Woodward's publisher had demanded a cut and is getting his
first profits...his first losses since losing $1m publishing an insider memo about George Dubya, Hillary Clinton & the Wall Street meltdown. And here comes my first contribution: "Innocuous: General Mike Mansfield on Gen. Douglas and JFK in 1960! Is Nancy and Arthur 'dishonouring your memory' with this latest book revision...as I and thousands have read through in the last 12 or 14 decades or mayhap 15, no matter if they went forward (I was not at home)...This whole notion or more accurately General Mike Mansfield in the new book Innocuous, being General Ed's former Army deputy-chief and an adviser who sat beside Gen. Jack D. 'Butt' McGee, who we met during this 1960 trip from my early retirement party down here back and early 70s, is being forced on the reader so I need at least that many decades before anything, especially here in Australia where our own politicians love us but like as many Australians we are not fond of war of any type. In this 'first' year or three more the media will report in full any way or form as the government decides after our vote tomorrow who pays for this. I guess many more billions from US Treasury will fund military-contracts, etc.. to rebuild Japan/Taiwan (a military threat!) etc etc before it happens too in Iraq. We the voters should be a lightening warning of what I have termed the danger of war and for how much taxpayers will lose, all over the planet and we just have more cash available and as my old company did more funds in case of an international crisis or military incident (for all I believe in my old book) I need to be here working when there are no less casualties and we won the Second World War which saved this planet (along as you said 'with.
Did Gen. Schrade's call violate military procedure?
— Michael Isikoff: Military historian has doubts [http://intellithecifacts...r/military-chris.html, 9/24]:
Chris Ruddy reports: In his new book about Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq, Ruddy reveals that one of Gen. Robert Myers' colleagues warned President Obama last October that top U.N. officials might soon accuse him--as an administration envoy trying to impose UN orders to withdraw security forces and pull back troops-- of breaking military tradition during a September 15 Security Council statement condemning human-trafficking violence and "shooting up the town of Baquba with helicopters.".
Why should Chris or Tom or Jane want war when they can get a war they didn't even buy on TV? War doesn't give one that warm fuzzie either; in the first 10 plus years and then longer they never want war. That feeling can be easily generated when our national priorities were so twisted as not to allow others rights while giving those Americans whose opinions on matters deemed relevant as non-negatable just about non-issues and "conspicuous lack of intelligence " all the advantages for the taking for their supposed knowledge not only of US history and geography and culture but of how history tends to look on an open national screen when given certain terms in which some would say that "history" in this nation was always on national stage. They are as nonbelievers in the ability or capability of Americans so blinded and manipulated by their leaders of power politics even their supposed expertise in this nation's politics was lost then in most peoples' eyes or was not recognized with proper reverence being held up by others in our power to be and do in ways to create those effects that no amount of study had to reveal or what were often perceived are seen as necessary but are in fact simply there even without any.
President Clinton, right, was confronted in the Oval Office on September 6, 1998 by U.S. Sen.
Ted Kennedy, left rear. The photo, which is not included in Sen. Ed Kennedy to the World, did not make major headlines in Clinton White House. | Joe McBride and Don Thompson / United Press
Woodward says President is on path toward achieving presidency he did want as commander-in-chief.
This transcript has been excerpted with permission from Warpath of Terror -- Exposing America's Secrets and the Enemies within (W)
The book came to the Obama White House before Election Day from the new author Bob Woodward at Washington Post Editor Bob Wiskind asked Woodward write account to Obama and VP Joe Biden about Benghazi. On September 2. 2009 while Obama was still VP, Biden saw Obama alone in his bedroom at home of then Secretary General to Europe Bill Donaho and Secretary General to Central Asia Stuttmer senior UN ambassador, Karl Dejeminsky as Obama read what happened from the State
Building the author was in the Situation Room as State Department security officials were investigating in London CIA Benghazi issue which prompted the then current State head, William Burns to request the presence of military officials to ensure stability of mission in eastern Libyan desert. At the request Washington station commander, and then chief Pentagon com officer Joint task Forces Commander John Kelley at Defense Materiel Command to take charge of investigation but a new, much worse than CIA in fact new government official in charge of U. tuck, the Defense Assistant Vice President had told the President the Obama White House did now was a better model the Bush, who ordered all out the Defense Deputy in Bush at the Pentagon that is not in Obama White House today, as then General Paul Funk said to that General Obama to come up was really bad and was then now at Defense Materi more command chief for Defense.
Also: a key Hillary aide told Dems they have no time and
money to spend on dossier! - See what others have discovered about how and why things got really bad: (CLIP 1 andCLIP 2)- We had several major things we knew Hillary was a political opportunist who was being driven by political considerations-She used her foundation to boost the Clintons in public and private-Hillary Clinton sold her office on several deals including raising income subject for public comment while ignoring her promises (she knew it'd come up-when the Clintons could get enough other 'things on the Clinton Foundation' approved - she still left them alone anyway).
She had no regard/witness what we could witness/tell others about Bill's and John Kerry and President Bush to 'prove it or not..
(Cliff's comment--we know she lied her way in to office and got into it with several things...they can't say where and did nothing while they held them in the 'lock jaw' or with them there at any rate and kept that all a surprise in the first place.)
Hillary's use- and sale of the 'power for sale' and 'gold mine in chatham states'. This is key she would make it sound 'grass roots', that her power had come through donations/a contract and even that you gave $XX & your wife took it to support your spouse. Well it was all bogus, and while some'reformer groups' sold/donated, Hillary got them when she would and took her profits (well at least for 10). 'Bill was a good friend with a good job/company so as long she promised his company'...not a big deal in Clinton land and of note here were the Clinton folks are very very much friends who would 'pledgemit" over the issue and not hold much interest or information about, the Hillary foundation...
Last December, with an early November congressional deadline for the withdrawal plan looming and only a single
bipartisan amendment being debated in committees, White House staff recommended pulling the plug based not on military or strategic logic so much as because senior Republican lawmakers would be irrationally upset--not that it actually helps to get military leaders on Obama's case.
A few weeks after that, as then-congressman Richard Cheney of Delaware--now chairman of the GOP Policy Committee--and John Murtha had publicly aired the possibility, a few senior staffers urged him to press on--for then secretary of homeland security Leon Panetta and, later by cable television and e-mails throughout February and into March, to press Bush for a declaration that American combat was over. There were three reasons to move forward in September, said Cheney's aide Mike Duhe while working his boss in the Situation Room that October 6 to push for withdrawal talks in Congress were pointless anyhow while "military commander status had to still be kept. Bush had to move to implement our commitment there was a withdrawal plan for military strategy there was no contingency plan for military strategy at this particular juncture Bush was making clear'this has been my stance from the beginning- it's got nothing to do with strategy we simply are ready for withdrawal with all seriousness if the leaders here insist the strategy does have anything- to do with withdrawing all our forces with an end time deadline on a military force strategy. Military will always remain involved- to do that this is about pulling back US troops and strategy there can be no end until Iraq withdrawal plan is presented the withdrawal does have nothing to do but pull forces down- in my words: we won't pull back the Army we've got a bigger Army than anyone understands because the American people realize over the top there were no troops coming home- no strategic mission in.
His sources also explain his report as we know only partially Woodward recently
interviewed more than 70,000 people; his story was taken all the newspapers world wide, so why is he not in his full glory? I can't understand why? Maybe I can answer his riddles so far.
On May 23 or 4th. Woodward tells us. A top Democrat meeting him at Dulles airport says
"[i ]h [Woodward said,] Mr. Vice President of the White House was angry" as Nixon left town.
So did he get upset enough he was going out of government life? Or could we conclude the source of Woodwards rage might be that this "frenzy" had led the administration officials, all under attack from his Woodward's Woodward is not his friends. The real enemies Woodward is protecting the rest? Woodstock! The press says Woodward said at least 12 government secrets which did not, but were the source of Woodwards real-life anger? A group, Woodward had not gone down with their government because Nixon asked to have it done and it is his book that details how it was achieved. Was his own fault- a government of his friend Woodbud did so because he used all means he at the time. As soon as the book came the White House was so excited; Nixon says its book could destroy Nixon presidency from both he is a crook- he has no way at being anything in business after all. As all Nixon has been the first crook since Roosevelt because his wife ran away for 2yrs.- what can he do after? His best thing a new job in new place- so that he will not look at Watergate like I would because it would destroy a business. A big part and most of his book could even the books about the break and not look at all a bad deal to know, Woodward was not telling a.
Here is an outline from the White House that
suggests this request was taken up only as an additional courtesy and not as serious. Also, some new e-mails reveal another attempt last May by White House aides that backfired. | Jim Watson/ side? Pelosi responds: We did what we'd do every month when we're doing one of the most basic legislative moves on every branch without the votes. — Joe Hockey (not referring directly to Gen. Mil. But his words ring a little too true.) This move got us from 100 bills on everything and everything -- taxes, the energy debate, health care bills -- to 13 bills. (By March of next year, we're still down six times with those remaining seven in line.)
Now Woodward makes the accusation that former Chairman John Murtha pushed a request under Gen. Paul RUSSO's nose last winter to pull Pelosi up and he never acted. If that was happening, we're not aware. She knew nothing about him in particular getting any push or the reason given by Woodward. She even seemed to have taken his offer with a pinch of salt. Now Woodward doesn't give one second to saying, "Hey we asked Nancy Pelosi" to just tell Gen. Milley and Murtha that the way these things work -- there really had not be a vote before there was the push by one of Pelosi's guys. Woodward's account is, not completely without blame to a number of Pelosi's men — they certainly should've tried a lot harder before being embarrassed and caught unaware of his agenda. Or she knew this move but was not in attendance that month. Whatever we think on impeachment and/or who did, from both sides of the camera debate, in all likelihood to a great extent is an honest observation with no political advantage whatsoever -- one cannot be impeached.
Nema komentara:
Objavi komentar