he prayered for forgiveness. That's not the act of someone with a messiah complex, it's quite the opposite, it's the prayer of someone looking for guidance.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 04:43 PM

Woodward, Clarke, and Dean titles all need to be on a few bedside tables prior to the election.

Pretty good rant, Cruiser.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 04:57 PM

Interesting site, Amos. Thanks for the link.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Strick
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 04:59 PM

"No! I do not want anyone praying to ask an imaginary "being" for advice on sending people to their deaths."

So you objected when Clinton spent time with his spiritual advisor and did much the same thing before his military actions? Fewer US citizens died, true, but no fewer foreign citizens if you believe stories of how bloody US attacks in the Balkins were. Or is it only that you care when you know about it, you want a President to keep it to himself? It would have been OK if he hadn't mentioned it to Woodward?

On the whole I'm less concerned with the "unpopularity" of what you say than in you're apparent assumption that you can decide for the rest of us whether this is reasonable behavior. Given that there's nothing to suggest that God told Bush to do this (read the quote again), the worst it did was force him to reflect one more time on the decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Peace
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 09:56 PM

Clinton's spiritual advisor liked cigars.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 10:20 PM

Well, I guess ol' Bob is one the "don't let in" list at the White HOuse. Yeah, evn though they are saying the book is fine, he's gettin' a bit of a cold shoulder about exposing Bush's desrires to go to war in Jnauary. But like, ahhh, big whup... They started selling the war back in August. Remember the line that you don't bring out a new product until after Labor Day??? Like the fact that Bush thirsted for a hot war with more photographic tarkets was no secret, folks...

But, no, the Buh folks are out in force with their *lie de jour* trying to cover up that fact that Bush had made up his mind, informed the Suadies and then let his *porch Negro* in on his decision. Those, my friends, are the facts. Don't like 'um? Me neither. Kind sucks to have a president who thinks he hears God... Ain't the God I hear...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 10:21 PM

Just curious, Strick. Can you get through a whole discussion of politics without dragging Clinton into it?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 10:38 PM

Not capable, Don... The boy is so far gone that he thinks Bill Clinton is the father of US slavery, the mad scientist who discovered and then spread AIDS and the guy responsible for making the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor... So, just get over Strick's little flaw... He ties to say smart stuff but it just continually backfires on him because of this little *issue* that Strick is incapable of overcoming, but I have written Dr. Phil about Strick and maybe we can get the boy over his little, but not so secret, preoccupation with blaming evrything on Clinton.

BTW, Clinton does deserve at least second look in this department. Best danged Rebub the Repubs ever had....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 10:51 PM

It's not that Bush prays that's damaging. It's that he decides, and prays but doesn't ask for advice or opinions from anyone else. Like Crocodile Dundee, him & God are mytes. (Mights? Mites?)

He doesn't need anyone else. He knows the will of God. And by great good luck God agrees with him all the time.

He may pray for forgiveness, but that's just to be polite; you'll recall he can't think of any mistakes he's made.

Incidentally, Strick, what does Clinton have to do with it? You holding him up as a good example? Or is it "Gee, Mom, all the other kids are doing it"?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Strick
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 10:57 PM

Well, it's hard, Don. I see so many people criticizing Bush for doing the same things Clinton and other presidents did. I have a hard choice. It's either ignorance or hypocracy. I'm trying the more gracious of those two choices first. Do you think I'm going too easy on you?

Now Bobert, you know perfectly well I hold FDR responsible for Pearl Harbor. Spent months trying to drive first the Germans and then the Japanese into attacking. Planned the invasion of Europe and program for provoking the Japanese during the 1940 Presidential campaign all the while repeating in each stump speech that he would not send our boys to war. But FDR's a hero and he never "started" a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 11:14 PM

THere's nothing wrong with consulting with one's ses eof the Almighty, Strick, but when it becomes a unilateral decision because now you don't need to build a consensus -- it is the equivalent of a theocracy. You will recall we had a little problem with the Taliban over this idea. I know there were differences, but the point is using religion as a screen to prevent communication is an abuse.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Strick
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 11:22 PM

Bush says plainly in his quote to Woodward that he's not putting the decision off on God. Unilateral decision in what sense? Most of his advisors were in favor of the war, right or wrong. No matter who those advisors were, only one person gets to make that kind of decision now that Congress has passed the War Powers Act.

Remember the story told about Lincoln? He called the cabinet in on a major issue, explained his thinking and asked them what they thought. To a person they were opposed to his idea. He reminded them that he was President and that it wasn't a matter for a vote, it was his choice alone. He made the decision.

There's also no sense in which Bush used his religion to prevent communication and the comparison to the Taliban is crap as you well know, Amos. Theocracy my ass. Forgive me but it sounds as if you're just playing to the anti-religion crowd with that statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Cruiser
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 11:27 PM

Yes Strick, and I especially objected when I saw Clinton exiting a church carrying a bible. He is a lying hypocrite, but not dangerous as is Bush. Mr. Clinton is intelligent and could have left an excellent mark on the Presidency, but failed because he is morally flawed. Mr. Bush is a dangerous unintelligent fool and morally confused by his blind irrational Faith.

My dismay is that of all the fine people in the U.S., the best are not willing or able to go into politics to help straighten out our democracy. Perhaps they are just not willing to lower their standards of honesty and integrity.

What a poor choice, Kerry or Bush. These are the best that our culture has to offer?   

Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 01:15 AM

Well then... I am glad GWB has found God, don't get me wrong... I just don't think that the seperation of church and state should be so blatantly violated. George's relationship with God is a personal issue for him. Running the country headlong into war is not. He has asked for forgiveness, and yet has not admitted any oversights...

I don't understand how a president can rely on others to read him his information, and actually be competantly informed. We're not talking about arts and crafts here... Then, if there is a faint truth to what Woodward is saying, the president chooses to have 'selective hearing' with the few people that speak to him... to what extent is currently debatable... and chooses to listen mostly to God, who speaks only to him. This is remarkable! He has all the intellectual rescources this great country has to offer at his fingertips... and it appears as though he's just not engaged. It's like watching someone use their computer only for the calculator it has... and never even bothering to explore the many fine programs it offers...

Does anyone have any evidence of GWB scouring reports and making the informed judgements that are the responsibility of his office?
A concerned citizen, ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 01:31 AM

Cruiser - This quagmire has been developing for some time.

To have a democracy, you must have an educated population. The so-called "Literacy" initiatives only address "functional" literacy levels. In other words, are they literate enough to balance a check book, pay bills and read advertisements? It does not insure a critical consciousness. Unfortunately, most of the population is only concerned with consuming. They have no idea how to evaluate the massive amount of propaganda that is being produced by the media.

If you want a democracy, start looking at the accessibility of a University education. Better yet, start looking at your high schools. You can't ignore education, year after year and expect anything more than an ignorant population of voters.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 01:49 AM

But unlike Lincoln, Bush didn't give his cabinet a chance to persuade him. If one of them had made a good argument perhaps Lincoln would have changed his mind.

And I don't know the context of Lincoln's decision, but he probably wasn't declaring pre-emptive war on a country that was no threat to the US.

In my experience those who believe that they know the will of God and are following it tend to be self-righteous, smug, arrogant and intolerant. Why wouldn't they be? The creator and upholder of the universe is at their side.

I wonder if GW knows that if he is truly a man of faith he can play with rattlesnakes and not be harmed? Could someone please tell him?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Metchosin
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 02:25 AM

Why Clint? He already speaks in tongues. LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 03:29 AM

True, Metchosin, true.

Both unknown & forked.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 12:37 PM

Are we taking donations to buy the snake? And could we make it a krait, please?

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Strick
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 12:47 PM

Anyone see Woodward on Larry King last night? He changed his tune a bit when the Saudi Ambassador called in. He admitted that the Saudis promised to keep oil prices low to protect the economy in general and that the promise had nothing to do with the election.

Here's a quote from the transcript:

KING: The story that Mr. Woodward has about the promise to lower the oil prices by the election. Your government has denied has.

WOODWARD: That's not my story. What I say in the book is that the Saudis, and maybe you looked at this section of the book, Ambassador, that the Saudis hoped to keep oil prices low during the period for -- before the election, because of its impact on the economy. That's what I say.

BIN SULTAN: I think the way that Bob said it now is accurate. We hoped that the oil prices will stay low, because that's good for America's economy, but more important, it's good for our economy and the international economy, and this is not -- nothing unusual. President Clinton asked us to keep the prices down in the year 2000. In fact, I can go back to 1979, President Carter asked us to keep the prices down to avoid the malaise. So yes, it's in our interests and in America's interests to keep the prices down.


Maybe Carol was right after all. Woodward charaterizes Kerry as exaggerating what Woodward said:

KING: Now, just for the record, White House spokesman Dan Bartlett tells CNN there was no secret deal, no talk of bringing down prices in time for the election. The Saudi government also denies the story, saying the allegation that the kingdom manipulates the price of oil for political purposes or to affect elections is erroneous and has no basis in fact.

WOODWARD: In the book, it's one -- I'm sorry, it's two sentences, and I don't say there is a secret deal or any collaboration on this. I say that Bandar and the Saudis hoped to put prices -- now, I understand there's something on the wire from Bloomberg saying that, in fact, the Saudis have said this, that in the period before the election, they told the president directly that they wanted to keep oil prices low in a range. So...

KING: Well, that's -- that would make Kerry correct, saying they're affecting the campaign.

WOODWARD: Well, I don't know. I mean, Kerry has taken this to the next level. This always gets caught in the political crossfire, and I'm trying to stick with what my reporting showed. And if you looked at it, as the people at "60 Minutes" did, and so forth, you would see how good the sourcing is.

CNN Larry King Live: Interview with Bob Woodward

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 01:49 PM

Cruiser: "I am just trying to comprehend the often incomprehensible: Ergo, how did we let ourselves get into this quagmire?"

Bless you, dianavan, you got there ahead of me and hit the nail on the head: There cannot be democracy without education, in the wider sense of the world. Not just about science but also humanities. You need a populace that is and feels a member "of this world", understanding the cultures, differences, paradoxes and sensitivities that make up the whole of humanity on the planet. All cultures and all countries have their redneck equivalent, but the US has a significant oversupply - and that's what skews the polls, what allows blatant demagogics to win the day. Clearly, if the majority of US voters had the reasoning and educational level of the least of the posters in this thread, GWB would have never got in. Sadly, this is not the case, and he did. And those of us outside can only be frustrated at how such a great country can behave collectively like the worst of banana republics.

So in the short term, what you can do is: educate. Tell people about the wider world. And make sure they read Bob's book or the transcript of the CBS interview. Even if Bob is acting as a mouthpiece for Powell, this does not make the statements and findings untrue.

You have a great political system, with many checks and balances, allowing you to impeach even presidents who break the rules. Here I see two major impeachable actions:

a) He led the country to war under false pretences, planning for it secretly, against the advice of his secretaries of State/Defense, for reasons that are personal to him and "his" God (not mine, I am sure), against a foe that, evil though he undoubtedly was, had given him no overt reason/excuse to shed his own countrymen's blood.

b) He misappropriated funds approved for the Afghanistan war to spend in preparations for the Iraq one, without appropriate authority.

On the way, he trampled all over international law, itself so fragile that it requires the cooperation of all countries, just to keep us from tearing each other apart. I will not compare him to Milosevich, but it seems to me that he is in the same category of individuals who believe themselves above human law.

This last one should put him in the sights of the international court of justice. But the first two, surely lay him open to impeachment?

b)

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 02:11 PM

El Greko - 20 Apr 04 - 01:49 PM

"Here I see two major impeachable actions:

a) He led the country to war under false pretences, planning for it secretly, against the advice of his secretaries of State/Defense, for reasons that are personal to him and "his" God (not mine, I am sure), against a foe that, evil though he undoubtedly was, had given him no overt reason/excuse to shed his own countrymen's blood.

b) He misappropriated funds approved for the Afghanistan war to spend in preparations for the Iraq one, without appropriate authority."

You are talking complete and utter rubbish.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 02:28 PM

Perhaps I am, Teribus. It won't be the first time either. But would you elaborate further? Teach me.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 02:32 PM

I am not being facetious, teribus - I mean it when I say "teach me". I am no expert on the US Constitution. Are the above no impeachable offences then? But if indeed they are not, then I would argue that some checks and balances are missing even from this political system.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 03:22 PM

Still, November is not that far. And Loudon Wainwright III says it all in his new song, just published free over the Internet here.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 03:26 PM

Teribus is no expert on the US Constitution either. In fact, in a post he made about a year ago, he suggested that it's perfectly acceptable for the US government to violate the US Constitution. He doesn't understand the nature of the document at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 03:47 PM

Sometimes it is good to wait a day before responding so you don't look as foolish as Kerry or some of the earlier postings.    Kerry jumped all over the oil deal and than was blown out of the water by Woodward (who stated that Kerry got the story wrong) and by the Saudi Prince who denied a deal and than stated that Clinton and Jimmy Carter had asked him to do the same thing for them.    It made Mike Wallace and John Kerry look very bad.

It was also amusing to hear media elites sarcastically attack Bush for disliking the elites.   At the time, I told my wife that Wallace and Woodward don't get it, and that this would help Bush.    It appears that todays polls support my position.

In another surprise, Bush endorsed the Woodward book today and has it linked to the White House web site.    For all the people who stated that Bush went to war for oil, or to avenge his father- they were blown out of the water and look pretty silly.   Clearly Bush believes it his his job to rid terrorism, implant democracy, and secure America. It was amusing to hear Wallace and Woodward deride Bush for that goal and ask "where in the Constitution" is that is job?   I always thought democrats were for the poor and downtroden and wanted to help these people.    I guess they just get upset when someone actually does it rather than just talking about it.

PS:   Since Congress gave Bush the approoval to attack Iraq it may be hard to make the case that it is an impeachable offence.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 04:36 PM

GUEST, Larry K, Congress may decide that it has been misled by GWB's false pretenses. Surely, that would be impeachable?

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 04:57 PM

Woodward impresses me as someone who is trying very hard to get it 'right', even when he has to slightly back off a bit or find a better way to express a point. His attention to detail and getting QUOTES from the principals is very much like the way he and Bernstein did when tightening the noose around Nixon.
   Sure, the Republicans will 'claim' that the book just shows a 'dedicated' man of principle, buoyed by his faith, striving to do his best for America...let's hope enough people see the shallowness of that interpretation.

We don't need to impeach Bush (it would take PAST Nov., anyway)...we just need to vote him OUT!

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 06:08 PM

" I always thought democrats were for the poor and downtroden and wanted to help these people.    I guess they just get upset when someone actually does it rather than just talking about it."

A clever argument, marred slightly by the fact that the Bushies are just talking aboui it instead of doing it. They are reducing the income tax to a salary tax. They allow more air pollution and call it the Clean Air Act. They've freed a lot of Iraqis by killing them and making an influx of terrorists possible. They support our troops by cutting benefits and by making them buy much of their equipment. And so on and on.

It's not enough to take action; you have to take the proper action for it to do any good.

Look at more than one source of news and commentary. Think. Learn to tell assertion from proof.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 10:59 PM

O.k. so lets wait until Bush is re-elected and then try to impeach him. What does it take to try him for war crimes?

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Strick
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 11:09 PM

Getting a President indicted for war crimes must be pretty hard.

President, Secretaries of State and Defense responsible for war crimes

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 11:44 PM

Interesting article, Strick.

Any follow up? What was the defense and what was the decision?

Any advice regarding the impeachment of Bush in 2005? I think its time to start working on a back-up plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 12:50 AM

Thanks for that link, Strick. It answers a lot of questions I've had for a while now. But it does support the UN as an effective peacekeeping force when governments of powerful countries (like the US government) don't look for ways to sabotage it.

I'd say Clinton is guilty of war crimes, if for no other reason, than because of the use, by the US military, of depleted uranium near civilian populations during his presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 01:03 AM

Ha! I just realized something after reading that article in Strick's link...

Hey DougR! The war in the Balkans wasn't about "wag the dog" after all! It wasn't about Monica Lewinsky. It was about OIL!

Imagine that...

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 02:21 AM

Maybe Bush and Blair should be indicted as well The Use of Depleted Uranium in the 2003 Iraq War.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Strick
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 09:35 AM

"Any follow up? What was the defense and what was the decision?"

Darned if I know. Part of the problem was that "war crimes" mean more than just doing something that seems unsavory. Looking closely at it, Clinton's really quite clean in the Balkins. Too many civilian deaths, true, but not as many as both sides were inflicting on each other. Didn't even know it was an issue until I googled war crimes last year and got hundreds of hits like the one I linked to.

Trouble with a lot of talk about war crimes is that war's messy and no one's that interested in accusing someone else of a "crime" when they might be forced to defend themselves for the same action later. Then, too, the US isn't part of the international organization that prosecutes these things as far as I know. Besides, The Hague is getting a bad rep from the way it's conducting Milosevic's trial, particularly since his defense seems to have the upper hand much of the time.

"But it does support the UN as an effective peacekeeping force when governments of powerful countries (like the US government) don't look for ways to sabotage it."

Carol, in this case it was NATO, not the UN. The UN only got involved after the heavy lifting was done. By an extraordinary cooincidence, the book on war planning I've been reading touched on this this morning. The war in Bosnia wasn't stopped by peacekeepers, the major parties were bribed into "peace". More interestingly, everyone knows that they intend to start fighting again the minute peacekeepers leave. The major parties made that known from the beginning. Looks a lot like Haiti, frankly. Seems better for a while, but once the troops go home, it flares up again.

Worse from some points of view, the other peacekeeping forces in the region consider the US troops wussies (the term used, not mine). They aren't allowed out of their luxurious barracks except to patrol and then only timidly for fear someone will get hurt. They take a lot of teasing from the British and Russian troops about it. It's also instructive to anyone who might have to deal with US peacekeeping forces later. Kill a few peacekeepers and the political cost of keeping them there gets too high for most presidents.

I can't really consider this a success. Frankly, the whole section on what peacekeeping missions are up against in most of the world, is quite depressing.

Sorry, not chance that depleted uranium qualifies as a war crime. It's effects are more serious than that of the all the lead spread around a battlefield, but not much. You know what happens once the lead starts leaching into the water supply, right? (Long post, sorry)

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 03:35 PM

I think you misunderstood me, Strick. I wasn't referring to the NATO intervention in that case. I was referring to the concessions the UN appears to have gotten from the key figures in the region that would have made NATO intervention unnessary, and which the Clinton administration ignored so it could circumvent the UN and strongarm NATO into helping it wage its war of agression in the Balkans. (That is, if the information in your link is accurate.)

On the subject of depleted uranium, we have had discussions here on that one before, and you are operating with flawed information on that one. It is a health hazard when it is transformed into a fine dust and breathed into the lungs. The statistics on numbers of new cases of cancer among people who were present in the area at the time it was used belies the party line on the safety of depleted uranium. It is relatively safe under certain circumstances, and a health hazard under other circumstances.

The use by the US of cluster bombs in populated areas during the Balkans war also is a war crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Strick
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 04:47 PM

Fair enough, Carol. The catch is none of those things are considered war crimes by the major powers or even the court in The Hague. Even the cluster bombs. No one will call them that for fear they'll be tried when the next war breaks out.

I wasn't diminishing the impact of depleted uranium. I was suggesting that the extraordinary impact of lead in battle zones is over looked. Lead's environmental impact is more clearly documented while there are lots of questions how non-radiactive uranium could cause cancers.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 04:58 PM

I don't think depleted uranium is completely non-radioactive. I think that's a misconseption, but I'll have to go back and read up on it before I can answer that one with any degree of confidence. And I seem to recall that uranium is, in and of itself, a carcinogen (when inhaled), but again, I'll have to go back and read up on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Strick
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 05:08 PM

"Depleted uranium results from the enriching of natural uranium for use in nuclear reactors. Natural uranium is a slightly radioactive metal that is present in most rocks and soils as well as in many rivers and sea water. Natural uranium consists primarily of a mixture of two isotopes (forms) of uranium, Uranium-235 (U235) and Uranium-238 (U238), in the proportion of about 0.7 and 99.3 percent, respectively. Nuclear reactors require U235 to produce energy, therefore, the natural uranium has to be enriched to obtain the isotope U235 by removing a large part of the U238. Uranium-238 becomes DU, which is 0.7 times as radioactive as natural uranium. Since DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, there is very little decay of those DU materials."

Remember even granite's radioactive to a degree. People living in stone houses receive much more radiation annually than they would otherwise.

On the other hand it's never a good thing to breath in heavy metals in a powdered form.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 08:46 PM

The way it looks to me is that, in the first place, natural uranium is radioactive. Depleted uranium is slightly more radioactive. Both have fairly low levels of radiation, relatively speaking. But the concentrations of the material found in war zones can cause the radiation levels to become high enough to be a health risk.

Here's some information on it from the Christian Science Monitor:

"One pile of jet-black dust yielded a digital readout of 9,839 radioactive emissions in one minute, more than 300 times average background levels registered by the Geiger counter. Another pile of dust reached 11,585 emissions in a minute.

Western journalists who spent a night nearby on April 10, the day after Baghdad fell, were warned by US soldiers not to cross the road to this site, because bodies and unexploded ordnance remained, along with DU contamination. It was here that the Monitor found the "hot" DU tank round.

This burned dart pushed the radiation meter to the far edge of the "red zone" limit.

A similar DU tank round recovered in Saudi Arabia in 1991, that was found by a US Army radiological team to be emitting 260 to 270 millirads of radiation per hour. Their safety memo noted that the "current [US Nuclear Regulatory Commission] limit for non-radiation workers is 100 millirads per year."

The normal public dose limit in the US, and recognized around much of the world, is 100 millirems per year. Nuclear workers have guidelines 20 to 30 times as high as that."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02-woiq.html

The probem becomes a health hazard when people are exposed to it through ingesting it (when contaminated dust gets on food, or it is found in milk), breathing it, or when the substance is present in their surroundings on a daily basis, as seems to be happening in the residential areas of these war zones.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Strick
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 09:14 PM

"Depleted uranium is slightly more radioactive."

Interesting. It should be dramatically less radioactive than pure, natural uranium. It's the part that's left over after the really radioactive part is removed. U-238 doesn't become radioactive from just being exposed to U-235 (which is why it isn't that useful in bombs or reactors, it's too stable) and I can't imagine any reason just extracting it would make it more radioactive.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 10:02 PM

I've always thought the CSM was reliable; maybe the depleted uranium tank rounds are not pure U238?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Strick
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 10:10 PM

Thought crossed my mind. It wouldn't be pure U-238, naturally, but how could decreasing the U-235 increase radioactivity over the original amount? Trace elements of something else that's not getting extracted? A source of uranium that's tainted? Expose U-238 to enough neutrons and you get plutonium 239 after all. Wouldn't take a very high percentage plutonium to produce this kind of result. It's nasty.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: Strick
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 10:53 PM

This WHO study suggests DU does not contain more than traces of plutonium, etc. and is only 60% as radioactive as pure uranium (a Canadian study says 40%). I don't know. Wonder if they're testing the same stuff. They certainly don't recommend breathing the powder.

Depleted Uranium: sources, exposure and heatlh effects - WHO

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 12:39 AM

I probably misstated when I said that depleted uranium was "slightly more radioactive". I was trying to translate what I had read in your post, Strick, into a form that my number-challenged brain could absorb. But at any rate, it certainly does look like the use of depleted uranium in populated areas is a problem for those who inhabit them, as well as for the service people who come in contact with it in war situations.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: el ted
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 10:30 AM

Boring.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes'
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 02:14 PM

el ted, I find it astonishing that you were stupid enough to read through this whole 100+ post thread if you found it so boring that you just had to comment on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bob Woodward On '60 Minutes' (18-Apr-2004)
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 07:44 PM

Nah, the thread crept off course for the last three days.... It was about GWB, now it is about depleted uranium.
May Uranus never be depleted.
I wish mine would though.