| Author | Message | | owlent | | Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 12:14 am Post subject: Re: WOODWARD BLOWS LID OFF NEOCON CONSPIRACY FOR IRAQ WAR |
| | Alpha wrote: | The interview with B Woodward on Bush. Read the excerpts and visit the link_ Here is a man disconnected from reality.
CBS- 60 Minutes- “Plan of Attack,” ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml )
the first detailed, behind-the-scenes account of how and why the president decided to wage war in Iraq.
Woodward permitted 60 Minutes to listen to tapes he recorded of his most important interviews, to read the transcripts, and to verify that the quotes he uses are based on recollections from participants in the key meetings. Both CBS News and Simon & Schuster, the publisher of Woodward's book, are units of Viacom.
Woodward says that many of the quotes came directly from the president: “When I interviewed him for the first time several months ago up in the residence of the White House, he just kind of out of the blue said, ‘It's the story of the 21st Century,’ his decision to undertake this war and start a preemptive attack on another country."
Another EXcerpt:
Woodward reports that just five days after Sept. 11, President Bush indicated to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that while he had to do Afghanistan first, he was also determined to do something about Saddam Hussein.
”There's some pressure to go after Saddam Hussein. Don Rumsfeld has said, ‘This is an opportunity to take out Saddam Hussein, perhaps. We should consider it.’ And the president says to Condi Rice meeting head to head, ‘We won't do Iraq now.’ But it is a question we're gonna have to return to,’” says Woodward.
“And there's this low boil on Iraq until the day before Thanksgiving, Nov. 21, 2001. This is 72 days after 9/11. This is part of this secret history. President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically, and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, ‘What have yo!
u got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.’"
Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam -- and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
”Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the preparations in Kuwait, specifically to make war possible,” says Woodward.
“Gets to a point where in July, the end of July 2002, they need $700 million, a large amount of money for all these tasks. And the president approves it. But Congress doesn't know and it is done. They get the money from a supplemental appropriation for the Afghan War, which Congress has approved. …Some people are gonna look at a document called the Constitution which says that no money will be drawn from the treasury unless appropriated by Congress. Congress was totally in the dark on this."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woodward says there was a lot happening that only key Bush people knew about.
”A year before the war started, three things are going on. Franks is secretly developing this war plan that he's briefing the president in detail on,” says Woodward. “Franks simultaneously is publicly denying that he's ever been asked to do any plan.”
Another Excerpt:
“That decision was first conveyed to Condi Rice in early January 2003 when he said, ‘We're gonna have to go. It's war.’ He was frustrated with the weapons inspections. He had promised the United Nations and the world and the country that either the UN would disarm Saddam or he, George Bush, would do it and do it alone if necessary,” says Woodward. “So he told Condi Rice. He told Rumsfeld. He knew Cheney wanted to do this. And they realized they haven’t told Colin Powell, the secretary of state.”
Excerpt on Saudi Amb!
assador Prince Bandar:
But, it turns out, two days before the president told Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld had already briefed Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador.
”Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, ‘Top secret. No foreign.’ No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this,” says Woodward.
Excerpt on Saudi Oil & Bush Election:
Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election -- to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.
Woodward says that Bandar understood that economic conditions were key before a presidential election: “They’re [oil prices] high. And they could go down very quickly. That's the Saudi pledge. Certainly over the summer, or as we get closer to the election, they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly.”
Last Excerpt---Chilling
The president still believes with some conviction, that this was absolutely the right thing, that he has the duty to free people, to liberate people. And this was his moment,” says Woodward.
But who gave President Bush the duty to free people around the world? “That's a really good question. The Constitution doesn't say that's part of the commander in chief's duties,” says Woodward. “That’s his stated purpose. It is far reaching, and ambitious, and I think will cause many people to tremble.”
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.”
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.’” | | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 12:48 am Post subject: JINSA/PNAC Neocons Ready to Expand Iraq War to Syria/Iran |
| Israel is the Problem (Our Problem as the 'A Clean Break' JINSA/PNAC Neoconservative document for wider war in the Middle East for Israel is linked in the following URL):
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=1032
Plan of Attack:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2340
George Bush: Neocon Napolean:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2325
** Analysis: US 'emulates' Israeli tactics **:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/04/14/analysis-us-emulates-israeli-tactics.php
The following is in accordance with the JINSA/PNAC Neocon ('A Clean Break' document which is linked in the first URL above) agenda of widening the Iraq war to Syria (with even more American soldiers/marines dying in the process as you can see the coffins coming home from Iraq in the picture at the top of www.whatreallyhappened.com -but the JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocon 'Israel firsters' in the Pentagon don't have too much of a concern about Americans dying for Israel in Iraq and beyond -see the 'War Conceived in Israel' article which is linked under the map of 'greater Israel' after scrolling down to it on the left at http://www.nowarforisrael.com):
NO US SOLDIER SHOULD HAVE TO DIE IN IRAQ FOR ISRAEL TO GET OIL:
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
Eleven US soldiers die as revolt spreads to Syrian border
"Revolt"? How can the people revolt against a foreign government that claims to be liberating them????
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=512807
U.S. Marines engaged in 'silent war' near Syrian border:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_9.html
Yep, Sharon (with the support of the JINSA/CSP/PNAC Zionist extremist Neocons at the Pentagon) is out to start a regional war!
Israel yesterday threatened to strike Damascus. It also warned that the Damascus-based political bureau chief of Hamas, Khalid Meshaal would meet "an identical" fate to the movement's assassinated leader in the Palestinian territories, Abdelaziz Rantissi. "When the opportunity comes to strike at Damascus, we will do it," Minister for Parliamentary Relations Gideon Erza was quoted as saying at Israel's cabinet meeting.
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Articles.asp?Article=79543&Sn=WORL
John Kerry - An Ultra Right Wing Zionist
Israel, more than any other factor or faction, including the oil industry and the WASP old guard, is presently controlling the American political agenda, through its network of influence in the media, the Congress, the policy think tanks and other centers of power."
http://rense.com/general51/kerry.htm
Are Bush and Neo-Cons Finished?
Not until it is revealed that Bush and the Neocons MADE 9-11 happen to jump-start their little war. The subversion of the US to fight a war of conquest for personal profit and for a foreign power is a crime against the people and the world. As commander-in-chief, Bush is personally responsible for the war crimes now being comitted in Iraq.
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=716
Without Reservation
http://militaryweek.com/withoutreservation.shtml
by Karen Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.)
An Honest Appraisal, and the Way Ahead
"April is the cruelest month" is the first line of T.S. Eliot's 1922 epic The Wasteland. These days, our man in Baghdad, Civilian Administrator L. Paul Bremer III, must be wondering if his memoirs of the last year should start with the same line. Upon reflection, back home in Washington, Bremer may wish to appropriate Eliot's title as well.
This April is particularly cruel with bills coming due for a lack of post-invasion planning, failure to develop an exit strategy, and for a persistent glaring void between the ears of the Bush administration regarding Iraq's history, economy and culture. As of this writing, nearly 700 American soldiers have paid the ultimate price for these oversights.
Neoconservatives pleaded and postured for preemptive war in Iraq, but they under-estimated one of the few "successes" of Saddam Hussein's secular dictatorship. Saddam's costly, protracted war with Iran, his failed invasion of Kuwait and the resultant humiliation of a Versailles-esque settlement, plus a dozen years of global sanctions and U.S./U.K. bombings combined, have produced many negative effects. But these realities have transformed various religious and ethnic groups from the provinces into something new: Iraqis against the world.
Iraqi national identity need not be permanent to throw a monkey wrench into the U.S. self-help project in Mesopotamia. Violent civil war or a Czech and Slovak style "velvet divorce" are future options for Iraq. But this month, we've witnessed a predictable side effect of our military and political occupation. Iraqis have heard the words of Mr. Bush, and they seem to agree. You're either with us, or you're against us.
The lies and executive pressure that convinced Congress to grant the current president extraordinary war powers are now behind us. Indeed, politicians usually prove more adept at killing and maiming the younger generations than saving them.
Now is the time for practical, not political, minds to hold sway.
In discussing Iraq, Senator Ted Kennedy recalls Vietnam. He takes grief not for his facts, but because, as a natty neoconservative talking point goes, "Why, his own brother got us into Vietnam!" Robert Dreyfuss reminds us that in 1968, following the Tet Offensive, the party in the White House became traumatized by that war's reality, and fell into disarray. Perhaps this is the one dangerous parallel that agonizes 21st century Republicans. And Senator Robert Byrd equates Tennyson's Charge of the Light Brigade to the modern military blunders of the current administration in a moving address before a nearly empty Senate Chamber.
Conversely, the twenty most influential American newspapers editorialized this week: when it comes to Iraq, we need to stay the course. These editorial boards mean well. But it is clear that they either honestly don't know or perversely refuse to recognize the one fundamental reason why we have had over 135,000 American troops under deadly fire for the past year in Iraq.
Here's a hint: It isn't liberation, democracy, counter-terrorism, a search for weapons of mass destruction, humanitarian concerns, or even oil or Israel's security interests. It is simple geo-strategic military positioning, a classic Cold War model, aimed at punishing future enemies and rewarding allies by leveraging regional oil flow, water allocations, and weapons development. This, and nothing else, explains why the EU is nervous, the Russian President antsy, and the Chinese Prime Minister coy.
Fortunately, we don't have to take the self-serving advice of neoconservatives and editorial boards. We can save our working class sons and daughters from unnecessary death, disease, or lifelong debilitation courtesy this boutique war imposed on us by chickenhawk academics and lying old men. We do have options.
One option is to simply withdraw. Toss a key, or not, over the fence and redeploy home. Write off the whole experiment as a bad decision taken by a mediocre president unrestrained by a frightened Congress, a docile Supreme Court, a lazy domestic media, and a too-busy-to-pay-attention electorate.
This option is typically rejected as immoral and bad for the Iraqi people. Of course, the Bush Doctrine of selective, preemptive, full-scale war based on jury-rigged or incompetent intelligence, and severely outmoded, but cherished, security paradigms gets first prize in the "immoral and bad for the Iraqi people" category.
In keeping with the Administration's preference that things be either/or, there is another option. Toss a hundred keys over a hundred city walls, and militarily pull back into a subset of friendly Guantanamo-style Iraqi outposts. In places like Kurdish Mosul or Shia Basra, we can pick our own friendly hosts and spend the bulk of the $67 billion base building and security money on these must-have facilities. As we withdraw to our friendly zones, we get to keep military access. As cities like Baghdad and Fallujah settle down, we might negotiate with the emergent leadership there for additional military access. Or not.
This is an approach that will save American lives and American tax dollars. It compromises on the American oil and infrastructure development contracts. It won't guarantee that the Mosul-to-Haifa oil pipeline – a booster for the Israeli economy – will be finished on schedule, if ever. It does not protect the right of expatriate crooks like Ahmad Chalabi to run the country under our tutelage.
The "hundred keys" option offers Iraq self rule, but it sacrifices the neoconservatives' adoration for overwhelmingly strong and centralized federal governments. Adding neoconservative insult to injury, this option also requires us to not only decentralize, but give up U.S. control over Iraqi banks and Iraqi oil production.
Yes, changes would have to be made. Doing so sooner rather than later will save American lives, while preserving at least some existing American contracts. It will, in a small way increase unemployment in Iraq, as the U.S. appointed Governing Council, the U.S. appointed bureaucratic Ministers, and the entire American staff of handlers will all be kicked off the rebuild Iraq gravy train funded by American tax dollars.
These are the types of choices that originate from an honest assessment of why we are in Iraq in the first place: military geo-strategic positioning, with a side of economic welfare for a few fat cat American companies. The neoconservative pipe dream of the reformation of Islam, and a stirring of the democratic heart of the Middle East is, as it always was, delusional window dressing.
April was the cruelest month for T.S. Eliot. It is a month of change; a month that breaks comfortable habits without kindness or remorse. When it comes to fixing our Iraq policy, we need only to appraise, with brutal honesty, what we really want and what we are really willing to spend to achieve it. The practical compromises are self-evident. One hopes we might make them before another April rolls around.
© 2004 Karen Kwiatkowski
Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski can be reached at karen@militaryweek.com. | | | | foppe37 | | Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 6:18 am Post subject: Powell |
| Powell just now on tv stated tha he did know in advance of the Iraq invasion plans.
The comment was that he had to, it's deadly for a politician if it looks like he's just dead wood.
Further comment was that Powell was informed late in the decision making process.
A great democracy, the USA, decision to go to war are taken VERY democratically.
Franklin Roosevelt created WW II on his own, BUsh created WW III in the same manner.
Just yesterday in the Middle East Muslims were urged world wide on a Muslim war against USA and Israel publicly.
In my mind this war already became unstoppable after Sharon had, with Bush approval, killed Yassin's successor. | | | | hateliars | | Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 6:21 am Post subject: |
| All I can say is thank god the important people in my country have secret service protection, private security services, and their own bomb shelters.
The peasants are on their own - as it should be. | | | | Anglo Thug | | Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 8:51 am Post subject: Britain was driving force in plans for war on Iraq |
| Britain was driving force in plans for war on Iraq, says Woodward
By Alec Russell in New York and David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 20/04/2004)
The bitter rivalries in President George W Bush's White House were laid bare last night in the most damaging account yet of the covert drive for war against Iraq.
A new book by Bob Woodward, the journalist who uncovered the Watergate scandal, paints a picture of an administration secretly planning for war from late 2001 even as it insisted that conflict was not inevitable.
It also highlights the importance of Tony Blair's support for Mr Bush. "Blair was key," Mr Woodward said yesterday. "He was the partner, a driving force in all of it."
Shortly before the war began, Mr Bush even offered the Prime Minister a chance to avoid committing troops. But Mr Woodward said: "Maybe it was an offer that Bush knew wouldn't be accepted."
On Capitol Hill, there was intense focus on the book's claim that the secret preparations for war in the summer of 2002 - including the renovation of airfields and fuel pipelines in Kuwait - were paid for by siphoning off up to £390 million that Congress had earmarked for Afghanistan and the war on terrorism.
Mr Woodward spelt out the potential legal implications on CBS television, saying: "Some people are going to look at a document called the Constitution which says no money will be drawn from the Treasury unless appropriated by Congress. Congress was totally in the dark on this."
The White House strongly denied any illegal acts, with senior officials briefing that Gen Tommy Franks, the commander in Iraq and Afghanistan, was granted funds by Congress to spend on his theatre of war as a whole.
The book also alleges that Saudi Arabia offered to cut oil prices to boost Mr Bush's re-election chances in November - cheap fuel is one of Americans' most cherished assets.
It says Mr Bush's relations with Saudi Arabia were so close that the Saudi ambassador to the United States was briefed on the preparations for war before many of Mr Bush's top aides.
As the Democrats reacted with outrage yesterday, the Saudis issued a statement denying that they would interfere with the election. The White House launched a damage control operation, all but conceding that the offer had been made.
It denied several other allegations, including the claim that Colin Powell, the secretary of state, was only informed about the push for war after the Saudis.
Conservatives accused Mr Powell of assisting Mr Woodward to boost his own reputation. While Mr Powell has not acknowledged that he was a source, he and his deputy, Richard Armitage, are depicted as agonising over going to war, and abhorring the attempts of "hawks" to push the case with faulty intelligence.
Mr Bush also told Mr Woodward that Dick Cheney, the vice president, had been worried about him co-operating with the book. "He sees this book coming out in an election and again he's just, he's worried about it, just to be frank with you."
Daily Telegraph
_________________
Please sign the petition to prosecute War Criminal Tony Blair | | | | foppe37 | | Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 5:49 pm Post subject: Afghan democrat |
| I forgot his name, he was an Afghan war lord fighting the USSR in Afghanistan before 1989; supported and financed by Uncle Sam Big Satan.
This Afghan understood that he had to learn english, the language or the world's overlords.
In some attack he lost a foot, by a mine, but continued to lead
the attack.
Reagan, you know, the USA actor playing for president, received him.
Before this Afghan was killed in Afghan combat, he had said to USA diplomats:
'you do not have a policy on Afghanistan, you just have the White House, State Department, CIA and Pentagon fighting amongst each other'. | | | | Anglo Thug | | Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 5:57 pm Post subject: |
| Adbul Haq - he started on the right path, drifted to the American side, saw they had no honour and paid the ultimate price for that lesson.
_________________
Please sign the petition to prosecute War Criminal Tony Blair | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 6:02 pm Post subject: Neo-Crazy Coup d'Etat |
| April 20, 2004
Neo-Crazy Coup d'Etat
by Gordon Prather
Perhaps you haven't noticed – certainly the neo-crazies hope you haven't – but we have just experienced a coup d'etat. What's a "coup d'etat"?
Well, according to Edward Luttwak, author of Coup D'etat: A Practical Handbook ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140030387/antiwarbookstore/102-9755787-5668966 ), "A coup consists of the infiltration of a small but critical segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder."
Although neo-crazy media sycophant Melanie Kirkpatrick, associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, doesn't actually say a Luttwak-like "coup d'etat" has taken place, she effectively does.
Douglas Feith's sin is being Donald Rumsfeld's ideas man and one of the brains behind some of the most significant foreign policy and national security advances of the Bush administration. As Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Mr. Feith has transformed a once relatively obscure corner of the Pentagon into the world's most effective think tank. The fact that the president has adopted many of the ideas brewed there infuriates those who see Defense usurping a role that rightly belongs to the State Department.
"Without a doubt, the policy division has the most significant intellectual capabilities in the government," says former Defense Department official Richard Perle, who hired Mr. Feith for the Reagan Pentagon and now sits on the Defense Policy Board. "It's a creative shop that produces a lot of good ideas," says Stephen Hadley, deputy national security adviser and one of the policy group's main customers. "They are prepared to think differently."
Perhaps you're wondering how all this sinning began?
In 1981, at the beginning of the Reagan Revolution, the Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy was created in the Pentagon – at the behest of Sen. Scoop Jackson – for Richard Perle.
Jackson, who died in 1983, and his right-hand man, Perle, had stood out among Democrats in the Carter years, being fiercely anti-Soviet, pro-Israel, and pro-ABM.
Now, the Pentagon does not make U.S. foreign policy. Even military alliances – such as NATO – are negotiated by the U.S. State Department, entered into by the president, and approved by Congress, with very little Pentagon input.
Until neo-crazy Perle was planted in the Pentagon's Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, its principal "mission" had been explicating to the Secretary of Defense the military implications of various U.S. military alliances on our National Security. It was not supposed to concern itself with the political or foreign relations consequences.
The policy office did manage the Pentagon's Foreign Military Sales programs, conducted in support of our military alliances. For example, it managed the billions of dollars worth of arms and military equipment we provide each year to Israel.
The office newly created for Perle subsumed those responsibilities for NATO and Israel, but Perle was given significant new roles and missions, as well.
Perle was to "develop, coordinate and oversee the implementation" of "policy related to arms control negotiations, implementations, and verification," as well as "policy related to U.S. nuclear offensive and defensive forces, including the structure, requirements, and posture of strategic forces, strategic reserve forces, theater nuclear forces, and warning systems; surety, reliability, safety, and security of nuclear forces; and strategic and theater missile defense."
Wow!
Now, establishing Perle's office essentially amounted to a reorganization of the Pentagon, and that required the approval of Congress. Once the reorganization plan had been sent to Congress and approved, President Reagan had then to nominate Perle and the Senate had then to confirm or reject him.
Rarely has any action requiring so much roiling of Pentagon, State Department, White House and congressional turf been accomplished so speedily.
Incredibly, Perle was in office well before June 11, 1981, when eight U.S.-supplied Israeli F-16 aircraft – escorted by six U.S.-supplied Israeli F-15 fighter escorts – preemptively destroyed Saddam Hussein's Osiraq reactor.
Perle became Chairman of the NATO High-Level Group and was soon a strap-hanger – and allegedly more – at Reagan-Gorbachev summits.
When Perle left, he attempted to have his neo-crazy understudy, Frank Gaffney, succeed him, but the Senate wouldn't have it. But when George Bush became President, a gaggle of neo-crazies – Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Stephen Hadley and others – took over the Pentagon policy shop.
They tried – but failed – to get Bush the Elder to inflict "regime change" on the Islamic world. Now, they've succeeded with Bush the Younger. In succeeding, they've liberally cribbed from Luttwak's book, appearing to have embraced this maxim:
"Our first objective will be achieved by conveying the reality and strength of the coup instead of trying to justify it. ..."
Copyright 2004 WorldNetDaily, reprinted with author's permission.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/prather.php?articleid=2343 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 6:13 pm Post subject: Re: Britain was driving force in plans for war on Iraq |
| | Anglo Thug wrote: | Britain was driving force in plans for war on Iraq, says Woodward
By Alec Russell in New York and David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 20/04/2004)
The bitter rivalries in President George W Bush's White House were laid bare last night in the most damaging account yet of the covert drive for war against Iraq.
A new book by Bob Woodward, the journalist who uncovered the Watergate scandal, paints a picture of an administration secretly planning for war from late 2001 even as it insisted that conflict was not inevitable.
It also highlights the importance of Tony Blair's support for Mr Bush. "Blair was key," Mr Woodward said yesterday. "He was the partner, a driving force in all of it."
Shortly before the war began, Mr Bush even offered the Prime Minister a chance to avoid committing troops. But Mr Woodward said: "Maybe it was an offer that Bush knew wouldn't be accepted."
On Capitol Hill, there was intense focus on the book's claim that the secret preparations for war in the summer of 2002 - including the renovation of airfields and fuel pipelines in Kuwait - were paid for by siphoning off up to £390 million that Congress had earmarked for Afghanistan and the war on terrorism.
Mr Woodward spelt out the potential legal implications on CBS television, saying: "Some people are going to look at a document called the Constitution which says no money will be drawn from the Treasury unless appropriated by Congress. Congress was totally in the dark on this."
The White House strongly denied any illegal acts, with senior officials briefing that Gen Tommy Franks, the commander in Iraq and Afghanistan, was granted funds by Congress to spend on his theatre of war as a whole.
The book also alleges that Saudi Arabia offered to cut oil prices to boost Mr Bush's re-election chances in November - cheap fuel is one of Americans' most cherished assets.
It says Mr Bush's relations with Saudi Arabia were so close that the Saudi ambassador to the United States was briefed on the preparations for war before many of Mr Bush's top aides.
As the Democrats reacted with outrage yesterday, the Saudis issued a statement denying that they would interfere with the election. The White House launched a damage control operation, all but conceding that the offer had been made.
It denied several other allegations, including the claim that Colin Powell, the secretary of state, was only informed about the push for war after the Saudis.
Conservatives accused Mr Powell of assisting Mr Woodward to boost his own reputation. While Mr Powell has not acknowledged that he was a source, he and his deputy, Richard Armitage, are depicted as agonising over going to war, and abhorring the attempts of "hawks" to push the case with faulty intelligence.
Mr Bush also told Mr Woodward that Dick Cheney, the vice president, had been worried about him co-operating with the book. "He sees this book coming out in an election and again he's just, he's worried about it, just to be frank with you."
Daily Telegraph |
Blair is a puppet of the Zionists (who pushed the UK/USA to war in Iraq for Israel) as well ( http://www.nowarforisrael.com ):
Based on what I mentioned in reply to your email on Michael Howard, I think you will find the following URLs to be most interesting (keep in mind what I mentioned about the Zionist connection to Blair with Murdoch and 'Lord' Levy as well as Howard is now trying to get AEI/Neocon funder/supporter Rupert Murdoch to support him according to the following URL)
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,12123,1174060,00.html
http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/levy.html
http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/britain/levy.htm
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2000/06/26/News/News.8730.html
In a message dated 4/13/04 1:44:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Subj:Re: m. howard
Date:4/13/04 1:44:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
In a message dated 4/12/04 8:18:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Subj:m. howard
Date:4/12/04 8:18:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time
You may have caught this already --- but Tony Blair has lost serious points over his handling of Iraq....
But rather than capitalize on those points to win for Tory party, Howard is
supporting Blair in Iraq effort, entirely, except that he wants UK to have larger role in post war arrangements.
What is even more striking is reports from DC that the political classes
ensured that public did not debate merit of going into Iraq...(remember how they
were strangely muted?)
Incredible but not surprising considering that Howard is Jewish (apparently a Zionist Jew too as neocon supporter Rupert Murdoch has mentioned that he has been in talks with Howard about possibly supporting him in the next election as it was Murdoch's 'News of the World' publication which helped put Blair into power and Murdoch and Lord Levy (who is also a Zionist Jew with a business and residence in Israel as he is also Blair's tennis partner and is the roving Ambassador for Blair to the Middle East) have had Blair as their goyim puppet since helping get him into power.. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
