Send As SMS
<-- HitTail.com code -->

Blogger News Network

BNN provides English-language US and world news, analysis and opinion from all over the Internet. We strive for high standards, ethical behavior, and the presentation of multiple responsible points of view.



Visiting our advertisers directly supports this site. Thanks!


Get More Traffic For Your Blog!

Blog Explosion brings hundreds of interested visitors to your blog - without costing you a cent.

BNN News Archive Page
       Sunday, October 01, 2006

Imagine Your Byline Here - Click Here To Write For BNN




The Woodward Assumption

In his new book titled "State of Denial," Bob Woodward (star scandalmonger at the Washington Post) alleges that President Bush did not tell the public or the Congress everything he knew about what he calls the deteriorating Iraq situation that was leading to a civil war.

The problem with Woodward's charge of malfeasance is the same problem you see with anyone who makes an allegation, especially the ones who are being highly paid to make allegations. You must either choose to trust the accusor or trust the one being accused; in this case you must either trust Bob Woodward's words and sources more than you trust the man you elected to be President. You decide!

The other problem with Woodward's charges is there seems to be a lot of 'assuming' going on. What Woodward assumes is a "deteriorating situation" may, through the eyes of an experienced Middle-East analyst, be a normal series of events occurring as predicted -- no 'red flag,' no reason to call in Congressional leaders. What Woodward sees as an eminent civil war may be, through those experienced eyes, an expected escalation of violence that is being 'handled' as well as it can be; again no 'red flag.'

A sitting President does not make decisions in a vacuum, he has intelligence estimates and a powerful set of advisors. What does Bob Woodward have besides some no doubt anonymous sources and . . . oh yes . . . and a book contract.

The proof of how Bob Woodward sees the world of Washington is there in his Washington Post article today; in an incredible display of naivete he makes this makes this statement:

"There was a vast difference between what the White House and Pentagon knew about the situation in Iraq and what they were saying publicly."

By golly! I sure hope so!

If I sound like I'm being an apologist for President Bush . . . I'm far from that, but neither am I an advocate of taking away the power of the president to make policy decisions. I feel that while President Bush may have made some decisions that seem to me and you like they were bad decisions and they may or not have been -- time will tell -- but you can be sure they were honest, well intentioned decisions based on his best information. Something else that I feel we can be sure about: if there was something that the Congress or the general public really needed to know, they would have known it.

Opinion by: Whymrhymer at BNN



Blogger News Network is advertiser-supported, and your visits to our advertisers help BNN to meet its expenses. Help keep us afloat!

posted by Whymrhymer at 4:21 PM  

1 Comments:

Baltazar said...

A sincere disaster is probally worse than an insincere one

6:38 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Add this story to Digg     Reddit     Newsvine     Del.icio.us     Ma.gnolia     Spurl

      

Sign up for Blog Soldiers and get 50 free credits!

Subscribe to BNN and get a daily bulletin of all our news postings.
Enter your Email


Powered by FeedBlitz

Interested in writing for BNN? Want information on our news service?

Contact The Editor
Writing for BNN
BNN Editorial Policies