Book: Troops attacked more than U.S. admits

Bob Woodward's new book alleges deception by Bush administration

By Jim Miklaszewski
Chief Pentagon correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 2 hours, 48 minutes ago


Jim Miklaszewski
Chief Pentagon correspondent
• Profile

WASHINGTON — An explosive new book, now just days away from store shelves, is tonight making news before arriving on the market.

"State of Denial" is the work of journalist Bob Woodward, and according to advance publicity materials released to the media, it alleges that attacks by insurgents in Iraq are worse than Americans have been led to believe.

Woodward claims President Bush and the Pentagon are concealing key intelligence that predicts the violence in Iraq will only get worse in the coming year.

Woodward also tells CBS' '60 Minutes:' "It's getting to the point now where there are 800-900 attacks a week. That's more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces." - MSNBC
--------
Now, I don't know what the truth is here. (And neither does any regular poster in these forums.) What I do know is that this administration has lied whenever the truth would make them look bad if at all possible. (Hint - Watch their lips. If they are moving...well, you know the rest.) I also know that Woodward, who has stated that he is a Republican, has a pretty good track record for getting to the truth of things that an administration would like to remain hidden. Those are two strong reasons why Woodward's book is something to take seriously.

His first book in this "series" was welcomed by republicans, and some have said that its coming out before the election was what won it (the re-election, ie, the one in which he actually was recorded as having received more votes than his opponent. Recorded, anyway.) for bush. Great and fair reporter, they said. Back then.

More from the book:

'Members of the Sept. 11 commission said today that they were alarmed that they were told nothing about a White House meeting in July 2001 at which George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, is reported to have warned Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, about an imminent Al Qaeda attack and failed to persuade her to take action...

...Since release of the book, “State of Denial,” the White House and Ms. Rice have disputed major elements of Mr. Woodward’s account, with Ms. Rice insisting through spokesmen that there had been no such exchange in a private meeting with Mr. Tenet and that he had expressed none of the frustration attributed to him in Mr. Woodward’s book.

“It really didn’t match Secretary Rice’s recollection of the meeting at all,” said Dan Bartlett, counselor to President Bush, in an interview on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.”

“It kind of left us scratching our heads because we don’t believe that’s an accurate account,” he said.

Although passages of the book suggest that Mr. Tenet was a major source for Mr. Woodward, the former intelligence director has refused to comment on the book.

Nor has there been any comment from J. Cofer Black, Mr. Tenet’s counterterrorism chief, who is reported in the book to have attended the July 10 meeting and left it frustrated by Ms. Rice’s “brush-off” of the warnings.

He is quoted as saying, “The only thing we didn’t do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.” Mr. Black did not return calls left at the security firm Blackwater, which he joined last year.' www.nytimes.com

This seems fairly straightforward. Either Woodward is fibbing, or Rice is. Why won't Black and Tenet comment?

quote:

Why won't Black and Tenet comment

Another possibility, Black and Tenet may have lied in their interview with Woodward.

Given the history of this administration and the fact that they have distorted the truth (OK, lied) one could very easily jump to the conclusion that they are not be truthful now, too. But it is just possible that either Black or Tenet "jazzed up" their recollections of the meeting.

From MSNBC -

But Woodward says he has documents proving that a CIA briefer told Rice of an impending attack.

"He said specifically, after the meeting, we did everything but pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head," Woodward says.

Andrea Mitchell: "Is there any evidence they did anything?"

Bob Woodward: "A presidential order to go get bin Laden or kill him was sitting on the president's desk Sept. 10, 2001."

Mitchell: "Sept. 10?"

Woodward: "The day before Sept. 11."

And contrary to White House claims, former officials tell NBC News, former CIA director George Tenet did testify in secret to the 9/11 Commission about that meeting.

The White House is also denying that former Chief of Staff Andrew Card tried to get the president to replace Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. But on Monday, Card confirmed he proposed replacing Rumsfeld with former Secretary of State James Baker.

Mitchell: "You were hearing that Republicans on the Hill had a problem with Rumsfeld?"

Card: "I was and I would not be bashful about repeating that."

Card did not deny that he also talked to Laura Bush about Rumsfeld. "I would always solicit her counsel and ask for her to be candid and she would frequently repeat to me some of the concerns she heard from other people," Card says. - MSNBC
--------
Mitchell: What do you think is most surprising? What that you learned has most surprised or even shocked you?

Woodward: Well, I think what's surprising is what surprised the Bush administration and the Pentagon and the CIA. And that is an insurgency which is so violent, so well coordinated, you know, organized, lethal-- and persistent. What surprised me is, if I may take one other example of this state of denial -- November 11, 2003. This is many months after the war, but the CIA guy, Rob Richer, the head of the Near East division in the CIA. It's one of the big important jobs in the CIA. He goes to brief President Bush and the National Security Council. And he says there's an insurgency. And Rumsfeld immediately challenges him and says, "I, you know, I don't agree with that." Or, "I don't know that." And the CIA man, very cleverly, says, "Well, here's the Pentagon definition of an insurgency." And it had the characteristics of this popular support. They strike whenever they want. And it's extensive. And you then look at the classified reports and realize, my God, at this time there were 1,000 attacks a month. That's 30 a day. More than 30 a day. That's, you know, that's one every hour. One attack every hour. Now, when this is presented to Rumsfeld and President Bush, President Bush says, "No, I don't think we're not – I don't think we're there. I don't want to read about it in the New York Times."

Mitchell: They're more concerned about what's coming out publicly? And about public support and the politics, perhaps, than what's happening on the ground?

Woodward: Again, I'm not going to ascribe motives. The president said, "I don't think we're there. But I don't want any of my cabinet people saying there's an insurgency. I don't want the New York Times to find out." Wish he had mentioned the Washington Post. But, clearly, there's an insurgency. there's an attack going on every hour in Iraq. In five years we haven't had one attack, terrorist attack, in this country. Not one. Imagine if there was one going on every hour. You know, what would you call it? You can't say this is business as usual. So the resistance to dealing with the reality here [is a] serious management problem. And that's why the book is called State of Denial. - MSNBC
--------
If Woodward is lying, it will come out. He has named too many names, quoted too many people for his claims to be ignored. Some of those names will come forward if he is lying about what they said. That he told the truth about Card wanting Rumfeld out has been verified by Card, despite the denials from the White House. So far, only the White House that has been caught in a lie about Woodward's book. That lies come out of this administration when speaking about Iraq is, or should be, no surprise.