Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


A Rare look inside Bush's Cabinet.
November 17, 2002 1:06 PM   Subscribe

The Commander in Chief commanding. But while Mr. Bush was waiting for the military, at his direction, the CIA led by George Tenet, was already on the ground buying Afghan warlords. Bob Woodward, reveals this an other behind the scenes activity in the Bush's Cabinet just after 9/11.
posted by hockeyman (9 comments total)

 
Alas, shame no one seems to have bothered about growing the poppies again...Bush and his brother's daughter ought to have an interest in such matters.
posted by Postroad at 1:57 PM on November 17, 2002


A guy who defended Texas from the Viet Cong afraid of a standup fight?

Boy, that's absolutely shocking!

(Here's where the warbloggers have a twitch fit. Like I give a shit.)
posted by mark13 at 3:47 PM on November 17, 2002


mark13: Nah. It's just so September 10.

The Ten Days in September series that ran last fall, on which much of the book's material is based.
posted by dhartung at 6:49 PM on November 17, 2002


I saw bits of the "Sixty Minutes" piece on Woodward's book on TV - sans sound - while having a pint. I had the strangest sense that I was watching something like an MTV produced piece of political hagiography on W Bush. Lots of impressive looking, dramatic stills conveying great drama .....

Apparently, it hasn't occured to Woodward or to anyone else that some of his material may have been canned, scripted by the adroit karl Rove....

Well, I guess Wodward really, really wanted that new chateaux in the Ozarks...
posted by troutfishing at 8:42 PM on November 17, 2002


The 60 minutes piece doesn't do Woodward justice. I haven't read his new book yet, but the Washington Post is (surprise) publishing excerpts of the book in daily articles. The first one ran Sunday, and it's from the perspective of Colin Powell as the sec state takes on Mideast issues

Monday's piece is mostly from Condoleezza Rice's perspective, about the first two months of the war vs. al Qaida

Can't wait for the third one. Oh, and Troutfishing: I don't buy it. Woodward has been playing the journalism game for years, and I doubt the NSC meetings are scripted. What he probably got were meeting notes. Still would like to know how it got it, though.
posted by Happydaz at 12:21 AM on November 18, 2002


It's just so September 10.

Wolf Blitzer seems to agree.
MALVEAUX: We've got a president who has not served, and you can't contest a president who has not served with someone who...
BLITZER: Bush was in the guard.
MALVEAUX: That doesn't count.
BLITZER: What do you mean?
MALVEAUX: Well, he went AWOL.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Let's move on, let's move on.
posted by homunculus at 12:52 PM on November 18, 2002


And I thought liberals were for civilian control of the military. My mistake. Apparently they prefer Heinlein's vision {at least, a popular interpretation of it}. Recent comments seem to indicate a belief on the part of many liberals that the only persons qualified to decide whether or not we go to war are military veterans. A strange position, if true.
posted by dhartung at 1:45 PM on November 18, 2002


Indeed it would be strange, but I am very much for civilian control of the military. What I object to is a draft-dodger being in control of the military. I think Bush's going AWOL should have made him ineligible to be Commander-in-Chief. And I grant that a draft-dodger might be a talented Commander-in-Chief, I just think it's inappropriate in principle. I also object to so-called journalists like Blitzer who refuse to discuss the issue, even though it was relevant to the conversation they were having.
posted by homunculus at 4:16 PM on November 18, 2002


dhartung - I think the point of many liberals (*and quite a few conservatives) is that people in the US military who have actually fought in a war are in a better position to judge the desireability of a war with Iraq than most of us who have not (fought), and that there is a great disconnect between the wolfowitz/cheney/rumsfeld-neocon estimation of the risks (including long term/PR risks) involved in a war with Iraq and the estimation given -in the face of a quite obvious career risk - by previously "conservative" members who have served in the US military during wartime....meaning: If war with Iraq is such a great idea, why are so many republicans trashing their careers over the issue?
posted by troutfishing at 8:37 PM on November 18, 2002


« Older Pssst......  |  The road to Hell ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments