WOODWARD says...

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TaurusCIA

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
317
Location
NC
KING: We have made the connection. With us on the phone is Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia. Who wants to go first? Do you hear Bob OK, Prince?

WOODWARD: Have you read the book, ambassador?

BANDAR BIN SULTAN, SAUDI AMBASSADOR TO U.S.: No, but I read snippets of it.

WOODWARD: The parts pertaining to you, and there seems to be some contention about this meeting January 11 in the White House. You know, Don Rumsfeld is on record saying he looked you in the eye and said, "you can take this to the bank, Ambassador, this is going to happen," and the "this" is the war plan. And...

KING: I'll let him respond to that part. Prince, is that true?

BIN SULTAN: Larry, number one, Bob Woodward is a first class journalist and reporter. And ...

KING: OK, and number two?

BIN SULTAN: And number two, I will never contradict Bob Woodward.

WOODWARD: OK.

KING: So what's number three?

BIN SULTAN: And number three is, what he said is accurate. However, there was one sentence that was left out.

KING: And that is?

BIN SULTAN: Both Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld told me before the briefing that the president has not made a decision yet, but here is the plan, and then the rest is accurate.

WOODWARD: Then why would they say, "You can take this to the bank, it's going to happen," and then, as I understand it, the vice president said, "when this starts Saddam is toast." Is that correct?

BIN SULTAN: This is absolutely correct, but underlined when, because my response was last time we tried this, we left Saddam in place, and I don't think anybody in the Middle East would like to try this again if Saddam would stay in place, and that's the rest of the story. So what Bob said was accurate, except that I was informed that the president has not made a decision yet.

WOODWARD: But then why would they have the meeting to contradict what you're saying, Ambassador? And you have not read the transcripts of my interview with the president, and the president said to you that the message they sent to you was his message. This is, you know, as everyone knew, there was extensive planning going on for war. Why would they have this meeting to tell you a maybe? Doesn't make sense.

BIN SULTAN: Because the whole aspect is that the president, if I make the decision, this plan, you can take it also to the bank, like what's his name, Rumsfeld, said.

Remember, Bob, I was briefed by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and by General Powell about Plan 1001, and at that time, we were not sure if the Americans...

WOODWARD: This was for the first Gulf War.

BIN SULTAN: ... were going to go to war or not.

WOODWARD: Right. And -- but they didn't tell you, "You can take this to the bank, this is going to happen." I, you know, if we were to get out the...

KING: Let's ask it this way. Prince Bandar, after that meeting, did you think they were going to war?

BIN SULTAN: I was -- to be honest with you, not sure, but I was -- my gut feeling was telling me that if Saddam Hussein does not respond the right way, yes, they were going to go to war, but I can -- must emphasize that this is January. Between January and March, everybody emphasized to me that they want to go to the U.N. They want to try all other venues. But if Saddam does not respond positively, then they have to be ready. I think this president was thinking, "I cannot bluff," and President Johnson always, I was told, said, "Don't tell a fellow to go to hell unless you intend to send him there," and I think President Bush was intending to send Saddam to hell if he does not respond.

KING: Let me get in one more thing, Prince Bandar.

BIN SULTAN: Yes, sir.

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.

KING: Do you want President Bush...

BIN SULTAN: But that was not a deal.

KING: Do you want President Bush to be reelected?

BIN SULTAN: We always want any president who is in office to be reelected, Larry, but that is the American choice. This is not our call. This is the American people's call.

KING: OK, I think we've cleared up... WOODWARD: Could I just, I'm sorry to go back on this, but Prince Bandar, why would the president tell me on the record two days later that he called Colin Powell in and said he had decided on war? This was a 12-minute meeting. I went through this for some time with the president, and then the president would ask Powell, "will you be with me?" And Powell said, "I will be with you. I will support a war," and then the president said to former General Powell, now Secretary of State Powell, "time to put your war uniform on."

I know that Powell left that meeting saying, he's going to do it. He had made that decision, and you look at what Rumsfeld has said and others, and as you may be aware, there might be tape recordings that would show that the version I have is the accurate one. What's going on here?

BIN SULTAN: Bob, I believe Secretary Powell/General Powell's response does not surprise me. He's a very loyal soldier and a statesman. And I believe he puts a lot of weight on loyalty, and he disdains disloyalty. Therefore, I believe if your account is accurate, which I have no reason to discount it, that general -- Secretary Powell told the president his views. Once the commander in chief made his mind up, General Powell -- Secretary Powell decided it's right to support the commander-in-chief.

KING: I got to get a break.

BIN SULTAN: That is the only thing I can say about this.

KING: Thank you, Prince Bandar, thank you for responding to our call. That's Prince Bandar, the ambassador from Saudi Arabia.

...

WOODWARD: ... years going back to Nixon. I've heard all of them. This goes in the hall of fame. This does, because what he says is yes your account of the meeting saying you can take it to the bank is accurate, but we had a discussion before saying the president hasn't decided. I mean, why would you have that discussion before, and then go through the charade of a meeting saying oh, can you count on this and you can take it to the bank, and he's going to be toast?

I mean, that goes in the hall of fame of dodges and fishy explanations. I think it should get an Academy Award.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/19/lkl.00.html
Click to expand...


Poor old WOODY is so confused...

Let's see if we can help him. If we go to Iraq we will finish it. We are drawing up the war plan in case the UN resolution is not honored.
 
Rumsfeld Remark On War Disputed
Comment Was Deleted From Transcript
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 21, 2004; Page A01

The Pentagon deleted from a public transcript a statement Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made to author Bob Woodward suggesting that the administration gave Saudi Arabia a two-month heads-up that President Bush had decided to invade Iraq.

At issue was a passage in Woodward's "Plan of Attack," an account published this week of Bush's decision making about the war, quoting Rumsfeld as telling Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, in January 2003 that he could "take that to the bank" that the invasion would happen.

The comment came in a key moment in the run-up to the war, when Rumsfeld and other officials were briefing Bandar on a military plan to attack and invade Iraq, and pointing to a top-secret map that showed how the war plan would unfold. The book reports that the meeting with Bandar was held on Jan. 11, 2003, in Vice President Cheney's West Wing office. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also attended.

Pentagon officials omitted the discussion of the meeting from a transcript they posted on the Defense Department's Web site Monday. Rumsfeld told reporters at a briefing yesterday that he may have used the phrase "take that to the bank" but that no final decision had been made to go to war.

"To my knowledge, a decision had not been taken by the president to go to war at that meeting," Rumsfeld said. "There was certainly nothing I said that should have suggested that, and any suggestion to the contrary would not be accurate."
…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28729-2004Apr20.html

Neo-con historical revisionists. They don't like what they said, so they go back and delete their statements from the books.
 
W4rma, you didn't address the issue that was raised. To wit:

Did Rumsfeld tell Bandar he could "take it to the bank" that the U.S. was going to invade no matter what, or did he tell Bandar he could "take it to the bank" that the proposed war plan would include removing Saddam for good and not leaving him in place?

Your cut-and-paste doesn't answer that question. I think you may be forced to type some of your own thoughts on this one.


I would also point out that just because a subordinate says you can take it to the bank that his boss will do such-and-so does not mean the boss has made his decision. Learned that the hard way. :rolleyes:

Other gems our drive-time liberal radio host here locally was gleefully spinning as smoking guns:

1. BUSH ADMITTED THAT THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN WAS ONLY A PRETEXT USED TO COVER UP PRE-INVASION ACTIVITIES IN IRAQ!!!!
Evidence: Woodward says on page 136 that he said to Bush that the pre-invasion activities in the Iraq region were "covert, dangerous and expensive." Bush replied, according to Woodward, "Yup, right." Clearly this proves that the war in Afghanistan was nothing but a feint, with Iraq the only real target all along.

2. BUSH WAS BRIEFED ON "IRAQ AND OTHER THREATS" IN HIS FIRST MONTH!!!!!!
It's true, there's a line in the book where Cheney says to some CIA guy "we need to get the President briefed up on some things" including "Iraq and some other threats."
That's it. That's the smoking gun. They held BRIEFINGS!

I mean, I live in Illinois, where governors pardon gangsters who shoot police. I've studied Chicago, where Da Mayor is still insisting that he doesn't know those Duff guys and he sure never knew they were connected to the mob (he thought all the mobsters worked in the Street, Sanitation, Purchasing and Parks departments) and he certainly, absolute, positively doesn't know how they got $100 million in Chicago contracts that were supposed to be for minority women-owned businesses even though they're all white male mobsters.
But you just don't want to believe that things have gone so far down the spiral of depravity that public officials have sunk to the point of flaunting BRIEFINGS right out in public like that!

Disgusting.
 
Did Rumsfeld tell Bandar he could "take it to the bank" that the U.S. was going to invade no matter what, or did he tell Bandar he could "take it to the bank" that the proposed war plan would include removing Saddam for good and not leaving him in place?
Click to expand...
As I said above: Neo-con historical revisionists. They don't like what they said, so they go back and delete their statements from the books.

Rumsfeld has played this trick before:

Rumsfeld 'unaware' of WMD claim

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he cannot remember hearing the claim that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.
…
Asked his view of the claim, Mr Rumsfeld told reporters at a Pentagon briefing: "I don't remember the statement being made, to be perfectly honest."
…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3478051.stm

Radio Address by the President to the Nation
…
The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.
…
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020928.html

Insane.
 
Context, context, context....


US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today he did not recall British Prime Minister Tony Blair's pre-war claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ready to be deployed in 45 minutes.

"I don't remember the statement being made, to be perfectly honest," Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news conference.

General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he didn't remember the statement either.

The claim made headlines around the world after Blair levelled it in a 55-page "white paper" presented to the House of Commons in September 2002.

The dossier said Iraq had military plans to use chemical and biological weapons and "some of these weapons could be deployed within 45 minutes of an order to use them."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/11/1076388402238.html?from=storyrhs
Click to expand...

Was it that "he did not recall British Prime Minister Tony Blair's pre-war claim"

OR

That he didn't recall President Bush had repeated it in a radio address.

What was the full context of the question???:confused:



Now back to the topic of the thread....

The context of Woodward's claim that the decision was already made and that the Saudis knew before Powell has been disputed by all parties that he reportedly used for the source of his claims.

BIN SULTAN: ... what Bob said was accurate, except that I was informed that the president has not made a decision yet.
 
With all due respect, I believe Bob Woodward attended the same classes film writer/director Oliver Stone did: The University of Alternative Realities, College of Journalism, How to present fiction as fact 101.
 
Woodward claimed that SecOState Powell was "out of the loop" on Operation Iraqi Freedom and was told about the invasion after the Saudis were told.

Powell's response to that was, [close paraphrase] "Out of the loop?!!? I was a four-star General. I was Chariman of the Joint Chiefs. I helped to design the battle plan."

Woodward is just simply amazing (and not in a good way).

Rick
 
I wonder how many of the Bush defenders here defended Nixon against Woodward back before Nixon resigned in shame (or *after* Nixon resigned in shame, for that matter).

WOODWARD, BERNSTEIN STILL LEGENDS 30 YEARS LATER
MU Researcher Finds ‘President’s Men’ Preferred Text On Watergate
http://www.missouri.edu/~news/releases/augsept02/watergate.html
That he didn't recall President Bush had repeated it in a radio address.
Click to expand...
And at least a couple of other well publicized places, too.

Global Message
…
The danger is grave and growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons and is rebuilding facilities to make more. It could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb -- and, with fissile material, could build one within a year.
…
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-19.html

President Bush Discusses Iraq with Congressional Leaders
Remarks by the President on Iraq
The Rose Garden
…
The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given.
…
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-7.html
 
Ah yes, the Nixon card

That was back when a President actually had a sense of shame and knew when to leave office. His own party actually asked him to leave for the good of the nation and the party and he did. What a concept, huh?. And Nixon wasn't even convicted of perjury or had to have his law license revoked.

A sense of shame is something we have been sorely lacking from '92 to '00, haven't we?

I'm real sorry but Woodward, Bernstein, Mailer, Chomsky et. al. are aging short sighted heroes of the lefties, like your little band of Bush hating buddies over at DU. Not for the whole country.

Their last great Hurrah was in 1975 ... and that led us to Jimmy Carter.

That was a really good trade off for the country.

Jimmy Carter, one of your heroes I'm sure, a guy that brought us double digit unemployment and interest rates, a new word, "Stagflation" had to be created for the economic chaos his policies created and made the US the designated butt monkey of every middle eastern tinpot Ayatollah. Hasn't that paid off well for all of us?

I love the strategy the left is using. Publish a new "Bash Bush" book every 4 to 6 weeks and have it reviewed quickly by every left newspaper and broadcast outlet. That way all the hard core "Anybody But Bush" types will run out and wind up spending $24.95 every month or so to reinforce their own beliefs instead of contributing to Kerry.

And please, please stop using that trite and meaningless phrase "Neo-Cons" as if it really meant something outside of a narrow band of frightened people that need someone to blame for their ongoing loss of electoral power and control, besides the electorate that doesn't vote for them.

NeoCon is so last year and makes you sound so incredibly desperate.

Just stick to letting us all know how Al Franken and Randi Rhodes are doing. Have they shown up in the rating books yet? I heard that Randi did a great anti gun and anti NRA rant last week. Did you give her a call to tell her how wrong she is about gun control?

Or is it all another VWRC to keep liberals off the radio?

(The irony of the Liberal network suing a company called Multicultural Broadcasting is not lost on me.)
 
Blahdy blahdy yoodle yoodle.... still votin' for Bush. Election year politics are disgusting.

The nation is at war. Kerry promises us candy. Bush promises us action.

Adults know which to choose.

Tim
 
I didn't vote for Bush. I won't be voting for Bush.

So I can be objective about this.

He's running a war. He's conducting int'l diplomacy with allies. The Saudis may be scumbag allies, but hey, at least they're not the FRENCH.

Nothing here is really surprising or disturbing, unless you're a black helicopter, "Bush has 'connections,'" 'neo-con' referencing paranoid conspiracy freak.

Nothing to see here, move along.
 
Once more, the left has positioned itself in a way that what is good for our country is bad for them. What is bad for our country is good for them. If the war in Iraq goes badly, then it is bad for the US, but great for the left. If the economy goes south, it's bad for our country and great for the left. All these leftist morons are praying (well not praying...but maybe meditating real hard) that things will go bad for the US: the economy will go South, and that US soldiers will die, all so they can have their Socialists and commnist leaders back in office to further wreck our country and attempt to transform it into a socialist hellhole. When you put yourself in a position that what is bad for the country is good for you, it's not a very good place to be, but this is specifically where the left stands...against the United States of America.
 
Neo-con historical revisionists. They don't like what they said, so they go back and delete their statements from the books.
Click to expand...

Well the part that was removed is available on the Washington Post web site.

I didn't find that section of the edited document to compare it to because it's a long transcript.

However in the part that was edited out Rumsfeld is reciting a discussion from memory that happened approximately about 9 months before that? He's obviously a little foggy about the details, and says in that transcript that he they are going to need to "clean this up some in the transcript" because Woodward is making assumptions about the conversation that Rumsfeld isn't sure are correct.

However, this conversation is the whole basis for Woodward accusing the President of having made up his mind to attack Iraq despite the results of our efforts to pressure Sadam to comply with the UN resolutions.

Does that really make sense? Do you really think we would have attacked Iraq if Sadam complied with the resolutions and gave the inspectors unhindered access? Sadam could have stopped us from attacking by complying. Our legal justification for attacking was his non-compliance.

There is plenty of evidence that while we were committed to removing Sadam if he didn't comply, we wouldn't attack if he did.

However, Woodward takes this one comment by Rumsfield that isn't necessisarily in context, and isn't clear that it means what he interpreted it to be, to be clear evidence that we had already decided to go to war at that point regardless of what happened.

Think about it. DOes it really make sense to tell the allies you want support from that you've already made up your mind when you're asking for support? Don't you think we'd have to consider wether or not we have support from the countries surrounding Iraq, considering we need to use those nations as a base of opperations?

Woodward's interpretation just doesn't add up.

When you have a single situation that isn't clear I would think a responsible journalist would look at how that situation fits with other available informantion. Woodward appears to have already made up his mind, and then looked for something resembling evidence of his position. He found a nice catch phrase of "you can take it to the bank" by Rumsfield which will stick in people's minds to use, and then ignores that his interpretation of how that phrase was used doesn't fit with the other available facts.
 
U.S. Ready To Fine Riggs Bank
Saudi Embassy Money Reports Scrutinized

By Kathleen Day and Terence O'Hara
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, April 18, 2004; Page A01

Federal bank regulators are preparing to impose fines on Riggs Bank as soon as this week for not reporting millions of dollars in suspicious transactions at its embassy banking division, and have notified bank officers and directors that they may be sanctioned individually, according to people familiar with the investigation.

Those notified include Chairman Robert L. Allbritton; his mother, Barbara B. Allbritton, a director; and the nine other members of the bank's board, according to the sources.

The penalties would come as the FBI, bank regulators and three congressional committees continue to delve into Riggs's international banking relationships, particularly its two-decade role as chief banker for the Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington.

Investigators are looking at the Saudi accounts for evidence of money laundering, which is the use of complex transactions to hide the origin or destination of funds related to illegal activities such as drug smuggling or terrorist acts. The investigators have reached no conclusions about the reasons for the transactions in the embassy accounts, including the personal accounts of the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20942-2004Apr17.html
 
W4rma, you are a hoot.

I don't think everyone understood what you said to me, though, so allow me to translate:

"No, Don, I'm not going to address that question no matter what you say. Instead, watch as I repost the same boilerplate I just cut and pasted for your reading pleasure."

And now you're posting a bunch of stuff about the President saying Iraq had WMD's on the radio, as if Bush has ever claimed that he didn't say Iraq had WMD's. Where's the "revision?" Bush has never tried to say that he didn't say Iraq had WMD's. He even joked about it at the press dinner, if you'll recall.
It's a dishonest thing for you to do, sir.

I also think it's hilarious that you're here screaming to anyone who will listen that Bob Woodward has finally brought the Bush White House to its knees and the victory of the proletariat is at hand, while the Bush White House is linking to Woodward's book on its website. :cool:
http://www.whitehouse.gov


I very rarely feel anything but respect for Woodward as a journalist, by the way. I just don't necessarily agree with him, especially without reading his book. I don't think that's at all unreasonable. I wore out a softcover edition of The Brethren some time ago and picked up a hardcover edition a few days ago. A serious tilt toward the left is very clear in that book, as he concentrates on making the "conservative" Justices look like bumbling old men and gives the "liberal" justices passes on some goofy things they do, but overall it's worth reading to see how unimportant the Constitution really is to anyone on the Supreme Court (or at least how bad it was in the 1970's.)
 
Don Gwinn, I answered your question (even worse, the question you asked, I had already answered in a previous post), specifically and in detail with facts and sources to back up my position. Try responding to what I said, instead of pretending I only posted quotes from the sources which backed up what I said.
Did Rumsfeld tell Bandar he could "take it to the bank" that the U.S. was going to invade no matter what, or did he tell Bandar he could "take it to the bank" that the proposed war plan would include removing Saddam for good and not leaving him in place?
Click to expand...
As I said above, twice: Neo-con historical revisionists. They don't like what they said, so they go back and delete their statements from the books.

What are you looking for? Do you want me to elaborate? Rumfeld said what he said and it was transcribed by his people. About a year later folks read what he said and get angry at his words because now folks are seeing through their con game as it becomes more and more obvious to even the most zealot followers that Iraq isn't a "cakewalk" and is in fact a humongous money sink that has a good chance of becoming another Iran *because* of their extremely expensive con. His response? Rewrite history: delete the offending line from his transcript and assert that he actually said something else.
 
the question you asked, I had already answered in a previous post), specifically and in detail with facts and sources to back up my position.
Click to expand...

Please post links to relevant previous posts and don't assume everyone has read everything you have written. Thank you.
 
It is a good thing that presidential elections only happen every four years. If they were any more frequent one might be tempted to hunt certain people down.
 
You still didn't address the issue that you didn't answer his question. Are you planning to? Hell, I'd be impressed if you just posted a thread without posting a link to some socialist/communist news source.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
How Deep Does it Have to Get?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
TaurusCIA
T
M
  • Locked
ABC: Pakistan will not arrest bin Laden, Taliban weapons returned
Replies
24
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
J
  • Locked
Washington Post/ Mary McGrory "I'm Persuaded"
Replies
4
Views
670
Viking6
V
T
  • Locked
Dossier shows France briefed Iraq on U.S. plans
Replies
4
Views
512
PATH
P
2
  • Locked
Things get sticky for Mid East Tyrants
Replies
2
Views
598
fmjcafe
F
Back
Top