Quote :

"Legendary Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's new book 'Obama's Wars' hasn't hit stores yet, but the New York Times' Peter Baker got a copy and has published some choice excerpts. Some highlights, per Baker:"

Quote :

"The book describes President Obama pushing a withdrawal timetable because, 'I can't lose the whole Democratic Party.'"

So, Obama's war decisions weren't based on "conditions on the ground" after all. Rather, they were based on political expediency.

Quote :

"Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, the president's adviser on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, is said to think president's reviews of the strategy going forward did not 'add up' to his ultimate decision."

Quote :

"The US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke says of the new strategy, 'it can't work.'"

So, apparently, Obama's own advisors don't believe in his war strategy or even the way he arrived at it.

Quote :

"During a flight in May, after a glass of wine, Petraeus told his own staffers that the administration was '[fucking] with the wrong guy.'"

We know some in the Obama administration didn't really like Petraeus. Now we know he doesn't like them much either.

Quote :

"Of more consequence, Woodward reports that the C.I.A. has a 3,000-man mostly Afghan 'covert army' in Afghanistan called the Counterterrorism Pursuit Teams, or C.T.P.T."

And, apparently, Obama's CIA has its own little army operating in the shadows of Afghanistan. If this were Bush, some of you would be going apeshit over this.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/09/white-house-reacts-to-nyt-report-about-woodward-book.html

These are just a few of the bombshells from this new book by Woodward.

[Edited on September 23, 2010 at 3:10 AM. Reason : More to come, I'm sure.]

9/23/2010 3:06:49 AM

From Newsweek:

Quote :

"By Woodward’s and other accounts, the president studied the issue of Afghanistan so thoroughly that he surprised his military advisers, which could counter past claims of Obama’s inexperience. He stuck to his belief that the nation should not make an open-ended commitment to the war and overruled generals who wanted a longer timeline and more troops than the 30,000 Obama eventually added to the Afghan campaign. When the Pentagon asked for even more troops after the decision was made, Obama said, according to Woodward, “I’m done doing this!” But Obama’s critics are likely to interpret Woodward’s account differently. When Obama’s Wars describes the infighting among the president’s team, voters who expected to see an untested president may now see a White House out of order, even if Obama did maintain control of the debate. (Some highlights from the coverage so far: National Security Adviser James L. Jones calling White House advisers “water bugs”; Vice President Joe Biden describing Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, as "the most egotistical bastard I’ve ever met”; Gen. David Petraeus labeling White House senior adviser David Axelrod as a “complete spin doctor.”) Worse, Woodward writes that the popular Petraeus took Obama’s final decision about the strategy as a “personal repudiation,” according to The Washington Post. If so, that means the general, who took command of the Afghanistan campaign this summer, is presiding over a strategy he did not favor. If the buck did not already stop with Obama when it comes to success or failure in Afghanistan, it certainly does now. Then again, we already knew it was Obama who made the final call. And while Woodward’s revelations—what we know of them so far—show that the divisions over Afghanistan strategy ran deep and were personal, we already knew that too, to some extent, thanks to much reporting on those tense months in the winter of 2009. What we didn’t have, and what the early leaks of Woodward’s books have typically provided, is sound bites for the campaign trail. Woodward’s full narrative may well show Obama deliberating extensively on the merits of various Afghanistan plans, but will any of those scenes echo as loudly as what the president said to Sen. Lindsay Graham about the July 2011 troop withdrawal deadline? Obama said, according to Woodward, “I can’t lose the Democratic Party.” Just before saying that, the president also told Graham that he couldn’t let Afghanistan be “a war without end.” Yet it’s hard to imagine commentators mentioning that context as they criticize him"

9/23/2010 4:38:44 AM

Quote :

"Obama's CIA has its own little army operating in the shadows of Afghanistan. If this were Bush, some of you would be going apeshit over this."

That's news?

Afghanistan has been a CIA playground for 3 full decades. Furthermore, why would anyone be surprised that the CIA has operatives in the country right now? Why would anyone care?

Wait, according to Google, it's a 3000-man force of Afghans who are propped up by the CIA? That's even less newsworthy.

[Edited on September 23, 2010 at 7:22 AM. Reason : I fail to see the controversy]

9/23/2010 7:18:08 AM

the important thing here is that hooksaw is not a republican. so if you disagree with him, you disagree with well-reasoned non-partisan objective analysis.

Duke why do you hate freedom?

9/23/2010 11:31:37 AM

Well, we know what happened to McChrystal. I wonder what will happen to Patraeus.

9/23/2010 1:06:44 PM

Quote :

"^^ Just stating the facts for the record. Do you have anything to offer on the topic?"

9/23/2010 3:12:54 PM

I would take anything Bob Woodward writes with a grain of salt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward#Criticism

9/23/2010 3:21:16 PM

^ Many liberals here and elsewhere didn't seem to have a problem with Woodward when portions of his books were bashing Bush. And it seems damned peculiar that both 60 Minutes and NBC's Today have apparently taken a pass on promoting Woodward's book this go around.

Damned peculiar.

9/23/2010 3:32:01 PM

Ir-fucking-relevant. Whether or not the "liberal media" has attacked him in the past (which I don't know, nor do I care) doesn't matter. The fact is, he is a shady journalist.

You really need quit with the "well why didn't you/they care when BLAH BLAH BLAH" misdirections. It's detrimental to the topic at hand.

9/23/2010 3:41:06 PM

Quote :

"^^ Just stating the facts for the record. Do you have anything to offer on the topic? "

9/23/2010 3:42:34 PM

^^ Concerning the former, opinions vary. Concerning the latter, I disagree.

Quote :

"^ Just stating the facts for the record. Do you have anything to offer on the topic?"

[Edited on September 23, 2010 at 3:43 PM. Reason : ]

9/23/2010 3:42:45 PM

^
How about your varying opinions? Here is a post made by you, 4 years ago, accusing Woodward of yellow journalism:

hooksaw:

Quote :

" To 0EPII1: I'll take jingoism over yellow journalism any day of the week. Woodard is just trying to get back in with all his liberal buddies after writing a couple of books that had a somewhat positive spin on Bush. "

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=435741&page=3

So, when Woodward writes an article criticizing Bush, it's yellow journalism. "Obama's Wars" is totally legit, though!

Quote :

"Damned peculiar. "

[Edited on September 23, 2010 at 4:12 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2010 4:06:05 PM

^ so you take issue with varying opinions and opportunistic bias on tww...

... you just don't care when the mass media does it towards the public?

Quote :

"Damned peculiar "

9/23/2010 4:59:33 PM

Holy mother of fucking god. You both are as dense as a brick of lead.

No, my point is that it holds no weight in any honest discussion. Accusations of opportunistic bias are ad hominem, plain and simple. They are useless to your argument. Even if a person is being opportunistic, a valid point is a valid point, and likewise an invalid point is invalid. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

I posted ^^ to show that hooksaw is guilty of his own accusations.

[Edited on September 23, 2010 at 5:13 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2010 5:11:24 PM

maybe it is you that is dense..

while this is true...

Quote :

"a valid point is a valid point, and likewise an invalid point is invalid."

it is irreleviant to the reason for this topic.

honest discussion was not the reason for this topic - his message was not to convey what the author had written in his book or discuss his integrity as a journalist.

the topic was about pointing out inconsistant media uproar over similar situations with different presidents

[Edited on September 23, 2010 at 5:19 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2010 5:19:30 PM

Maybe you should read the whole thread.

edit: To clarify, I posted evidence of Woodward's lack of journalistic integrity. hooksaw responded by questioning why the liberals didn't bring this up when Bush was under fire. IRRELEVANT.

[Edited on September 23, 2010 at 5:27 PM. Reason : clarification]

9/23/2010 5:22:23 PM

i've read the thread and several of the OP's posts are with respect people looking the other way now that obama's office...

but hey you came in here looking for ...

Quote :

"No, my point is that it holds no weight in any honest discussion"

and said I was dense... maybe if you went back and read the whole thread you would see that honest discussion is not something that most people expect here when they open a hooksaw thread

9/23/2010 6:11:51 PM

No, it's more fun for some and they think effective to attempt to derail my threads by attacking me rather than dealing with the topic. It's standard procedure for some here.

9/23/2010 9:00:27 PM

Fuck you, hooksaw. You're a dishonest piece of shit and I'm not wasting any more words responding to you.

9/23/2010 9:39:22 PM

I love how he unapologetically speaks out of whichever side of his mouth can say worse things about obama at the time and ignores absolutely anything that says otherwise.

9/23/2010 10:02:29 PM

^^ and ^ So, I guess neither of you have anything to offer on the topic?

9/24/2010 1:06:39 AM

The topic is how much of a partisan hack you are and how you have absolutely no problem contradicting yourself as long as it says something bad about Obama. Now you have offered plenty of evidence to prove this in this very thread, but if you don't have anything else to add then I will ask you to leave.

9/24/2010 2:27:58 AM

lets edit this a little bit and maybe that will offer some insight on why this keeps coming up

Quote :

"The topic is how much of a partisan hack you are the media is and how you the media have has absolutely no problem contradicting yourself itself as long as it says something bad about Obama Bush/Republicans. Now you have hooksaw has offered plenty of evidence to prove this in this very thread, but if you don't have anything else to add then I will ask you to leave. "

My guess is that a majorty of the comments are not wholehearted and serious. But as has been discussed before - using extremism can be a method to influence the mean consensus. The more times the casual uninformed reader sees something the more likely it is that his decisions will be influenced by it.

Some of us are tired of seeing misleading articles and onesided news stories from the left and are countering with equally ridiculous statements from the other side of the coin in an attempt to expose the discrepancies in reporting - not because we actually believe the things we write.

[Edited on September 24, 2010 at 10:18 AM. Reason : .]

9/24/2010 10:17:10 AM

Quote :

"And, apparently, Obama's CIA has its own little army operating in the shadows of Afghanistan. If this were Bush, some of you would be going apeshit over this."

Umm, this stuff did happen under Bush and no, I don't recall anyone around here going apeshit over it. The CIA has been operating since we went into Aghanistan: Special Activities Division, Task Force Jawbreaker. Your revelation really isn't anything new as Duke already pointed out.

9/24/2010 10:47:31 AM

Quote :

"the important thing here is that hooksaw is not a republican. so if you disagree with him, you disagree with well-reasoned non-partisan objective analysis. Duke why do you hate freedom?"

joe stuff like this is why I still occasionally check out TSB.

Quote :

"So, Obama's war decisions weren't based on "conditions on the ground" after all. Rather, they were based on political expediency."

This just in! Politicians make decisions based on political expediency, more during the last 10,000 years of human civilization

Quote :

"I would take anything Bob Woodward writes with a grain of salt."

In fairness he does write this book about every presidency and every time, people pretend to be "shocked" that politicians and political power brokers act like the type-a egotistical assholes that they are.

This doesn't mean that the book is irrelevant, it is a vision into a fairly closed Presidency and a President who is viewed by many as cerebral, distant and enigmatic.

9/24/2010 6:46:34 PM