The article continues "We've got to do it under the radar screen because the electoral season is so hot," Hadley is quoted as telling Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is described as challenging the president on the wisdom of sending additional troops to Iraq. "You're not getting a clear picture of what's going on the ground," she told the president, the book says.
The quality and credibility of information about the war's progress became a
source of ongoing tension within the administration, according to the book. Rice complained about the Defense Department's "overconfident" briefings during the tenure of Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Rather than receiving options on the war, Bush would get "a fable, a story . . . that skirted the real problems," Rice is quoted as saying."
The truth is the first casualty in the fog of war-but we didn't have to be there!
The article continues: "According to Woodward, the president maintained an odd detachment from the reviews of war policy during this period, turning much of the process over to Hadley. "Let's cut to the chase," Bush told Woodward, "Hadley drove a lot of this."
Big bro 43 pushed the responsibility onto Hadley, his national security adviser, who started out this term as the guy who took responsibility for the "16 words!" This administration has no ethics, and its immorality regarding Iraq is staggering, and mini-me is in bed with W with the surge, the latest phase of Iraq.
The GOP always trumpets the hypocritical phrase, "The buck stops here!"
The article continues: "In response to a question about how the White House settled on a troop surge of five brigades after the military leadership in Washington had reluctantly said it could provide two, Bush said: "Okay, I don't know this. I'm not in these meetings, you'll be happy to hear, because I got other things to do."
The book presents an evolving portrait of the president's decision-making. On the one hand, the book portrays Bush as tentative and slow to react to the escalating violence in Iraq; on the other, once he decides that a surge is required, he is shown acting with focus and determination to move ahead with his plan in the face of strong resistance from his top military advisers at the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
Any criticism that W failed as a commander-in-chief and "war-time president" is warranted and actually should be increased!
The article continues "In a critical epilogue assessing the president's performance as commander-in-chief, Woodward concludes that Bush "rarely was the voice of realism on the Iraq war" and "too often failed to lead."
During the interviews with Woodward, the president spoke of the war as part of a recentering of American power in the Middle East. "And it should be," Bush said.
"And the reason it should be: It is the place from which a deadly attack
emanated. And it is the place where further deadly attacks could emanate."
The president also conceded: "This war has created a lot of really harsh
emotion, out of which comes a lot of harsh rhetoric. One of my failures has been to change the tone in Washington."
He is trying to return to that lie that he would be a "uniter not a divider." When he started the Iraq theatre of war-which poll after poll the US doesn't consider to be part of the "everlasting war against terrorism-" he lied us into a war of choice that has failed in every aspect. It has cost us too many US military heroes' lives and has raped our resources as he hoped to rape Iraq of its oil resources for his "oil biddness" chums.
Al-Maliki has heard about Woodward's book and has threatened W. That can't help the already tense situation regarding the US Status of Forces agreement with Iraq.
The article "Uncertainty After Anbar Handover -- Fate of U.S.-Backed Sunni Fighters Precarious as Government Targets Force's Leaders" at
amplifies the fact that the surge wasn't the primary factor that has resulted in the recent reduction of violence in Iraq. The Sunnis in the Awakening are being paid by the US. When they stop getting paid they will go back to being the same bunch of Baathist dead-enders who originally fought the US and Shiites back in 2003 , then banded together--along with the "formed as a result of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" al-queda in Iraq, to fight the US and Shiites. When al-queda in Iraq committed too many acts of violence against Sunnis, the Baathist Sunnis rebelled. They started getting paid by the US, but Al-Maliki is planning on paying only 20% of them. The remaining will go back to killing Shiites, and the sectarian violence will continue as it has since before the Ottoman Empire.
The article states "The U.S. military on Monday handed the Iraqi government
control of security in Anbar province, the former Sunni insurgency stronghold
that is now one of the safest areas in the country....
But as Iraqis celebrated the milestone, uncertainty lingered about the future of a linchpin in the effort to secure Anbar and the rest of Iraq: the Awakening movement, a 100,000-person group of former Sunni insurgents who now cooperate with U.S. troops.
The Shiite-led government has recently stepped up a campaign to arrest leaders of the Awakening and dismantle parts of the program, whose members receive $300 a month from the U.S. military. Many fighters have abandoned their posts and fled their homes to avoid detention, stoking fears that some will rejoin the insurgency.
Aides to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki contend that many Awakening members are al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters in disguise. Shiite leaders are also suspicious of armed Sunnis outside their control patrolling the streets. But under heavy U.S. pressure, Maliki has agreed to move at least a fifth into the security forces and train the rest for civilian jobs."