(mr ed)
so this is the lead para about woodards book...

"Two months before the invasion of Iraq, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell warned President Bush about the potential negative consequences of a war, citing what Mr. Powell privately called the "you break it, you own it" rule of military action, according to a new book."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/17/international/middleeast/17BOOK.html?pagewanted=all&position=

devastating, bob! it looks like more rovian faux-crisis stuff...

there is one interesting para:
"In calls by satellite phone to the C.I.A. team, the Iraqi sources reported that Mr. Hussein's sons Uday and Qusay were at the compound, and that Mr. Hussein himself would return there. After the strike, the book says, one Iraqi source reported Mr. Hussein's body had been removed from the wreckage, prompting Mr. Tenet to celebrate what he thought had been a success."

its interesting for a few reasons - the main one being that the official story therefore seems to inadvertently suggest that they thought that he was coming back there, but didnt know whether he was there or not yet. so rather than watch the place and see if saddam comes a visiting, they attack the house (not a compound btw) - with 400 or something grunts and aerial attacks and stuff for a few hours. i think the story is that the 2 sons were there with a grandfather and a 14 yearold. its not obvious why they didnt try to take them alive for intelligence value...

and then this:
"a C.I.A. official said on Friday that the agency maintained that Mr. Hussein was "probably" there and survived the American raid."
??? if he survived the raid, how the fuck did he get away?

"Mr. Woodward's book reports that the Iraqi security guard who was the main source of the intelligence was killed in the American attack"
its not obvious how anyone needed to die - particularly people on our side given that it was 400 vs 4 people. and i guess it was just a damn shame that our guy had to be the unlucky one. shame we cant validate the story then...

and then this ripper:
"Among the previously unknown episodes presented in the book was a White House meeting in December 2002 in which Mr. Tenet and his deputy, John McLaughlin, met with Mr. Bush and his top advisers for what was intended as a dress rehearsal for a public presentation of the administration's claim that Iraq possessed illicit weapons.
Mr. Bush was not impressed by the presentation, the book reports, and urged that it be refined to make a stronger case to "Joe Public." He is said to have turned to Mr. Tenet and said, "I've been told all this intelligence about having W.M.D. and this is the best we've got?""
'previously unknown' indeed. and i cant even dare think about what it means that the unPrecedent sees the wmd info *for the first time* at *dress rehearsal* time.

(assuming that this article reflects the book) woodard seems like a gop shill, and therefore anything that comes out of it is faux-crisis. and it also points to my argument that clarkes book was the same, and prolly oneills as well, (not that ive read any of them, but that doesnt really matter cos i am da mediaologist!). it also means that with all future apparent crises, we need to ask whether they are rovian, and not get sucked into each battle. (it seems that woodward got a lot of access - thats curious of itself)



i long for a story that makes sense.


__________________________________________________
but we were *saving* the village
wotisitgood4.blogspot.com