Woodward book is not news!

Woodward says in his book that Bush began planning for the war in iraq right after 911...But according to Paul O'Neill, who was in the loop, said that they began preparing and planning for the war in Iraq from day one!

Why is Woodward getting so much coverage for this when he is wrong?

Does anyone know how Woodward deals with the lies about WMD and the 911 connection in his book? Does he blame the CIA like the rest of the media whores?

...this is a play to protect Junior as much as possible.

his book says that Tenet tells Bush that Saddam has WMD....but the book fails to mention that Tenet never tells Bush that the threat is not imminent, never says that we can be attacked in 45 minutes, mushroom cloud, unmanned aerial drones, nuclear weapons, uranium fron niger, alluminum tubes, 911 connection....so of course Woodward does a great job once again being Bush's lap dog!

Maybe one person is saying they wanted to do it = planning, and the other is saying they started working out how they'd do it = planning.

and within the first month of Bush's pResidency he tells his military people, "find me a way to invade iraq."

I believe the Paul O'Neill book says Bush was talking about invading Iraq right after
he took office.

I also believe the Woodward book says Bush signed the plans to invade Iraq.

I may be wrong, but that is what I think I heard.

invasion and they didn't dream it up the day before.....

...administration who, most vociferously, argued for an invasion of Iraq.

I wonder if Gore was convinced by the PNACers' plea.

no one representing us thinks like I do....

no one ever talks peace,negotiations, co-existence - except the little people (and Kucinich, based on reports posted here).

He didn't exactly preach peace, but he didn't want to invade with no pretext but that which was supplied by the PNAC'ers.

That's politics for you: compromise between the extremes.

I don't know his motive in writing this book. Some of it looks bad for Bush from the excerpts I have read, but I don't think it will be a sellout of GW.

tv star Bart S. sold his soul and hadda chase all over to get it back....woodward don't want his back (betcha lucifer don't want it either) cus it aint worth the trouble of delousing it....

Off the top of my head, I can remember who the actual author is, but its not actually Woodward.

Woodward book may be old news to some degree but the fact that it is consistent with O'Neal's and Richard Clarke's charges is very helpful. Already, Rove and co. had to admit that Bush was working on the invasion of Iraq in November of 2001.

... fortunately, the source is not Bush. However, it is someone close to Bush, most likely Secretary of State Colin Powell.

these stories mesh, they corroborate each other,
No one in the bush administration can give corroborating statements, they give IDENTICAL catch phrases.

You will always have discrepancies in versions of events. eyewitnesses see things from different angles, perspectives and hear things differently( perceive what they heard).

What is consistent in all of these people coming clean is Bush planned for Iraq at least since day-one.
Bush put Terrorist defense on the back burner and turned the burner OFF.
Bush ignored increasing and repeated warnings of an impending terrorist attack that could be spectacular.

The White House can only attack the messengers of these claims, they don't deny anything. they are being hammered with the truth.

Woody - media whore of the year 2003 says the planing began AFTER Afghanistan - therefore didn't interfere with his 9.11 activities. It's a cover up. Please don't buy the lie ot the book.
W was NEVER reluctant, and tenet never told him Iraq was "slam dunk"

Just trying to shift the blame from Bush. Trying to disguise a "tell all" book as more criticism . but in actuality shifting blame from Bush.

Intention vs action?