Now THIS Is Interesting...

Bob Woodward gave a speech to a crowd of 500 business and community leaders in San Antonio. He said some extremely interesting things in that speech. It is worth noting that for his lastest book he was allowed to interview Bush for 3 1/2 hours, the longest interview of any sitting President.

Btw, I hope they do run Cheney for President in 2008. [Libby]


Woodward warns of secrecy trend

Web Posted: 02/22/2006 12:00 AM CST
Tracy Idell HamiltonExpress-News Staff Writer

The greatest threat to America's democracy is not terrorism but governmental secrecy, said Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Bob Woodward, whose reporting almost 35 years ago pierced the veil of secrecy behind Richard Nixon's presidency.

Although a massive, coordinated attack on the country, making 9-11 look like a "footnote," is still possible, the nation faces a greater threat from the federal government's current secrecy drive, Woodward told an audience in San Antonio on Tuesday.

"Democracies die in darkness," Woodward told the 500-person crowd of mostly business and community leaders as part of Trinity University's policy maker breakfast series, a 25-year tradition.

The Bush administration, which gave Woodward remarkable access for his two books on the administration's war on terror, "Bush At War," in 2002 and "Plan of Attack," in 2004, has cloaked its decision-making in "an immense amount of secrecy," he said, "too much, in my view."

The administration says it needs to work in secret because of the nature of the Iraqi war and the surprise tactics terrorists rely on.

He also faulted a round-the-clock news cycle that emphasizes speed over accuracy and demands that journalists not just report but predict the future.

Having a year to work on his latest book, about Bush's decision to launch the Iraqi war, he said, allowed him to gather an immense amount of information from a variety of sources.

He then wrote a 21-page memo to the president, outlining what he had learned.

Jokes aside about whether the president reads 21-page memos, Woodward said he was given 31/2 hours to interview the president. He called it the longest interview a sitting president has ever granted.

The resulting book, "Plan of Attack," tries to offer "understanding and perspective, not to condemn, or endorse, but to explain" what happened during the 16 months he said it took Bush to decide to go to war.

"And make no mistake, it was Bush's decision," he said, although he called Vice President Dick Cheney "a steam rolling force" in the process.

At the beginning of his talk, Woodward asked for a show of hands from those who voted for Bush in 2004.

Most in the crowd raised their hands.

But fewer hands were raised when he asked if attendees believed in Bush's tax cuts, and whether they agreed with Bush's decision to launch a secret wiretap program to listen in an unknown number of domestic communications to overseas telephones without court-issued warrants.

When he asked the crowd if it believed, with the benefit of hindsight, if going to war was "necessary and wise," fewer than half the room's hands went up.

After noting that the results of the last question of his unscientific poll could spell trouble for the administration, he told the crowd that all the questions were really just tricks, to see how many "rich nosy warmongering Republicans" were in the room.

"A lot, I see," he said, drawing laughs. "And very proud of it, I can see."

But it is not just governments that keep secrets; Trinity declined to say how much it paid Woodward.

A report by the Toronto Sun estimated his fee at between $20,000 and $30,000.

By comparison, Tour de France cyclist Lance Armstrong, golfer Arnold Palmer and former President George Bush make about $100,000 per engagement.

Woodward said the possibility of "the Mideast imploding," cannot be dismissed, and that his darkest fear, shared by some in the intelligence community, is that terrorists are waiting until "multiple, high-stakes attacks" can be launched on U.S. cities and targets.

He said, "9-11 will be a footnote, but it could happen, and if it does, we will become a police state."

Even as he scolded the media's tendency to prophesy the future, Woodward offered his prediction for the 2008 presidential race.

By all indications, he said, Democrat Hillary Clinton is running.

He noted that Republicans have a long track record of nominating "old war horses."

Given that, and depending on how things in Iraq proceed, "You're going to think I'm crazy, but you heard it here first. I think they could nominate Dick Cheney."

You Know You Are Still A Republican If...

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION by Jimmy Lohman

You are more upset about Brokeback Mountain than Abu Ghraib.

You can’t stand Hilary Clinton’s hair but you have no problem with Tom DeLay’s.

You think Global Warming is no big deal but environmentalists are a major problem.

You support the "war on drugs" but think Rush Limbaugh is being prosecuted unfairly.

You think professional athletes make too much money but Sam Walton’s kids deserve
everything they have.

You like the way George Bush walks.

You think Al Gore is "wooden" and Donald Rumsfeld has charisma.

You think CNN is biased but Fox News is neutral.

You like the sound of Newt Gingrich’s voice.

You are sure the United States has the best education and health care systems in the world.

You think Dick Cheney is a straight shooter.

You think Michael Chertoff’s beard makes him look distinguished.

You think the problem with our health care system is lawyers.

You think it was more important to locate Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress than to locate weapons of mass destruction.

You don’t believe "terrorism" has made Rudy Giuliani an incredibly rich man.

You believe freedom of speech covers everything Pat Robertson says and does, but burning a flag should be illegal.

You can be in the same room with Brit Hume.

You have yourself convinced that the country and world are better off now than 5 years ago.

Jimmy Lohman is a musician and human rights lawyer in Austin, Texas, and an occasional contributor to Buzzflash.

Hell Has Officially Frozen Over

Whenever you hear that Denny Hastert and Frist are agreeing with anyone on the Left side of the aisle then you know it's starting to get much colder in hell and is an extremely bad sign for Bush/Cheney/Rove. Hopefully Bushes approval and defending of turning over some US ports to terrorists [Dubai] will bite him in the ass, at least I hope it will.

We'll see if the Republicans can stay outraged at Bush this time for being "weak on security." You know, that lovely little catch phrase the Bush Administration has used so well against Democrats. Ah yes, Bush putting business before American security. Now who's living in the pre 9/11 days?

Sadly we see what Bush really cares about...BIG moolah. Of course this is what happens when you put "big business" in the White House. Those of you who voted for Bush & Co can't say you didn't know.

Dan Froomkin has a great piece in the Washington Post about Bush and his ever "trust me" just doesn't hack it anymore.

Hold his feet to the fire, repukes, you're the only ones who can.

Bush Giving Terrorists Control Of US Ports

I'm sure most of you are aware the Bush Administration is handing over control of some of the US ports to the country who sponsors and supports terrorists. In fact, Dubai has closer ties to bin Laden and the bin Laden family than Iraq ever has.

The closer we look into this unbelievable act it just gets curiouser and curiouser. This morning I get up to read on MSNBC that Bush was unaware of the port deal until after approval. [Shades of Richard M. Nixon and uncle Ronnie, Reagan that is.]

[clip]

WASHINGTON - President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

Defending the deal anew, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats.

[clip]

One must as ask oneself why exactly is Mr Bush so set on the deal and so set on it to the point of promising to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement? Not only that but Bush is playing the "racial profiling card" to defend the Administration's actions by saying...

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company," Bush told reporters.

He said the transaction was thoroughly scrutinized by administration officials, who concluded that it poses no threat to national security. He praised the United Arab Emirates as a close ally against terrorism and warned of sending the wrong message to the world by condemning a business just because it is Arab-owned.

[Un freakin believable]

However, the ever wonderful Davis Sirota gets down to the real truth as to why Bush is really fighting for this port deal.

This by Sirota...

The more you read about the UAE port security scandal, the more it becomes patently obvious this is about far more than just one deal with one company or one country. The harsh reaction from the Bush administration to the proposal to rescind the deal should be a red flag. This administration is unquestionably the most corporate-controlled administration in recent history, meaning its reactions are usually tied directly to the reactions of Corporate America. And the fact that the White House is ignoring its own security experts and reacting so negatively to Congress's opposition to the deal means this cuts to the much deeper issue of global trade policy - an issue that trumps all others for Big Money interests, even post-9/11 security.

In a previous post, I noted how the Bush administration is simultaneously negotiating a "free" trade agreement with the UAE - the country tied to the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11. The administration was negotiating this deal at the very same time it tried to quietly slip this port security deal under the radar. It's not surprising few in the media or the political system have mentioned that simple fact - as I note in my upcoming book Hostile Takeover, the political/media Establishment's devotion to "free" trade orthodoxy is well documented, and the Establishment's desire in this current scandal to make sure a discussion of trade policy never happens is obvious.

But as the coverage continues, the true motives of Bush's position are starting to slip out, almost inadvertently.

Look at the comment of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Remember, he is the guy whose only job is to protect America. He's not supposed to be thinking about anything else. Yet, just a few days ago, he said about the UAE deal that "We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system." Technically, of course, he's right - but the fact that the Homeland Security secretary is publicly lecturing Congress about the need to protect the "global trading system" and defending the UAE deal tells us a lot about how devoted to prioritizating the corporate agenda our government really is - even the government agencies whose only responsibilities are securing America.

Similarly, the New York Times today quotes a corporate consultant in London who says that Congress's concerns about a country tied to the 9/11 terrorists managing U.S. port security are "totally illogical." Why? Because, he says, "The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."

There it is in all its glory: the Establishment publicly pushing the idea that absolutely nothing should matter - not even security concerns - other than preserving the mobility of capital. And that is ultimately what "free" trade is really all about - allowing capital to move freely all over the world, without regard to any labor, human rights, environmental and - yes - security concerns. It was GE CEO Jack Welch, the well-known "free" trader, who famously said, "Ideally you'd have every plant you own on a barge."

And so any attempt to stop the UAE port security deal fundamentally threatens the Tom-Friedman-style "free" trade orthodoxy that says we must eliminate all barriers to trade - even those that protect national security. When you realize that, President Bush's threat to use the first veto of his presidency on the UAE port security issue suddenly becomes not so surprising. He is proudly defending what Jeff Faux calls "The Party of Davos" or John Perkins calls the "corporatocracy" - that is, the multinational interests who have bankrolled Bush's entire political career, and who desperately rely on the American government preserving a "free" trade system that subverts all other concerns to the corporate profit motive.

Again, the fact that this isn't being reported should not shock anyone. Both parties have pushed this "free" trade nonsense over the last two decades, and both have been rewarded with huge piles of corporate cash. Similarly, the major media in America are all owned by huge corporations with an interest in preserving the "free" trade system. But don't let the Establishment's silence distract you. In America's corporate-owned political system, the truth is often found where things are quietest.

So there you have it folks, in a nutshell. Doesn't it scare the hell out of you to know these folks are running our country? It certainly does me.